Hurricane Activity Near Record Low

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 31 2007, 10:25 AM) [snapback]532915[/snapback]</div>

I'm sure dbermanmd tells his patients to smoke because it's good for Crohn's dz.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nyprius @ Oct 31 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]532946[/snapback]</div>

Better solution: Do the R&D, and produce an economically viable method of creating cellulosic ethanol, then sell that technology to India and China, who desperately need alternate fuels and know it. We already produce solar cells for sale around the world. I own stock in a U.S.-based geothermal powerplant company that is doing quite well in international sales at the moment. We need to keep investments in other green technology, including green water desalinization, wind power, conservation, etc. There is no limit to the new technologies available if we support it instead of throwing subsidies at big oil and big coal. Oh, and a side effect? By implementing the solutions here, we save energy costs, producing more goods for less energy, a little thing economists call productivity.

That, and not funding both sides of the war on terror.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 31 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]532959[/snapback]</div>

I've been on the forum for more than two years. Today, for the first time, I did cut and paste one response on two threads because it was appropriate for both.

However, thanks for pointing this out. You're illustrating an important technique that needs to be exposed. Many times, people will make very compelling, clear and logical arguments. Some people find these arguments uncomfortable because it means they might have to change their positions, views, actions, etc. They can't directly attack the position because the position is so clear and correct. But they still don't want to act on it. So instead of attacking the message (because they can't) they attack the messenger. They take the illogical position that if they can discredit the messenger they'll discredit or disempower the message. Unfortunately, this techique is used successfully sometimes by those who wish to maintain the status quo.

The reality is that the message is separate from the messenger. The key issue here is, was my response appropriate for both message forums, even if it was the same? I think it's clear that it was. Therefore the fact that I used the same response is an irrelevant issue that you're using to attempt to distract attention from the real issue -- our failure to adequately address GCC and protect our children.

I also realize my critical tone is probably not helping the debate. We all feel strongly about these issues. So I'm sorry for any insults I may have provided to anyone. My only hope is that we find a way to do the right thing for our children. Working together is a big part of the solution.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Oct 31 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]532956[/snapback]</div>

This is an example of the ingenuity and creativity we need to solve the problem!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 31 2007, 05:06 PM) [snapback]532948[/snapback]</div>

I think both are indeed well establised conclusions. In fact, they are easily made.
The first is supported by various long-term measurements. The second is even simpler. After all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and human activity produces it.

However, both facts don't say too much by themselves. The big question is: what is the quantitative contribution of human activities to the observed global warming? Is it the only reason? Is it the most important reason? Or is it only a marginal, neglectable effect and are there much more important (natural) contributions?

This is where the science is still inconclusive and more research needs to be done. But, given the magnitude of the possible effects on humanity, it would be of utter stupidity to sit down and do nothing until everything has been proven beyond any doubt. Especially because reducing CO2 exhaust potentially has many other positive side effects.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 31 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]532942[/snapback]</div>

I am not for creating a new level of technocrats/bureaucrats and a new marketplace (carbon trading) for science that is still questionable at best. I would briefly consider it if the ENTIRE world would do the same thing - to effect that type of seismic change in the American economy would prove disastrous to all including our environment.

no problem with the bush thing - i understand how intoxicating it must be for you guys.

when they can predict weather for next week accurately, or even report weather accurately 10 years ago - i will have a little more confidence in their 100 year predictions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nyprius @ Oct 31 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]532900[/snapback]</div>

Your probably a Democrat - you want to support your team - and your probably smarter than that - use your mind - please - for the sake of our children. Remember, the health of our environment is directly related to the health of our economy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 31 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]532976[/snapback]</div>

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9. down and out. Fights over. Holy Cow. Nice post. And the crowd is roaring.

 

This list of 60 names sent to a canadian newwpaper has already been checked and many of them are not climate scientists. The usual connections to energy companies turn up as well for most of those that are.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1407

Among my favorites:

Deitze is an electrical engineer. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Dietze has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

Gerhard is a retired geologist from the University of Kansas. He has government and industry experience in petroleum exploration, research and exploration-program management, oil and gas regulation and reservoir geology. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Gerhard has published 13 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of resource geology in the oil and gas sector.

 

I think this post is really questioning the "hype" of GW not its validirt. After Katrina (AK) we were told we were entering a TEN year cycle of increased storm activity. The link to GW wasn't directly made by all but it was certainly implied. Now for the past two years we have had far below average storm seasons. The complete opposite!

In fact because GW is not producing more and more powerful storms the southeast is suffereing a drought due to REDUCED tropical storm activity!

So which "hype" and hysteria are we to believe that GW CAUSES increased storm activity or that GW CAUSES droughts due to DECREASED storm activity. Or is the truth closer to the statement "you just don't know."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Oct 31 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]533002[/snapback]</div>

Agreed!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Oct 31 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]533005[/snapback]</div>

Of course they dont know. NOBODY knows. I love those people who think they know it all - and they know whats best for everyone - beyond themselves. Everybody should just take care of themselves - and let the world find its own temperature - its not like you/they are going to be able to affect it anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Oct 31 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]532956[/snapback]</div>

Nice thoughts and I really do wish we could accomplish those goals, but it's pie in the sky. In reality you don't "sell" technology to China or India. You either give it to them or they simply will steal it. The US taxpayer will not fund billions of dollars in research and R&D in such unproven technologies for the benefit of the Chinese, Russians, and other such nations. The Chinese are so flush with cash (lots of US dollars) that they can R&D anything they desire. Besides, I am sure the Chinese are fully capable of producing other alternative fuels if they decide to pursue such an avenue.

For the last 50 years or so we have been burning fossil fuels at a tremendous rate. It has paid off by making us the greatest nation on earth and provided us with a very high standard of living. Thanks to the "no nukes" movements (Bonnie and Jackson are still at it!; I thought AGW would be more important) and such we still, however, rely too much on fossil fuels compared to other nations such as France. I just don't see how you can convince other nations such as the Chinese, who are rapidly growing but perhaps decades behind us with regards to standards of living, to stop using relatively cheap fossil fuels.

Also, the world is still relatively awash in fossil fuels with some estimates of trillions of barrels of oil still left to be viably recovered. If we were to somehow drastically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels the price of crude would surely collapse due to a glut of crude flooding the market which would further reduce the incentive for growing nations to switch to more expensive alternative forms of energy.

While politicians may blab about AGW here and there, I can assure you it is the Almighty Dollar, Ruble, or Yuan, that drives economies. Need an example; take a trip to Walmart and fight your way through the hoards of people frequenting the aisles 24/7. Virtually no one cares where a product is produced, how "green" it is, etc., just what is the cheapest price, period. Energy is no different.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 31 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]533038[/snapback]</div>

Sure

De Freitas and the "Climate Research" Journal
Formerly one of the editors of a journal called "Climate Research," de Freitas was involved in a controversy surrounding a research article co-authored by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. The article reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. But 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process which allowed the publication.

Roger Pocklington
Probably having trouble keeping up with the latest research since he died in 2004.

Mandev Khandekar and the "Friends of Science"
Listed as a member of the "Scientific Advisory Board" for a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry.

Ian Plimer and the NRSP
Listed as an "Allied Expert" as an "Allied Expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. Two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.” According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Plimer has published more than 40 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of ore deposits.

Dr. Philip Stott
Stott regards himself as a Humeian 'mitigated sceptic' [14] on the subject of global warming. He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.

Zbigniew Jaworowski is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, and has served on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Jaworowski published several papers (Jaworowski, 2007; Jaworowski, 1999; Jaworowski, 1997) in 21st Century Science and Technology, a non-refereed magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche.[4]

And while this is fun, now it's time to go back to real work.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 31 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]532972[/snapback]</div>

My political affiliation is irrelevant. I'm not a strong supporter of either party because I think the whole system needs to change. The reason I suggested you think for yourself instead of blindly trust others is that you're taking an obviously illogical position. It appears you're saying GCC is not proven enough to take action. Using your own mind, you'd ask questions like this: Are we pulling carbon out of the ground faster than it was put there? Yes, about 10,000 times faster. Does burning fossil fuel put a known heat trapping atmospheric gas in the sky? Yes, carbon dioxide. Have human activities substantially raised carbon levels? Yes, by more than 30% over the past 150 years to the highest level in 400,000 years. Does the vast majority of research show that atmospheric carbon closely tracks average global temperature? Yes, it's nearly a perfect correlation. Is a 30% change in atmospheric carbon relevant? Major ice ages occurred when carbon dropped by 10%.

Now here's my whole point -- what should our default postion be on GCC? Should we assume our actions have already set major changes in motion and do all we can to rectify the situation? Or should we continue to use up all the fossil fuels because we don't think we have enough evidence of GCC to act? If you chose the latter, then that means you feel every peer reviewed scientific study saying humans are driving GCC is not a high enough standard of certainty, what would you suggest? If you can't trust science, then who can you trust?

Using your mind means you'd reach a conclusion that massively altering the system that produced and supports humans is an incredibly bad idea. Not using your mind, your conclusion would be, massively altering our life support systems will have little or no negative consequences. Can you look your children in the eye and tell them you feel it's OK if society uses up all the fossil fuels and turns it into pollution? I couldn't do it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 31 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]533033[/snapback]</div>

Really? I think Sec. of Treasury Hank Paulson would disagree, as would the head of Motorola, GM, other companies that are investing billions of dollars in producing things for and from the Chinese market. Big business is trying to cozy up to China, not run from it like your scenario would suggest.

I'm sure the Chinese are looking at it, but we've got a lead on them. We can capitalize on that if we work hard, or we could let the Japanese or Germans or someone else take over for us.

Because they need to pay for it just like us. The rich can afford adequate fossil fuels, the ones at the bottom start dropping off as the price increases. The Chinese (among others) are also feeling the pressure to clean up their horrendous air pollution. They benefit also if they can skip intermediate technologies, like many developing countries have skipped widespread land-line phones and went straight to cell phones with their cheaper infrastructure. If you can do that with cars (cheap EVs), manufacturing and electrical plants, etc. Why string up an electrical grid everywhere if solar PVC's are as cheap as electrical rates plus hookup fees?

And, if we can reduce their consumption and our consumption, then we're not both fighting for the same resources. You are aware that China already has contracts on oil from Venezuela and Canada, both traditional suppliers of the U.S., right?

Oh, that's a good laugh :lol: Thanks! I haven't heard that since oil permanently went past $50/barrel! Oh sure, there's a lot of recoverable oil out there, no shortage yet, but it's becoming increasingly expensive. Light sweet crude is disappearing to be replaced by hard-to-process heavy crude (like Venezuela). Canada tar sands became cost effective at about $40-$50/barrel but uses a lot of natural gas in the process, Colorado shale deposits are still not cost effective. A lot of oil is locked up because of political fighting (Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq), poor infrastructure (Iran many others are marginal), so you could say a good deal of the current high price is not geological, but it's still not going away because nobody else can make up for it in that volume. Most large known deposits have peaked (North Sea, Mexico, continental U.S. etc.). Petroleum is never going to be cheap again, so if the rest of the world wants a better standard of living, they'll have to look to alternatives.

Well, that's true. Peak oil is the only true solution to AGW, but it's also going to drive up our use of coal, wood and other non-environmentally-friendly solutions, at least for awhile (and coal won't last nearly as long as the commonly quoted figures because they don't take any growth into consideration).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 31 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]533010[/snapback]</div>

The point isn't what one person's impact is on GCC. It's what is humanity's total impact. We know we're pulling millions of years of carbon out of the ground and putting it up in the sky as a heat trapping atmospheric gas. Isn't it massively self-serving and irresponsible to our children to say it's OK to alter our life support systems like this? The real question on all this is, how much pain do we need to feel before we change. Past civilizations that didn't align their ways with reality and nature disappeared. How can we think it's OK to massively flaunt the laws of nature with impunity.

Also, using the fact that we haven't had many hurricanes since Katrina as justification for the position that GCC is not real is not logical. The issue is global Climate Change. If we drive huge changes in the atmosphere, we are going to see huge impacts. We can't predict the specific impacts. But we know the forms they'll take -- more droughts and rain in various areas, more frequent and severe storms, etc. These trends will occur over time. Just because it doesn't happen for a couple of years in one region doesn't invalidate the findings of all of our scientists.

Another annoying point about all this is that somehow non-experts feel they are qualitifed to pontificate about GCC. What would you think if I was telling a brain surgeon about how to do brain surgery? Since I'm not a brain surgeon, you'd probably think I was foolish. How can I tell an expert about their job.

It's just as stupid when non-experts on this post and in other places question the smartest scientists in the world on this issue. There is no way you can justify the positions taken here that GCC is not real. When every peer reviewed study says it is, who are we to question that. It makes no sense.

 

OK folks, go ahead and argue back and forth regarding who's list of scientists can beat-up the other . . .

One minor point I have to make:
Many people are very impressionable and believe everything they read or hear. And of course, when someone hears, "the ice is melting" they get the impression that it is not being replaced at all . . . because of the heat of global warming.

WRONG!

Ice cover on October 10, 2007
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/archive/07289sst.gif

Ice cover on October 30, 2007 (or the latest image)
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/latest_sst.gif

Open the above links in tabs and toggle between the two - you will see that the Arctic Ice Sheet is actually growing again, like it does every winter.