The Global Warming Thread

[mustang84]

I read some good posts by hyperv6 in the GM RWD thread and figured it would be good to start a whole new topic where people could post their opinions and links to articles that might be of interest.

Here's a great article about global warming being a political and power play from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6070400789.html

Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.

I have a friend who is an extreme liberal...I've been living with him here in Rome for the last four months and I reluctantly get to hear him reading articles aloud every day from CNN and wherever else he gets articles on global warming paranoia. Half of the people in my architecture major follow this same type of paranoia, so I get an earful of it often..."green design" is the word on the tip of everyone's tongue. I'm not opposed to green design at all, in fact I think it is smart because you create huge energy savings over time by incorporating some obvious solutions like use of natural ventilation, geothermal heating and cooling, low E glass, etc. I'm hoping to learn more about it and get LEED certified one day.

But I think that so many people just swallow whatever the popular opinion is without asking any questions. My friend read an article the other day about how much animal methane (cow farts) contribute to "global warming"...now he has vowed to cut back on his meat consumption. He'll probably never own a car...he rides his bike everywhere. He spends hours digging up info on obscure websites to further his belief that anything conservative is pretty much the devil reincarnated. If the US were to switch to socialism, he would probably be all for it.

I use him as an example because there are so many others like him out there that are promoting this global warming hysteria. But how real is global warming? Do we have enough facts yet to prove that we have in fact affected the climate and it's not just a natural phenomenon? I read an article about how Greenland has been warming up to the point that trees will soon be able to grow there...that is some solid evidence that something is very awry in the earth's climate. However, I have also read of the earth having mini-Ice Ages during the Middle Ages and periods of warming, which may have allowed the Vikings to sail all the way to North America in the 11th century (and the cooling of the climate probably killed them off). How much of global warming is just a political power play?

I don't think there is anything wrong with lowering our consumption of resources and cleaning up the environment, but these greenies that are setting SUVs on fire and promoting mass fear....is there some deeper agenda? How much truth is there to global warming?

Anybody that has good articles or websites on global warming, feel free to post them because I would be interested in reading them.

[Drew Dowdell]

Regardless of the truth of global warming, I feel it is prudent to use the cleanest fuels most efficient methods of energy generation while having a focus on diverse sources. I feel no need to waste resources simply because I can.

What I think needs to happen is a change in mentality of the American public. Unfortunately, most of the American public <on both sides> has the mentality of a two year old child. I fear that John F. Kennedy's famous words ring hollow today. It is no longer "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", but "How much can I acquire for myself regardless of the cost to others?"

No one is willing to make any personal "sacrifice"* for the good of the state/country/world. Sacrifice of "wants" needs to happen before we start having to sacrifice "needs".

*I don't really believe driving an E85 Saab 9-3 turbo-4 wagon rather than a Trailblazer any sacrifice at all.

[Camino LS6]

Choice is something I'm not willing to sacrifice.

[Cory Wolfe]

Choice is something I'm not willing to sacrifice.

I agree with Drew, as well. Conserving energy, of any form, is something one shouldn't think twice about. That shouldn't mean we, as enthusiasts, should have to drive something much less desirable. This focus on hybrids, cutting horsepower, certain type of vehicles, etc... Shouldn't exist. I think alternative fuels, like ethanol, are better ways to "be green" than everyone driving 100hp hybrids.

[bowtie_dude]

The problem with global warming is that it is, for the most part, totally out of human control. Despite common belief, CO2 is not a major contributor to the current warming trend. This is pointed out by the fact that the Southern Hemisphere isn't warming at the same rate (only .05 degrees Celsius per year) of the Northern Hemisphere (.2 degrees per year), even though it has the same CO2 concentration.

The hockey stick graph greenies like to throw up all over the place doesn't mention that during the big warming trend in the 90s there was also closings of several weather reporting stations in the former Soviet Union and Arctic regions. So since there were fewer stations reporting cold temperatures, the average rose artificially.

To sum it all up, the current warming trend is likely more natural than human caused.

[Drew Dowdell]

Choice is something I'm not willing to sacrifice.

I think a majority of Americans need to make smarter <for the country and globe> choices.

Suzie SoccerMom needs to wake up and realize that driving a suburban for daily errands is not a smart choice and that an E85 fueled, 4-cylinder Saab 9-5 wagon would be much better. Leave the Suburbans for those who truely need them.

[Drew Dowdell]

The problem with global warming is that it is, for the most part, totally out of human control. Despite common belief, CO2 is not a major contributor to the current warming trend. This is pointed out by the fact that the Southern Hemisphere isn't warming at the same rate (only .05 degrees Celsius per year) of the Northern Hemisphere (.2 degrees per year), even though it has the same CO2 concentration.

The hockey stick graph greenies like to throw up all over the place doesn't mention that during the big warming trend in the 90s there was also closings of several weather reporting stations in the former Soviet Union and Arctic regions. So since there were fewer stations reporting cold temperatures, the average rose artificially.

To sum it all up, the current warming trend is likely more natural than human caused.

without hijacking the thread, there is more to environmentalism than global warming. I'd rather err on the side of caution in regards to global warming, but my main cause for environmentalism and alternative fuels is in regards to energy independence from the middle east. My <former> partner, two of his brothers, and his sister have all served in Iraq. I would like to see the importance of that region minimalized as much as possible.

[bowtie_dude]

without hijacking the thread, there is more to environmentalism than global warming. I'd rather err on the side of caution in regards to global warming, but my main cause for environmentalism and alternative fuels is in regards to energy independence from the middle east. My <former> partner, two of his brothers, and his sister have all served in Iraq. I would like to see the importance of that region minimalized as much as possible.

Well, energy independence isn't really a cause of environmentalism. For the simple reason being that enviro-freaks don't want you to buy gas made from middle-east oil, but neither do they want anyone drilling in Alaska or anywhere else the US owns. Environmentalism is the cause of fighting global warming and the human footprint on nature.

Not to mention that we're not over there for cheap oil, or for oil at all. Thats a complete misconception and entirely false. Thinking that our troops are over there to get the US cheaper oil is demeaning to the brave men and women fighting over there. Dubya's incompetency aside, they're over there TRYING TO bring some stability to that country so that the people can have somewhat of a normal life. Now whether or not you agree its the job of the US to ensure the safety of other country's citizens is your perogative, but thinking we're there for oil is utterly wrong.

[loki]

taking a bigger scope at this...the mini ice age Europe had..oh what was it...17th century?... created the trees that were more dense to create the near priceless stratavarious (sp?) violins. there's the whole earth's wobble cycle, milankovitch cycles that even the mayan's figured out near 2000 years ago.

i'm of the persuasion it could be happening, but it's more of just climate change... supposedly scotland has been getting colder over the last few years, sorry no article link though. I know I saw one on how the air pollution from china may be changing rain patterns from the midwest-west to the coast.

i think the big thing is that these people that are using this science data think we know everything, please! if we knew everything, life would damn near perfect, and to think we know a lot about how we indirectly affect things is silly. there are at least a few ancient cities that are under about 140 ft of water.... did their progress cause the sea to rise and swallow their cities... *sigh* using that data the sea levels have been rising for more than ~5000years.... i wonder how industrial lized they were back then?! hehe.

again, good chance it's happening, but it's been happening much longer than we think looking at the big picture from about 10,000 years ago.

what to do about it---- we have plenty of tech to curb our increasing CO2 emission rates, i say just increase ease of these techs to enter the market and if it's really good, like renewable diesel, to stop letting NIMBY crap(with-in most current laws) ruin our chances to make this country cleaner, energy independent and quite possibly cheaper to live in.

[bowtie_dude]

To correct you, loki, the Middle Ages experienced a mini hot age. It was immediately followed by a mini ice age that ended around the end of the 19th century.

[Camino LS6]

The goals aren't the problem, its the methods that I take issue with. I am huge proponent of alternative fuels and reduced emissions, but these regulations aren't the way to get there. Also they ignore the major sources of the problem which are not automotive in nature.

Time to get real about it all.

[loki]

To correct you, loki, the Middle Ages experienced a mini hot age. It was immediately followed by a mini ice age that ended around the end of the 19th century.

i was guessing from what i remember... didn't take time to look it up kinda sad climate is so rarely incorporated into history.

the other part of the mini ice age that influenced culture is it's a good chance why beer became so widespread.....to harsh in germany to grow grapes for wine... turned to heartier wheat for the winter crops and thus beer was a staple in the culture since it was cheaper than wine... or at least so the hypothesis goes.

Edited April 14, 2007 by loki

[loki]

To correct you, loki, the Middle Ages experienced a mini hot age. It was immediately followed by a mini ice age that ended around the end of the 19th century.

looked it up.... answers.com dictionary

you're right the middle ages had a mini hot age..... but according to answers, i wasn't wrong, only limited it's span... unless you mean about the violins?

[regfootball]

George Will

[thegriffon]

To correct you, loki, the Middle Ages experienced a mini hot age. It was immediately followed by a mini ice age that ended around the end of the 19th century.

No, bowtie, the warm period preceded the dark ages. The mini ice age began not long after the Norman conquest of England, and ended during the 18th or 19th centuries. The Norse colony of Greenland was frozen out of existence, the Thames in London (a tidal estuary) froze over annually, something unimaginable now. Before that however, Northern Europe was already cooling, and climate change (along with population pressures) was one factor behind the Germanic migrations of the first millennium (reduced growing seasons, the freezing of the Rhine).

Atmospheric CO₂ is just a small factor in human contributions to climate change however. The amount of sunlight converted to heat, and subsequent local and global warming is influenced much more by the human influence on local geography. Let's go through some basic considerations—plant life absorbs sunlight that would otherwise be converted to heat (you should all know that a clay court is hotter than a grass court, that sand, concrete and asphalt surfaces get much hotter than adjacent grassed areas). Dense forests in turn absorb more sunlight than grassland, and native grassland more than crop land, which has more bare earth, both around plants and between crop plantings. Thus deforestation on a broad scale, the conversion of grassland to carbolated etc., and in many areas, resulting desertification, all contribute substantially to global warming, and have done for thousands of years now. On the other hand, irrigation of former arid areas, and reforestation in Northern latitudes following the industrial revolution all reduce global warming. Even in the classical age people noticed a change in climate in the Hellenic world, caused by wide scale deforestation. Scotland suffers in the opposite way, with deforestation leading to cooler winter temperatures that were once ameliorated by the forests. Agriculture and suburban sprawl have a much bigger contribution to global warming than CO₂ levels, and can have a far more rapid effect. Multi-storey housing reduces the roof area creating radiant heat, allows more room for grass and trees to absorb sunlight and reduce CO₂, and reduces transport and other energy costs. Solar panels or even better living sod roofs and roof gardens reduce radiant heat directed into the atmosphere. Reforestation, and panting of hedgerows and tree corridors in agricultural areas (much of which was formerly forested, in pre-historic if not not historic times) also reduce global warming, reducing not only heat-trapping CO₂, but also radiant heat produced. Water also absorbs a lot of sunlight, and while much is reflected back, little is converted into heat. Thus land "reclamation" and drainage of wetlands also contributes to both local and global warming.

How else can we reduce the amount of heat in the atmosphere? In areas plants do not grow well, solar panels can convert some sunlight into electricity rather than radiant heat. Wind turbines remove energy from the atmosphere. Just as winds are generated by heating, removing energy from the air through wind turbines cools the atmosphere (not by much, but it all adds up). Restored freshwater wetlands, lakes and salt marshes not only reduce warming, but provide local climate benefits, wildlife habitat, reduced flooding and protection from storm surges. Reforestation, especially in marginal agricultural areas such as rainforests and semi-arid areas. Even scattered tree-planting in semi-arid areas can rapidly turn back desertification, as has been demonstrated in Niger. Even in more productive agricultural areas planting of windbreaks and small woods and hedgerows not only has environmental benefits, but provides protection for crops and livestock, stock feed (both leaves and mast), habitat for insectivores and pollinators, and an alternative source of income from timber, fruit and nuts and even sap.

Edited April 14, 2007 by thegriffon

[capriceman]

To bad we gave up on the easiest solution.

[thegriffon]

I will amend my statements about cooling in Europe, howver it seems to me the so-called medieval wam period ended very early, and that most of the "middle ages" was affected by the Little Ice Age. While climate change was a factor in the 1st century migration of the german tribes, increased storms along the coasts and a wetter, rather than colder climate were contributors (although the freezing of the Rhine did allow tribes to cross into Roman territory).

[bowtie_dude]

I'm fairly certain that the graphs I saw indicating the warming period ended around 1400-1500 AD with the cooling trend beginning and turning into a mini-ice age, which ended in the late 19th century. And of course, all things natural being cyclical, we're moving into another warming period NATURALLY, with possibly a small boost from man-made greenhouse gases. But make no mistake, the planet would be currently warming even if we were all still on horseback.

[Camino LS6]

No, bowtie, the warm period preceded the dark ages. The mini ice age began not long after the Norman conquest of England, and ended during the 18th or 19th centuries. The Norse colony of Greenland was frozen out of existence, the Thames in London (a tidal estuary) froze over annually, something unimaginable now. Before that however, Northern Europe was already cooling, and climate change (along with population pressures) was one factor behind the Germanic migrations of the first millennium (reduced growing seasons, the freezing of the Rhine).

Atmospheric CO₂ is just a small factor in human contributions to climate change however. The amount of sunlight converted to heat, and subsequent local and global warming is influenced much more by the human influence on local geography. Let's go through some basic considerations—plant life absorbs sunlight that would otherwise be converted to heat (you should all know that a clay court is hotter than a grass court, that sand, concrete and asphalt surfaces get much hotter than adjacent grassed areas). Dense forests in turn absorb more sunlight than grassland, and native grassland more than crop land, which has more bare earth, both around plants and between crop plantings. Thus deforestation on a broad scale, the conversion of grassland to carbolated etc., and in many areas, resulting desertification, all contribute substantially to global warming, and have done for thousands of years now. On the other hand, irrigation of former arid areas, and reforestation in Northern latitudes following the industrial revolution all reduce global warming. Even in the classical age people noticed a change in climate in the Hellenic world, caused by wide scale deforestation. Scotland suffers in the opposite way, with deforestation leading to cooler winter temperatures that were once ameliorated by the forests. Agriculture and suburban sprawl have a much bigger contribution to global warming than CO₂ levels, and can have a far more rapid effect. Multi-storey housing reduces the roof area creating radiant heat, allows more room for grass and trees to absorb sunlight and reduce CO₂, and reduces transport and other energy costs. Solar panels or even better living sod roofs and roof gardens reduce radiant heat directed into the atmosphere. Reforestation, and panting of hedgerows and tree corridors in agricultural areas (much of which was formerly forested, in pre-historic if not not historic times) also reduce global warming, reducing not only heat-trapping CO₂, but also radiant heat produced. Water also absorbs a lot of sunlight, and while much is reflected back, little is converted into heat. Thus land "reclamation" and drainage of wetlands also contributes to both local and global warming.

How else can we reduce the amount of heat in the atmosphere? In areas plants do not grow well, solar panels can convert some sunlight into electricity rather than radiant heat. Wind turbines remove energy from the atmosphere. Just as winds are generated by heating, removing energy from the air through wind turbines cools the atmosphere (not by much, but it all adds up). Restored freshwater wetlands, lakes and salt marshes not only reduce warming, but provide local climate benefits, wildlife habitat, reduced flooding and protection from storm surges. Reforestation, especially in marginal agricultural areas such as rainforests and semi-arid areas. Even scattered tree-planting in semi-arid areas can rapidly turn back desertification, as has been demonstrated in Niger. Even in more productive agricultural areas planting of windbreaks and small woods and hedgerows not only has environmental benefits, but provides protection for crops and livestock, stock feed (both leaves and mast), habitat for insectivores and pollinators, and an alternative source of income from timber, fruit and nuts and even sap.

ABSOLUTELY!

People look at me like I'm nuts when I say that the way to deal with global warming is to plant trees. Europe and eastern North America were once just giant forests until Humans cut them down.

[regfootball]

what diff does it make what we do with cars? once india and china ramp up even more coal fired energy plants, that's where the real problem will lie. they have no incentive to build things clean. No laws, no incentives.

[Halo]

My chemistry teacher went over global warming at the beggining of the school year, teaching us the behaviors of the green house gases in the atmosphere. Taking the behaviors and looking at all the sources they come from, global warming seemed prety logical. Then she tought us about "psudo-science" and everything started changing into a diffrent picture. About 100 years ago there was a popular "beleif" in a group of so-called "scientists" who beleived that all races were ferior or inferior to one another, called it "genetarics" (correct me on that, I cant directly remember the name) and had everyone freaken scared to death that all our decendents were going to be retarded piles of shiz and would be the decline of human life as we knew it.

So, everyone went out, labeled each other as ferior and inferior as they felt and was happy about it. Things started getting sticky, however, as the government started to bank on the idea and opened facilities that was meant to "control" the problem- as in forced sterilization and sometimes death. This was labeled "ok" since the crowds were rolling on the line "eh, who cares? they aint worth squat no ways." And then Hitler came... and used this as one of his reasons to kill the Jews. The term: "ok, NOW its going a little far" started to come to life. That was what the whole "death camp" (which basicaly was a human tasting facility, this becomes too clear when you visit the Holocaust Museum) was justified with. The rest it history but when WW2 ended everyone went to "Yay, Geneatrics!" to "Geneatrics? Whats that?"

My thoughts on global warming is this:

1.) If global warming was such a problem, someone would've done something about it by now- say what you want but given the art of human progression at the end of a gun, people can almost do anything.

2.) We dont exactly know everything about nature. Its kind of retarded to jump to conclusions and point fingers at each other when theres an equal chance that it may be able to happen naturaly.

3.) If global warming is real, then were screwed anyway. People refuse to change their life styles for any given reason and since global warming seeems like a worldly effort, my point stands clear.

[loki]

what diff does it make what we do with cars? once india and china ramp up even more coal fired energy plants, that's where the real problem will lie. they have no incentive to build things clean. No laws, no incentives.

i don't remember really, but i'm pretty sure china was at least considering building a large solar plant , maybe towards the Gobi desert...kinda on the scale of the 3 gorges dam... speaking of which, is kinda sad. progress trumps history and nature in china pretty easily.

i think this all relates to the dwindling # of pirates....oh no Flying spaghetti monster!!! had to, should've been my first post , oh well.

[thegriffon]

I'm fairly certain that the graphs I saw indicating the warming period ended around 1400-1500 AD with the cooling trend beginning and turning into a mini-ice age, which ended in the late 19th century. And of course, all things natural being cyclical, we're moving into another warming period NATURALLY, with possibly a small boost from man-made greenhouse gases. But make no mistake, the planet would be currently warming even if we were all still on horseback.

Since there are no temperature records, it depends what you count as the beginning—the ice packs moving further south, or the Thames freezing over in London. I think the latter was really the peak of the cooling, not the beginning. The main point is that there is no such thing as a "normal" climate, and that past temperatures are merely guess work. Claims that it was just 1 deg warmer or colder don't seem credible, and can hardly be backed up by the absence of hard data. Outrageous claims, and poor fact-checking (such as the "stranded" polar bears photographed in midsummer, not winter or spring as claimed) simply undermine the credibility of global-warming doomsayers.