Global Warming, anyone?

[TigerWoman]

We in Minnesota could certainly use some global warming. Its nearly the fourth of July and its 62° out today. Brrrrrr....yeah, I'm still a Californian after being here twelve years. TW

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Skeptics of the Global Warming theory include Robert Balling and Patrick Michaels, who co-wrote The Satanic Gases: Clearing the air about Global Warming. Balling is the director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State, University. Michaels is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virgina and is a senior fellow at the "far right" think tank, the Cato Institute. Others that speak out against the theory are people like Sallie Baliunas, who is one of several spokespeople for the anti-Kyoto Protocol Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Senator James Inhofe (Rep. OK), thinks that global warming is a hoax. He is chairman of the senate environmental committee, and has come under criticism for unfairly packing hearings with the few remaining skeptics on the issue.

Inspite of these few wannabe gadflys, 2,500 scientists from 100 nations instituted the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They stated that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% within 25 years or face a 1.4-5.8 C average increase in temperature worldwide. Studies since then have indicated they underestimated the problem.

The United Nation's World Meteorological Organization recorded history's four hottest years since records were first kept in the 1860's. They were, in order: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001. The WMO's Kenneth Davidson said in a press 2002 conference, "Clearly, for the past 25 or 26 years, the warming is accelerating. The rate of increase is unprecedented in the last 1000 years.”

The Pentagon (of all places) commissioned a study of the effects of Global Warming. It was on line awhile back, and had maps of projected flooding of coastal areas. So, apparently the generals in the upper echelons of the military buy into it.

Try as I might, I couldn't find where half of all scientists are skeptical of global warming. That handful that are seem to be in the thrall of special interest groups.

I gleaned this off of several articles on the net. Google "Global warming skeptics" for some interesting links.

Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Try as I might, I couldn't find where half of all scientists are skeptical of global warming. That handful that are seem to be in the thrall of special interest groups.

That too has been my experience. Many Many Many scientists believe that human activity is having an effect on the climate accross the globe. I have seen and heard of the occassional scientist that believes that Global Climate Change is not occuring.

I have never seen any studies that list believers and non-believers as percentages.

And ... cigaretts are not addictive and they don't create health issues.

Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Tiger woman, be prepared to be colder. North America is going to go through a mini-ice age here fairly soon, a paradoxical result of Global Warming. I was under the impression that only the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. is going to get hit...but apparently it will be farther west than that.

Average temperatures worldwide will go up...but its going to be COLD in New York come Christmas 2020.

I'm looking at land in Arizona right now....



Regards,

Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I need to apologize for referring to the Cato Institute as "far right". Having just been to their web site, I find them to be more Libertarian in nature.

I pulled the "far right" line from the article I read. While very pro-business (referring to themselves as "Market Liberals"), they seem to espouse a very tolerant attitude towards the social issues pressing today.

Fascinating web site...I encourage others to check it out.

Regards,


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

Skeptics of the Global Warming theory include Robert Balling and Patrick Michaels, who co-wrote The Satanic Gases: Clearing the air about Global Warming. Balling is the director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State, University. Michaels is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virgina and is a senior fellow at the "far right" think tank, the Cato Institute. Others that speak out against the theory are people like Sallie Baliunas, who is one of several spokespeople for the anti-Kyoto Protocol Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Senator James Inhofe (Rep. OK), thinks that global warming is a hoax. He is chairman of the senate environmental committee, and has come under criticism for unfairly packing hearings with the few remaining skeptics on the issue.

Inspite of these few wannabe gadflys, 2,500 scientists from 100 nations instituted the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They stated that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% within 25 years or face a 1.4-5.8 C average increase in temperature worldwide. Studies since then have indicated they underestimated the problem.

The United Nation's World Meteorological Organization recorded history's four hottest years since records were first kept in the 1860's. They were, in order: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001. The WMO's Kenneth Davidson said in a press 2002 conference, "Clearly, for the past 25 or 26 years, the warming is accelerating. The rate of increase is unprecedented in the last 1000 years.”

The Pentagon (of all places) commissioned a study of the effects of Global Warming. It was on line awhile back, and had maps of projected flooding of coastal areas. So, apparently the generals in the upper echelons of the military buy into it.

Try as I might, I couldn't find where half of all scientists are skeptical of global warming. That handful that are seem to be in the thrall of special interest groups.

I gleaned this off of several articles on the net. Google "Global warming skeptics" for some interesting links.

Regards,


Steve

Steve et al,

Global warming is an issue. The emission coming out of the vehicles today is a great improvement from just 10 years ago let alone 20 or 30 years ago. Yet, the emissions may have decreased the CO and NO and unburned hydrocarbons, it has increased the about of CO2 and H2O produced. There is also NO2 as well. The CO2 and NO2 still is a 'Warming' gases. Yet, not as bad as the radicals as CO and NO can be. These gases steal O (Oxygen frmo the Ozone O3 to form CO2 and NO2, so they are much worse. So, yes great strides are being made, yet the CO2 is still an issue.

And until we come up with some form of energy that does not require taking long carbon chains and turning them into short ones, we will continue to get CO2 as a by product. So, even with the advent of the new technology of fues cells, we still need to keep looking, for the enrgy to create or produce the Hydrogen comes from breaking down large carbon chains. Ever little step gets us closer to being better, and having a better understanding.

So, this leads me to two questions.

First Question:
Would you vote to authorize the creation of a nuclear power plant in your state and our your county? This would help reduce global warming gases. Yet there are other by products of Nuclear power. As fas as I know no new Nuclear power plant has gone online in the USA, unless you consider the Navy.

Second question:

Would you vote to authorize an increase in taxes to be used to research into new technologies?

Technolgies such as, yet not limited too, Solar fields, wind mill fields? Solar stations that could transfer the energy to earth, how to transfer the energy to earth, Fusion, tidal energy and anything else we could think of.

It would be very costly to fund these, yet if we do not do something, the progress most liekly will be at a slower rate.

Thoughts?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

First Question:
Would you vote to authorize the creation of a nuclear power plant in your state and our your county? This would help reduce global warming gases. Yet there are other by products of Nuclear power. As fas as I know no new Nuclear power plant has gone online in the USA, unless you consider the Navy.

Second question:

Would you vote to authorize an increase in taxes to be used to research into new technologies?

Technolgies such as, yet not limited too, Solar fields, wind mill fields? Solar stations that could transfer the energy to earth, how to transfer the energy to earth, Fusion, tidal energy and anything else we could think of.

Interesting questions, Rich!

The first one is a toughie. I would say No, unless we develop actual, secure nuclear waste storage facilities. And no-one would want to host the plants, or the waste sites.

I would rather advocate the second (although I know this wasn't an either/or question set) - to pour resources into different kinds of energy research. I wouldn't raise taxes on the poor or middle class, however - I'd institute that corporations in the USA actually paid taxes and didn't get massive tax breaks when they are netting billions of dollars. Taxing wealthy multinationals - and ending the "tax shelters" in Bermuda - would fund research, as well as the health care system I would put into place!

(But enough about my plans.)

I'd also like to institute a culture of energy reduction in the USA. (Here's wishful thinking....) That *really*, hybrids or low-emission little cars with great mileage should be rewarded financially and socially, that low-energy lightbulbs, appliances at home, should be made even more affordable and rewarded, and so forth.

(An example...

If you change 4 lightbulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, you will save 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions – and over $100.00 on electricity bills over the life of the lightbulbs.)

 

[Kane]

Really? Where did you find this?

I actually found the info in a book from the library. The book was by Paul H. Jackson and it is entitled "Should We Fear Global Warming?" It points some interesting content about the arguments of scientists for and against global warming.

 

[michaeledward]

I actually found the info in a book from the library. The book was by Paul H. Jackson and it is entitled "Should We Fear Global Warming?" It points some interesting content about the arguments of scientists for and against global warming.

Kane, you said that more than half the population of scientists do not believe in 'Global Warming' ... but here you are just quoting a single author.

Can you do better, please? I am curious.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

First Question:
Would you vote to authorize the creation of a nuclear power plant in your state and our your county? This would help reduce global warming gases. Yet there are other by products of Nuclear power. As fas as I know no new Nuclear power plant has gone online in the USA, unless you consider the Navy.

Yes.

Of course, there are issues with Nuclear Power Plants that need to be addressed. The NIMBY nature of the waste material. The expense of Yucca Mountain. The more we use nuclear fission, the closer we will get to nuclear fusion. And that is the ticket.

Second question:
Would you vote to authorize an increase in taxes to be used to research into new technologies? Technolgies such as, yet not limited too, Solar fields, wind mill fields? Solar stations that could transfer the energy to earth, how to transfer the energy to earth, Fusion, tidal energy and anything else we could think of. It would be very costly to fund these, yet if we do not do something, the progress most liekly will be at a slower rate.

Rather than use tax policies as an incentive to work on new technologies, I might encourage to use tax policies as a decentive to continue using old technologies. Gasoline should not be cheaper than bottled water. H2 Hummers should not be entitled to $20,000 tax breaks. One report I have seen says that the Oil and Gas industries receive tax subsidies totaling more than 1.3 Billion dollars a year.

If we stopped these economic give-aways, private industry might be able to pick-up on the alternative energy research on their own.

I do believe there might, at some point, be reason for instituting a tax incentive to develop alternative fuel sources. but first we need to eliminate the inertia creating tax policies.

Mike

 

[jeffbeish]

I do not engage pseudoscientific drivel about environmental- political nonsense.

 

[michaeledward]

I do not engage pseudoscientific drivel about environmental- political nonsense.

and yet, ... You have.

Hmm, imagine that.

 

[sokklab]

Ironically,
Economic Pressures are likely to be the death knell of Oil. As India and more importantly China, increase not only their production of consumer goods but also their consumption of Oil and other Natural Resources for their own means, the quicker Oil will run out.

So from an ecological and economic viewpoint, the sooner that we 'Roadtest' practical alternative fuels and alternative ways of consumption, the better it will be for Individual consumer and the Planet.

Problem is, obviously, Oil Companies don't necessarily want to stop producing and distributing Oil, as incredible profits can be made and old habits die hard. Even more incredible profits can be made by controlling an increasingly diminishing resource and ensuring that 'we' still remain reliant upon said resource to fuel our cars and to create our energy needs.

Hence vested interests will and do conspire to keep things as they are. But, Oil companies don't have any choice in the matter, they know that Oil is running out and that the quicker China and Indias population come 'Online' and buy cars etc, the quicker that resource will dissappear.

The reason why Oil prices have been recently so high and will Probably get much higher in the near future, is, that the Western Nations now find themselves competing for resources with the emerging economies of the world. Ironically, competing for the very resources, that the emerging economies use to manufacture consumer Goods to export to the 'West', in order for consumers to purchase...

Regardless of how many people, scientists, individuals talk about Global Warming, it is most likely to be scarcity of the resource that curtails Greenhouse gas production and not the Common-sense argument about Environmental destruction and associated issues.

Especially if Oil runs out sooner, rather than later. Of course Geo-political pressures revolving around Oil production in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc, also make it a major Politically sensible move on behalf of nations, to move away from the Combustion Engine and to pursue alternative means of energy production in order to make sure that they are not held to ransom.

Good Discussion-I've enjoyed reading it. Although, I don't feel that I will enjoy the consequences of our actions too much if the projections about the effects of Global warming are correct....

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'd like to ask the, "pseudo-scientific ecological drivel," folks this: OK, you've got a problem. The mechanisms by which the group of effects called, "global warming," happens are pretty well understood, and pretty straightforward: you dump enough crap (technical term) into the atmosphere, you change the way the planet absorbs/radiates heat, you change the total energy budget, "small," changes happen, they start snowballing, it doesn't take much total change to change global climate quite a bit.

So--you're sure that warming's a phony, cooked up by tree-huggers. Fine. Here's my question: since we know that we are in fact dumping quite a lot of crap (technical term) into the atmosphere, and that, "small," changes like paving everything are also getting to be significant--we can all agree on the chemistry, right?--what mechanisms, exactly, are the ones which lead you to claim that nothing serious is going to happen?

I mean: the warming folks can explain the whys and wherefores, OK. So let's see yours: why's there no problem, exactly? because all I've seen so far is a stamping the foot and saying no, never, uh-uh, nope.

I'm also curious: why do all the scientissts who claim no seem to work for oil companies?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'm also curious: why do all the scientissts who claim no seem to work for oil companies?

Nice point.

This is a website with some different kinds of information - a nonprofit organization dedicated to bringing sound science to bear on policy issues.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264

Here's what is on the link, for anyone uninterested in clicking on the link itself...

[font=Arial, Helvetica]Scientists' Statement on Climate Change[/font] [font=Verdana, Helvetica]
[/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica]The scientific consensus around climate change is robust. To make this point clear to policy makers in Washington, D.C., more than 1,000 scientists from across the nation have signed the State of Climate Science letter. This letter, from experts in the field, outlines the consensus on the anthropogenic component to climate change. In doing so, the letter reconfirms reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council that the consequences of climate change, which is driven in part by emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, will be both disruptive and costly to the United States.

Read the letter.
Download the letter with complete list of signers.
See the number of signers per state.
See the top institutions.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]THE STATE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE: OCTOBER 2003
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Dear Senators Frist and Daschle:[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Two years have elapsed since the publication of the most recent reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Research Council (NRC) on the state of the science of climate change and its impacts on the United States and the rest of the world. As scientists engaged in research on these subjects, we are writing to confirm that the main findings of these documents continue to represent the consensus opinion of the scientific community. Indeed, these findings have been reinforced rather than weakened by research reported since the documents were released.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]In brief, the findings are that:[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]1) Anthropogenic climate change, driven by emissions of greenhouse gases, is already under way and likely responsible for most of the observed warming over the last 50 years—warming that has produced the highest temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during at least the past 1,000 years;[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]2) Over the course of this century, the Earth is expected to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 °F, depending on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity—a sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]3) Temperature increases in most areas of the United States are expected to be considerably higher than these global means because of our nation's northerly location and large average distance from the oceans;[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]4) Even under mid-range emissions assumptions, the projected warming could cause substantial impacts in different regions of the U.S., including an increased likelihood of heavy and extreme precipitation events, exacerbated drought, and sea level rise;[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]5) Almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in projected temperatures that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century; and,[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]6) Due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the longer emissions increase, the faster they will ultimately have to be decreased in order to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Evidence that climate change is already under way includes the instrumental record, which shows a surface temperature rise of approximately 1°F over the 20th century, the accelerated sea level rise during that century relative to the last few thousand years, global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow cover extent, earlier thawing of lake and river ice, the increase in upper air water vapor over most regions in the past several decades, and the 0.09°F warming of the world's deep oceans since the 1950s.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Evidence that the warmth of the Northern Hemisphere during the second half of the last century was unprecedented in the last 1,000 years comes from three major reconstructions of past surface temperatures, which used indicators such as tree rings, corals, ice cores, and lake sediments for years prior to 1860, and instrumental records for the interval between 1865 and the present.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]On the subject of human causation of this warmth, the NRC report stated that, "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue." Indeed, computer simulations do not reproduce the late 20th century warmth if they include only natural climate forcings such as emissions from volcanoes and solar activity. The warmth is only captured when the simulations include forcings from human-emitted greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]In summary, the main conclusions of the IPCC and NRC reports remain robust consensus positions supported by the vast majority of researchers in the fields of climate change and its impacts. The body of research carried out since the reports were issued tends to strengthen their conclusions.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Sincerely,

(Download list of Signers)[/font]

Signers by state


AK10 LA28 OH43 AL5 MA57 OK3 AR10 MD26 OR27 AZ22 ME24 PA12 CA123 MI45 PR1 CO39 MN33 RI8 CT2 MO2 SC2 DC7 MS1 TN17 DE3 MT2 TX24 FL73 NC15 UT3 GA6 ND1 VA9 HI6 NE1 VT6 IA18 NH34 WA73 ID2 NJ13 WI24 IL57 NM14 WV3 IN20 NV10 KY2 NY38 [font=Verdana, Helvetica]Below, see a break down of a sample of the scientists who signed on to the


Top institutions[/font]


University of Washington50University of Miami23University of Michigan, Ann Arbor21University of California, Berkeley20University of New Hampshire20Oregon State University17Harvard University16Ohio State University15Florida State University13[font=Verdana, Helvetica]University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign[/font]12Cornell University12University of Colorado, Boulder10National Center for Atmospheric Research10University of California, Irvine10University of Florida10Indiana University, Bloomington10[font=Verdana, Helvetica] University of Washington: University :
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: 21
University of Cali
[/font]

Program Overview

Restoring Scientific Integrity

Forests

Invasive Species

Global Warming

Archive

​

Special Features-Great Lakes Communities and Ecosystems at Risk-Gulf Coast Ecological Heritage at Risk-California's Environment at Risk Climate Science-Abrupt Climate Change FAQ-Scientists' Letter on Climate Change-Global Warming FAQ-Fact vs Fiction on Climate Change-Science of Global Warming Climate Impacts-Climate Change in the Hawkeye State-Confronting Climate Change in the Gulf Coast-Confronting Climate Change in California-Early Warning Signs of Global Warming-IPCC: Climate Change Impacts Climate Solutions-Ten Personal Solutions-Climate Control: Clean Vehicles & Greenhouse Gas in California-Common Sense on Climate Change: Practical Solutions to Global Warming-What You Can Do about Global Warming-Marine Sequestering?-Geologic Carbon Sequestering Backgrounders-Prominent Skeptics Organizations-The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Policy-Climate Stewardship Act Resources-Zogby International Omnibus Polling Results-Sound Science Initiative-Global Warming Materials for Educators-Global Warming Resources on the Web

Home | Search | Contact | Sitemap
​

As soon as I can download the list of signers, I will post that too, for anyone interested in the scientific credentials behind it.

 

[jeffbeish]

and yet, ... You have.

Hmm, imagine that.

Do a search and then report back kid. Also, keep looking up the sky is falling.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

You know, Jeff, you still keep snarking and refuse to discuss facts. Your patronizing tone, with nothing substantial to back it up, is becoming annoying. Please discuss facts or refrain from snarking. Thank you.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hey, Jeff:

To repeat a question I already asked, what exactly is it that makes you so convinced this is just some sort of tree-hugging hoax? What facts do you have? Could you please explain the mechanisms at work, since--as I mentioned above--we know that we are dumping a lot of this and that into the atmposphere as well as making other changes in the ecology, and there seem to be some pretty clear consequences?

Otherwise, it's pretty much going to keep looking as though you don't have any facts or coherent explanations, you're just saying, "Nope, nope, wrong, don't want to believe it."

It looks to me like wishful, and--sorry, but that's how it looks--selfish thinking: "I don't want to change anything I'm doing, so I refuse to believe that there are consequences to what I'm doing."

I doubt that's true, so please: could you just give your facts, and explanations?

Thanks.

 

[Cruentus]

Hey...don't you know!? The earth really isn't in any danger, despite what those gordamned treehuggers say.

And...if you believe that, let me come over an piss and s**t in your iced tea daily, you drink it, and let me know if that has any adverse effects.

Your Friend,

Spencer Abraham

 

[Cruentus]

For fun, we can also read our administrations site on global warming:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

Hell, even they'll admit that there is a man-made problem, even if they won't recognize the extent, and aren't willing to do anything about it.

Sincerely,

Mike Leavitt