Global Warming...the true facts ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LEDninja

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
4,896
Location
Hamilton Canada
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

2006 was an El Nineo year. El Nineo can warm North America and Western Europe by as much as 5 degrees.*** Unfortunately after watching the Gore-acle's Oscar winning movie, a lot of people attribute many of El Nineo's effects to a convienent theory. El Nineo finally subsided mid-January and Canada got stuck in a deep freeze it had not experienced for decades. A deep freeze strong enough to ruin the orange crop as far south as California. (and I like orange pound cake - sigh)

***Global warming only raises the temperaure by a tenth of a degree. But year after year it adds up.
 
Last edited:

DonShock

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
1,641
Location
Belton Texas
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Josey said:
...... Exxon has been very aggressive about hiring scientists to promote its point of view......
If the fact that Exxon pays for research discredits the results because they stand to benefit if the prediction is for little environmental damage, why doesn't the fact that the environmental organizations which stand to get more donations and more grant money by predicting doom and gloom thus discredit their results?

Personally, I look at how the parties behave and apply a little common sense when trying to decide which side to believe. If a researcher refuses to make his data and methodology public so that his results can be verified, I am suspicious. If the data and results are real, critics should be easily refuted by the data, not by attacking their credibility. I also look for results that can be tested scientifically, not just vague predictions that can never be proven in our lifetimes. For these reasons, I am currently leaning towards those that believe that we are at the hot side in a natural cycle of climate variability. Common sense also pushes me in that direction. When you look at the geologic record and find evidence of jungles in Canada and glaciers in the southern US, it's apparent that there is a large variability in climate over time. As for man's impact, when just a few large volcanic eruptions can generate as much global warming gases as years of human activity, I can't see our activity having the catastrophic results predicted. And when you look at the fact that the Sun is in the hot phase of it's natural cycle right now and there are signs of warming on Mars, I think that is a much more likely explanation than Gov. Arnold's Hummer.

Yes, there are a lot of humans on the planet. As a result, we put out a lot of CO2 by breathing and other human activities. And yes, we should try to minimize the waste we generate and do things in the most efficient way practical. Human innovation now allows us to more, with better efficiency and less waste, than ever before. And things will only get better unless we start imposing artificial restrictions on our growth and getting the government involved in controlling research. Private industry has produced more solutions to problems than government ever can.
 

DrizzitT

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
53
Location
Claremont, CA (Harvey Mudd College)
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

"As a result, we put out a lot of CO2 by breathing and other human activities. And yes, we should try to minimize the waste we generate and do things in the most efficient way practical. Human innovation now allows us to more, with better efficiency and less waste, than ever before. And things will only get better unless we start imposing artificial restrictions on our growth and getting the government involved in controlling research. Private industry has produced more solutions to problems than government ever can."

Mostly true, I just have a few things to say. Yes we are getting better efficiency wise and produce less waste, but things overall will NOT get better. While the US and the 1st world countries WILL get better pollution control wise, we will also have 3rd world countries (as stated above in the examples of India and China) who have large populations who will dump more CO2 than technology cuts down. When India/China become a more serviced based economies similar to the US and other 1st world nations, manufacturing and industry will move to 3rd world nations and industrialization will continue. Case and point: Brazil. China has begun to hit its industrial power workforce wise. Brazil is seen as the "next manufacturing industry." Thus we run into a problem; do we limit these 3rd world countries (which, because of soverignty, will not happen), or do we try and curb ourselves (meaning, 1st world nations) more to prevent this from happening? Check out any CO2 projection chart. The graph only goes up, not down. And as far as I know, this upward trend is not disputed, only how much the CO2 affects the environment is disputed. Yes, US CO2 output will drop, but CO2 output as a WHOLE will not. And we also have a population problem, but that's another issue

And yes, private industry HAS advanced CO2 emission technology a lot, but ONLY after a "gasoline shortage" scare, which led to increased research in alternative fuel sources like bio-diesel (who had heard of this 5 years ago?!), and "Global Warming/Clean Fuel Source" scare. If you look up fuel cell/solar panel technology, you'll realize that its been there for a long time, but not much research has been done into it, until now. Look at wikipedia for fuel cells. Discovered in 1838. Not developed for commercial use until 2006. An example all flasholics should understand, Alkaline, NiMh, LiOn batteries. I bet if research was done into the progression of these technologies into the consumer market, there will be some major consumer demand (safe rechargables?, more laptop battery life?) that drove the development of these technologies. Notice Lions were first discovered in 1912, with a workable model in 1970. 20 years of development, hit market at 1991. Fuel cells? 1843. 163 years of development? I don't think so. No demand? Most likely. Yes, fuel cells are quite a bit more complicated, but...

Private industry works on consumer choices. If there is no demand for solar panel/fuel cell research, none will be done, outside of academia. When did this demand begin? After an artificial OPEC gas shortage. After the "next apocolypse" was developed in terms of global warming. The auto industry didn't start moving to hybrids until gas prices shot up to ridiculous highs. Remember a few years ago when gas would "never break $1.50"? There was no need for hybrid technology then. Then sudden OPEC cut gas/oil was harder to find. While I don't buy into the "Gasoline will run out in the next 20 years," there is indisputable evidence that gasoline IS harder to find, which MAY mean we have hit our gasoline peak. Once this "Oil is running out!" "OPEC is cutting supply!" scare hit... BAM, demand for more fuel efficient, hybrid, whatever cars increased and research commenced.

And btw, aside from Exxon hiring scientists, the Govt. also hires scientists. And as against Global warming our current govt. is, there have been numerous reports (suppressed/leaked/whatever), that Global Warming is occuring. How much is based on human interation is debatable, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we contribute SOME amount to the atmosphere. Large volcanic eruptions that drastically influence climate happen rarely (when was the last large eruption?). The earth has time to heal. We are constantly here.

Do some calculations. If we add an extra 1% (grossly overestimated) CO2 to the climate every year, compounded, and CO2 level was 1:1 correlated (again, grossly untrue, but for examples sake), within 60 years, the temperature would double, given all other factors stay the same. A volcano that dumps 20% of the current CO2 would be equivilent to only ~18 years of human activity based on this model. Add this on TOP of human intervention... Problem yes?

Now, the media is overhyping nearly everything. I am a GW supporter and I turned Gore's stuff off within the first 1/2 hour. I dislike this spread of false information and attribution of nearly everything to global warming, and blaming everything on "us". HOWEVER, I AM glad that it has organized the general populous to DEMAND something that will actually help. Companies have now changed practices to be more "green." Recently in Time/Newsweek/LA Times (never remember), there was an article about companies who are selling "clean" energies. How Dell, will for a few dollars, offset your computer electricity cost by planting a tree. Cars now have much better milage and run cleaner. Many more alternative energy sources have arisen.

Is the hype pretty ridiculous? Yes, but if it results in cleaner fuel sources, I don't see why it is such a bad thing.
 
Last edited:

Geologist

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
822
Location
Earth
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

The availability of fossil fuels (which is the primary source of mankind's contribution to the problem) are limited, Peak oil (not to be confused with with Peak Lights ;) ) is expected to hit withing the next ~3-5 years. Demand for these fossil fuels will of course increase the price and to a certain degree, and prevent or inhibit the growth of "third-world industrialization" from using the 100 year old method of dependence on oil to make it happen.

I would speculate (as I am not an expert on industrial production), that the main use of oil in young industrial economies is to drive the transportation systems, with some more limited useage for electricity and heating purposes. By placing a higher cost on transportation, production will shift to smaller localized levels (made in your backyard vs the other side of the globe).

I agree there is a problem with mankind's total neglect for the environment. I do not think that we are the primary cause for any "global warming" - other posters have indicated that a volcano can do a lot more damage to the weather patterns and casuse much more affects to climate change than a bunch of mammals buring some Jurrasic muck deposits. If for no other reason, mankind should be more careful about fossil fuel useage as these sources are limited and finite. Last time I checked, oil resources are there for another ~30 years? We did not start tapping these resources until ~1920s and they are almost gone. Here is hoping that we start putting our efforts into developing other sources of energy not only to reduce pollution (and any possible effects) but to also provide for future needs.

My vote? Hydrogen. Cover the deserts solar panels and use the energy to produce portable hydrogen based fuels (at least until battery technolgy gets advanced enough provide otherwise).

Geo
 

magpie

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
47
Location
Lancashire,United Kingdom
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

I also watched this programme a few other points raised were.

that from 1940 to around 1975 a time of war and post war and mass industrial activity with less stringent controls on pollution the earths temperature actually fell.

here in the U.K grapes used to be grown almost up to the borders of scotland showing that the climate here used to be much much hotter.

and at the other end of the spectrum that the river Thames used to freeze fully and to such a depth that ice parties and market stalls would take place on the frozen river showing that it also was much much cooler than it is now.

also stated was the amount of money and jobs that on the back of global warming would be lost if the theory was found to be non man made...an example was something along the lines of

"a sceintist wants to do a study on "squirrel nut gathering patterns" but struggles to get funding...same scientist then wants to do a study on "squirrel nut gathering patterns in relation to global warming" suddenly he has as much funding as he needs.

did make for compelling viewing and I for one dont have the answers but one things for sure taxation in the U.K on cars is now based on emmisions I am sure if it wasnt for global warming! it wouldnt be as under the old system it was purely based on C.C
 

DieselDave

Super Moderator,
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
2,703
Location
FL panhandle
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

We can't let the fact that science and the media have cried "wolf" multiple times for a headline or just poor science make us ignore the possibility of global warming. While I believe the warmer temps are just part of the cycle that doesn't make me right. On the other hand a newspaper wants a story, a photographer wants "that" photo, a hunter "that" shot and a climate researcher wants "that" event. Everyone wants some major event during their career as their crowning jewel. It's easiest to get the applause for your great epiphany if you forecast the event to come to fruition after your career is over or you are dead therefore guaranteeing you won't be wrong (at least while you are alive)

I have no doubt we need to move forward to alternative and cleaner fuels for a number or reasons so I am a supporter in concept. Again but, we will keep driving our Suburban for now.
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

There is alot I could say as far as my "beliefs" and opinions on this topic. And quite frankly, I'm a bit on the fence with this figuring that the "truth" really IS somewhere in the middle.

However, the thing that strikes me most and very nearly has me tumbling off the fence toward the "we don't got no global warming" side is the fact that it is mighty arrogant of us to think that we are THAT significant and have such an impact on something that is of such a design and magnitude MUCH more significant and efficient than we tiny little ants scurrying about the surface of a rock. Perhaps if the "data" were presented in a less arrogant manner and tone, I'd be more receptive to it. And quite honestly, that kind of "reporting" really does occur on both sides of the fence. No wonder most choose to tune it out and continue scurrying about without a care.
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

There are several topics as contentious politically and emotionally as global warming, but they are generally not backed up with what should be observable data. The politics has become ludicrous and much of the science is suspect and the alarmists get all the press.

I have come to the conclusion that global warming is happening and that human activity is responsible for enough of it that we should be changing our ways. I've even had people who I think are smart enough to know what they are talking about tell me that Al Gore got "most" of the science right in his otherwise alarmist and stupid movie, but that is time frame for the images he was showing was of by about 200 years.

Luckily, even if WE can't get our act together and go "nookuler" China seems to want to and are contracting even with American companies to build LOTS of really big plants. Course, they are also building enough coal plants to make Americas total industrialized and SUV'ed output to be nothing but a footnote in the final venus'ization of the planet. So lets hope they and India go full out for that. I've been studying in detail the "new" nuke designs (some of which have been around and in use in places since the 70s, ours are from the 50's) and I've become a total convert.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

On the funding the the researchers by Exxon:

Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".

In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year [-BB: 2005?] distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

Hmmm, $2.9M/39 groups= $74,000 per group...

Or in terms of reasearchers...

Assume $100,000 would by one of their soles-- $2.9M/$100k=29 researchers
How many signed those mass cocuments??? 1,500+ (?). Those people got their funding from somewhere--Govenments? (In the US) tax deductable pressure groups?

In terms of releasing data--the famous "hockey stick" report from the IPCC (UN) back in ~2002--Mann would not release the underlaying data set and methods--McINtyrehad to find the pieces and reconstruct the research before they could disprove it.

Mr. McIntyre first became interested in the hockey stick in late 2002 after seeing the graph in materials distributed by the Canadian government. "What struck me is that it looked very promotional," he says, "and I wanted to see how they made it." As a financial consultant to small minerals-exploration companies, he was mindful of how wrong estimates of the size of Borneo gold deposits lay behind the 1997 Bre-X Minerals scandal. Mr. McIntyre, who won math contests in high school and a math scholarship to the University of Toronto, says he'd always been disappointed in not having any academic accomplishments "despite having a good mind." [font=arial, MS Sans Serif, geneva, Helvetica][size=-1] Mr. McIntyre e-mailed Dr. Mann requesting the raw data used to build the hockey stick. After initially providing some information, Dr. Mann cut him off.

Dr. Mann says his busy schedule didn't permit him to respond to "every frivolous note" from nonscientists. The climate-statistics expert, now 39, gained a big career boost from initial publication of the graph in 1998 and 1999. Although others had sought clues to past temperatures, his team was among the first to stitch many disparate records together to span hundreds of years across the entire Northern Hemisphere.


And here we go again--what was release first by the IPCC? Not the report "written by 1,500 scientists" but the summary written by ~50 political appointees and UN functionaries... The real report is comming later (that apparently cuts the rise by the Oceans to 7"-17" inches instead of the 20 feet that is pushed in An Inconvient Truth...

[/size][/font] The IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is now available for download in PDF format. [pdf] (updated 5 Feb 2007)

Note: Text, tables and figures given in the SPM are final but subject to copy-editing.

The Working Group I report was subject to final approval at the 10th Working Group I Session held in Paris from January 29 to February 1, 2007. The approved Summary for\Policymakers (text, tables and figures) was released at a press conference in Paris on February 2, 2007. A list of related changes to chapters identified by the coordinating lead authors is available here.

The full Working Group I report will be available online from May 2007. It will be published by Cambridge University Press and is expected to be available in book form by late June 2007.[font=arial, MS Sans Serif, geneva, Helvetica][size=-1]


There is a list of udpates to the real report--I like the first paragraph in the updated (pulled from the
[/size][/font]here[font=arial, MS Sans Serif, geneva, Helvetica][size=-1] link above):

Consistent with Section 4.2 of the IPCC procedures, Coordinating Lead Authors have identified some changes to the underlying report that will ensure consistency with the language used in the approved Summary for Policymakers, or provide additional clarification as agreed at the Working Group Session.

These changes do not alter any substantive findings of the final draft of the underlying report as distributed to governments on 27 October 2006. Note that the final draft of the underlying Working Group report is also subject to copy-editing and minor corrections in proof as normally applied to scientific reports.
[/size][/font]
Making sure that spin is working correctly before the real report and supporting data is available the the people that (through their taxes) are really paying for this report?

-Bill
 

abvidledUK

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,148
Location
UK
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

One thing that kept coming out in the TV show was that IPCC claim 2,500 scientists, quite a lot of whom were just researchers, etc, and many scientists had pulled out, disagreeing with IPCC conclusions, only to find they were now listed as authors, and still counted towards the 2,500.

Re Al Gore Movie:

I didn't quite catch what was said, I think it was something along the line of one of his double graphs was upside down, or time shifted, and was factually incorrect.
 

DonShock

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
1,641
Location
Belton Texas
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

AbvidledUK: I believe the problem with the graphs you are referring to is the ones showing CO2 levels and temperatures tracking with each other. The movie suggests that CO2 levels rise which then produce a temperature rise. But some have made the point that when the graphs are on the same time scale, the temperature rises first and then the CO2 levels start to rise. But I haven't seen any supporting or refuting data on this since the argument on this particular aspect is fairly recent.
 

kingoftf

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
131
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

image%7B0%7D%5B3%5D.png
 

eluminator

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,750
Location
New Jersey
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

James S said:
I've been studying in detail the "new" nuke designs (some of which have been around and in use in places since the 70s, ours are from the 50's) and I've become a total convert.

So how did you get to be unconverted? Surely you haven't been watching Hollywood movies. That makes about as much sense as reading a book written by Al Gore :rolleyes:
 

abvidledUK

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,148
Location
UK
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

DonShock said:
AbvidledUK: I believe the problem with the graphs you are referring to is the ones showing CO2 levels and temperatures tracking with each other. The movie suggests that CO2 levels rise which then produce a temperature rise. But some have made the point that when the graphs are on the same time scale, the temperature rises first and then the CO2 levels start to rise. But I haven't seen any supporting or refuting data on this since the argument on this particular aspect is fairly recent.

Yes, that was my original point, as made in the programme.

Temperature first, then CO2 follows, up & down, 800 years later.

There were about 5 scientists, all making the same point, there must be published data somewhere.

I've still got it on DVD, the Channel 4 programme, I'll have to re-view it in light of this thread.
 
Last edited:

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

So how did you get to be unconverted?

I was unconverted along with most people by the very successful public disinformation campaigns that vilified and the nuke industry and the various fictionalized movies about how dangerous and unnecessary nuke plants were :) I've converted back to the skeptical scientist that I was raised and educated to be and have found those scare tactics and propaganda against it to be lacking once the light of day is shone on them.

So yes, I'd rather have a pebble bed reactor down the block than a wind farm :)

Or were you referring to my conversion to put any credence into the whole global warming thing at all? Even without global warming I'd still rather use power from a pebble bed reactor than from a coal plant. And china is building pebble bed reactors on the same time frame and for the nearly the same construction costs as big coal plants. We could do this right now. By the time I am in the market for a new car, it could be a 100% electric getting 100% of it's electric power from renewable and nuclear and 0% from coal. Thats how fast it could be done if we had the will to do it. But the fossil fuel industry makes a lot of money...
 

Lynxis

Newly Enlightened
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
42
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Global warming has been going on since the "last ice-age" :)
.... and then .... "comes another new ice-age :)
 

Quickbeam

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
4,329
Location
FlashlightReviews.com
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Niteowl said:
abvidledUK said:
......... Basically, Global Warming is produced by................the Sun !! .........

That's just way too simple of an explanation to be true.

That's what a lot of people would have everyone else believe - the Sun is just too simple of a solution. Humans must be demonized every chance possible... [Mike Myers voice on] We're eeee-villl, like the fru-its of the Dev-veillll.
[Mike Myers voice off]

But there is good evidence that it really is the Sun causing this climate shift right now, and little else...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html

:popcorn:
 

Gunner12

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
10,063
Location
Bay Area, CA
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Whatever the reason for global warming is, us humans and our food supply can only live in a certain range of temperature. If it gets too hot or cold, we will die off. So even if it isn't caused by us, we should still stop global warming unless people are willing to let the human race die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top