Man Based Global Warming....

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by dbermanmd, Dec 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    OK - so we agree. The sun is the primary driver. There are of course other important drivers, some quantified, some not.

    CO2 is a bit player. If it weren't, you would see it overcome other climate drivers during periods such as 1940-1980. During that period CO2 increased dramatically, yet temperatures declined. Why? And why did temperatures increase from 1910 to 1940 despite negligible increases in CO2?

    Q: Isn't it the case that during the entire span of nearly 110 years from 1900 to 2008, the only time temperatures rose in alignment with significant increases in CO2 was from roughly 1980 to the late 1990s?

    A: Yes.

    Q: How does a CO2 based climate model explain these discrepancies?

    A: It does not.
     
  2. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    It just doesn't work like that Tim. You can not pick a couple of points you like in a graph and argue that there is no link. It is a complex system. You have to look at a couple of millennia to be able to discern the clear trend.

    A blip here and there is immaterial and expected.

    CO2 is a bit player but it only takes a bit of change to drastically affect climate patterns and human civilization.
     
  3. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    383
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    No worries. I'm reasonably good at math as well. I'm pretty sure that I stated that our net reduction will happen only after we're gone??

    Interestingly enough, my daughter is eight years old. Almost all of our food is grown within a 50 mile radius of our home - unlike 10 years ago. We all eat almost no red meat - unlike 10 years ago. Our houshold energy consumption is far less than it was 10 years ago. Our transportation energy consumption is far less than it was 10 years ago. We have smaller cars than we had 10 years ago. One of them is electric and gets its energy from the sun. The other is a Prius and is rarely driven. We do, however, have two more bicycles in the garage. Adding one more child to the mix is not always a horrible thing. Not when she admonishes ME for wasting resources! She just LOVES catching me. But I digress...
     
  4. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Adding one more child isn't the end of the world. If you only have one child that will lead to a net reduction in population as the replacement rate is 2.1 children. However, it would have been better to adopt an existing child. There are more than 100,000 children in foster care in the US alone. The only type of child that is difficult to adopt in the US is a white infant.

    You seem to have made quite a few very positive changes over the last 10 years. I envy your RAV4.

    I've made similar changes. We purchased our current house due to close proximity to my wife's job and south orientation for solar gain. We have added insulation, sealed leaks, and added a programable thermostat. The thermostat is set at 65F in the winter, dropping to 60 at night, and 79F in the summer. We have the heat pump off for 6 months out of the year. Every light in our house is fluorescent though we don't use this as an excuse to leave them on. It is not unusual for our house to be lit by (2) 13 watt bulbs.

    We buy our produce from the local farmer's market when it is open. We garden and are still using vegetables we grew the past summer. Red meat doesn't enter our house and we eat vegetarian 2-3 nights a week.

    On the transportation front we traded our truck for the Jetta TDI wagon back in 2002 and added an used Prius in 2006. We now combine trips and walk to the local grocery store, restaurants, and gym.

    On Policy Issues:
    • I think that all power plants and factories in the US should be required to update to current pollution controls.
    • The think super insulated homes with solar hot water heating should be set as the minimum in building codes.
    • I applaud the current measures by CARB and the EPA to address particulate and NOx emission from diesel vehicles. I wish I could retrofit a DPF to my TDI but can't. I'm upset as the very slow pace that these pollution controls will be implemented in the heavy duty markets. There is no reason to implement these regulations over the next 20 years, 5 would be perfectly acceptable.
    • I think that Obamas pledge to spend billions of dollars on highways and bridges is misguided. We should be spending those dollars on public transportation in cities and rail for city to city. There is not reason to spend billions rebuilding the past when we could be building the future.
    • I don't think the new CAFE standards go far enough. We should expect more and focus on EV's not hybrids. The technology is available, we should implement it.
    • To me the fact that we have 3% of the world's oil reserves and consume 25% of the world supply is reason enough to kick the habit. We should cut back on US pumping to save that oil for future use and feedstocks for products and chemicals.
    • I support combining the CAFE regulations for cars and light trucks. If trucks are used as passenger cars they should meet the same requirements. If they are to be classified separately as commercial vehicles they should require a CDL to operate.
    • I think we need a minimum price for gasoline and diesel. $4.00 per gallon is about right for now and we should increase the gasoline tax $0.10 per year.


    These are but a few of my thoughts. It's funny, people that know me think I'm the environmental nutjob, but here I seem to be the voice of the status quo.


    It is amazing the venom that comes out when you publicly say that you don't believe that man-made CO2 is the main driver for climate change. I believe that the climate is changing and that CO2 has an effect though it is no where near the main driver. I still believe that it is arrogant to claim that we know with almost certainty that CO2 released by man going to set off a chain reaction of climate change will destroy the world unless we change in 10 to 15 years. I'm not ready to make that leap based on computer models, 150 years incomplete data and 30 years of detailed data.

    I've never said that we should do nothing or that we should stop researching. However, we should take action based on sound data. We have plenty of reasons to move forward based without the specter of climate change.
     
  5. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    And yet we hear from the global warming crowd that the 20th century experienced a 0.8 C temperature increase due to CO2? You can't have it both ways.

    Regardless, if CO2 is indeed a significant climate driver, you would expect to see some indication in recent temperature trends. So could CO2 have contributed to the roughly 0.6 C temperature increase from 1980-1998? Certainly. But it appears that nature alone, without help from man, is capable of a similar 0.6 C temperature rise, as documented from 1910 - 1940 when CO2 levels were negligible.

    I guess we will once again have to agree to disagree.
     
  6. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,526
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    Many of the responses you have been getting are because most here recognize you are very much a thinking poster. When you state something that does not mesh with your previous post "gesalt", it is quite attention getting and is worth figuring out why. To me, your last justification of arrogant is quite acceptable. The initial ones had quite a different "gesalt" to them, similar to some talk radio hosts.

    I actually follow the global warming related science articles in Science and have been for some time. A very significant number of them have results that do not mesh with a dramatic AGW scenario. (Example, the permafrost in Canada is not melting as fast as some predictions.) On the other hand, a significant number changes underway that are worthy of understanding (Example, effects of CO2 driven pH changes on worldwide coral health). Good research can only be understood by examining the results with no bias and ensuring that a premature "belief" does not take root based on politics or political leanings....at either extreme. There is too little data to predict the end of natural climate age, but there are effects other than just climate at issue here.

    Yet without waiting for a verdict on AGW, I still know the difference between right and wrong....and it seems that most everyone else does too.
     
  7. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    When you accuse me of a North American centric world view it shows you know nothing about me. I have been out in the world. I'm 30 years old and have been to 16 countries in the last 5 years. From 2004 to 2007 I spent 2-3 months a year traveling internationally.

    On my latest trip abroad my wife and I spent the first 2 weeks of October traveling through Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia. It is amazing and life changing to see the effects of war first hand even if that war was 10 years ago. It opens your eyes when you see skull and crossbone signs that signify that both sides of the road are still mined. It is sickening to see a Christian town completely rebuilt while the adjoining Muslim town is abandoned, destroyed, and still mined. It is even more sickening to see a monument to the citizens of that town that were massacred by their neighbors because they were muslim. I have been in the world, though I have a lot more to see and much more to learn.

    As to pollution controls in developing countries. These have nothing to do with climate change and CO2. The effects of industrial pollution are well documented. I would love to see developing countries adapt western levels of pollution control. They could benefit from our mistakes instead of repeating them and learning through their own tragedy. However, as an American I can't force the Chinese government to adopt these standards. All I can do is try my best not to purchase goods made in their factories.
     
  8. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    If , as reported, the Chinese are building one coal fired power plant per WEEK, and you don't think that has an effect on climate,,,,,

    Icarus
     
  9. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I'm concerned about their conventional pollution controls; particulates, NOx, mercury, etc. Hopefully these are state of the art coal-fired plants with modern pollution controls. I'd also be concerned with what they are doing with the fly ash. The recent TVA spill in Tennessee shows how poorly the US deals with our waste.

    I'd also prefer that the Chinese citizen cooked and heated their homes with energy from a coal-fired plant. Currently large segments of the population cook and heat on individual coal burning stoves.

    I'm not one to tell developing countries that they aren't allowed western standards of living. Until we cut pack our consumption we have no business telling others what to do. Who is being "North American centric" now?
     
  10. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I absolutely agree that we have no business telling other people what to do until we get our own house in order. Having said that I am surprised that you don't think that C02 emissions are a problem, as you seem to have a better grasp of the issues than most.

    I have spent the bulk of my adult life preaching about the need to change our ways when it comes to consumption. We live pretty green, generate some our our power with solar PV, heat our water with solar etc. We consume very little, but I freely admit that I'm not perfect, but we do pretty well. The fact that here in N. America we consume far more than our share of the earth's resources is not only unsustainable, it is by it's nature, bad for the environment.

    I agree with you , that it would be much better if the average Chinese could cook/heat etc from a clean(er) grid rather than individual stoves, but the real work needs to be for all of us to not only consume less, (especially in the west) but also focus like a laser on technologies that will produce energy and products in a sustainable way.

    As you rightly imply, we have been living too high on the hog for too many decades. The world cannot sustain our level of consumption of both energy and material. I read a stat once that off all the things we buy in a calendar year, less than 1% is still in use 1 year later! How dumb is that,,, not to mention wasteful.

    Icarus
     
  11. stellaf

    stellaf New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    24
    0
    0
    Location:
    new york
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Hi all,
    The CO2 level in the air is increasing day by day and affecting the ozone layer .The main reason behind the increased CO2 level is excessive use of natural fuel.

    stella
    New Cars
     
  12. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    383
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Better for many reasons, yes. Our decision to have our own child was a selfish one, I freely admit. And as I brought up before - it would be "better" if we didn't drive gasoline cars. Would be "better" if we all rode bicycles or walked. We all make our choices and have to live with the consequences. While I do regret all my years of driving gasoline cars, I don't for a moment regret my decision to have my own child.

    I am in that situation quite often myself. Most of my friends think that I'm a bicycling nutjob. Yet the bikers that I hang out with make me look like a car-driving fiend! And same with EVs. When I go on a long trip, I take the Prius. My EV friends think nothing of driving from Sacramento to Los Angeles in a car with a 100 mile range. It is all relative.

    And I seriously appreciate you sticking it out, and expressing yourself in the face of adversity. We have become far to black and white. You're either with us or against us. If you have anything good to say about Clinton, then you obviously hate Bush... that kind of crap. Nothing much comes from WAGs and assumptions. So anyway... thanks.

    I think this ties into the "you're with us or against us" thing again. A lot is assumed when that statement is made - and in your case the assumptions are almost all wrong, as you have shown.

    And I'm happy to disagree with you about this whole "arrogant" thing. Just because I'm concerned about it, does not at all mean that I'm arrogant about it. And even if that *is* being arrogant, so what? Does being arrogant about this mean that we should turn our backs on it and stop looking into it? As a human, I see what other huge changes we've made to the earth. I see no reason to NOT believe we could screw this up as well.

    But... claiming that we're arrogant for even *considering* that humans might be able to effect climate is the same as thumbing your nose at those who would like to put more research into it... yes?

    While we agree with what *should* happen, I think we've all seen that it *won't* happen (or at least isn't happening fast enough for the "right" reasons). So what's the next step? Hope that the public suddenly sees the need? Is innaction due to controversy better than appropriate action for a possibly contrived reason? Tough call.

    And if reasons were actions, we'd be in great shape.
     
  13. Celtic Blue

    Celtic Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    2,224
    139
    0
    Location:
    Midwest
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Not quite, CO2 is increasing as the result of burning fossil fuels. However, the ozone layer is not threatened by that. CFC's were the threat to the ozone layer. Fortunately, an international agreement has eliminated much of the CFC threat. The ozone layer is recovering now that the concentration of CFC's in the atmosphere has peaked and is in decline. The Montreal Protocol is one of the great success stories of science, international diplomacy, and environmental awareness.
     
  14. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Explain this please: DailyTech - Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

    Excerpts:

    "Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards."





    If the globe is warming,,, how do you explain this too?


    Seems to me this will go down as the greatest scientific farce since the flat earthers.


    Even posts at HuffPost are starting to call for algore to apologize for the hysteria.....



    I am in need of greater scientific evidence to convince me man is warming the planet....



    Thanks
     
  15. Celtic Blue

    Celtic Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    2,224
    139
    0
    Location:
    Midwest
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Putting CO2 into the atmosphere is definitely producing warming--there is no doubt about the science of CO2's molecular stucture and the resultant interaction with light. One can also readily calculate the amount of carbon removed from the ground and converted into CO2. So your claim is a farce.

    The only questions are how much and is this adding to or counteracting some other natural cycle?
     
  16. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    As usual contrarians misrepresent the information. What scientists prefer to look at is Arctic ice rather than Global ice. Arctic ice historically has been more sensitive to global temperature changes than antarctic ice.

    Follow these links for the true story:

    A Few Things Ill Considered : Another Week of GW News, January 4, 2009

    The following graph is the rate of recovery of Arctic ice comparing overal average..this year and last year:

    [​IMG]

    Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

    Note the lack of recovery and the overall decrease in the past two years compared to previous years. Also note this is not a blog or newspaper's opinion but the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

    So no. Arctic ice is not recovered and amount of perennial ice is lower than ever.
     
  17. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Hmm Alric - weren't you the one who just scolded me for looking at 30 years worth of satellite data - saying it was too brief a period to be meaningful? And now you are looking at 2 years worth of Arctic ice data and attributing it to global warming?

    Regardless, the scientists don't attribute recent arctic ice loss to global warming caused by man, so why do you?

    From:
    Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability
    Igor V. Polyakov
    International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks
    Mark A. Johnson
    Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks

    The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection
    of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.


    And NASA says:

    ... the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
     
  18. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    BTW - I love the new term on your link. I guess since the earth is refusing to warm as per the models, it is no long "global warming" or even "climate change", but now "climate disruption". That way, whatever happens, cold, hot, wet, dry, etc. it can all be blamed on man!
     
  19. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    I am just addressing dr Berman's claim, which as you point out is untrue.

    Your claim that scientists do not think Arctic ice loss is due to climate change is not supported by your references. The first one is a consideration that climate scientist take into account. The second one is entirely compatible with the effects of climate change.
     
  20. KK6PD

    KK6PD _ . _ . / _ _ . _

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    4,003
    935
    118
    Location:
    Los Angeles Foothills
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Global Warning my nice person, it was 38 degrees this morning when I drove to work.....

    I live in Los Angeles.

    Thats it, I'm putting outriggers on the Prius and floating to Hawaii!

    73 de KK6PD
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.