We've had several heated (harharharhar!) discussions regarding global warming this last year or so.  As another summer comes and goes, the weather in the US has been extreme to say the least:  massive fires in California, flooding in the midwest, drought conditions in the southwest--  Abroad the situation is the same.  The artic ice continues to melt and yearly average temps continue to rise.

   I'm wondering if anyone has changed their views regarding warming, and US energy policy as a result of this?

  A nobel prize winning US politician recently gave a landmark speech advocating a 10 year initiative to make the US a 100% carbon free energy producer.

  In your opinion, why won' t this work?

cyberpatzer:

  We've had several heated (harharharhar!) discussions regarding global warming this last year or so. 

Heated in more ways than one. These discussions tend to get out of hand, get too political, and end up being locked or deleted. If this one follows suit, it will suffer the same fate. If you're going to attempt a discussion on global warming, try to keep it scientific without getting too much into politics please. Which will be hard to do... so good luck!

C'mon Kev-- You know I always TRY!

Global Warming-- Still?? 

I am against the idea that the expansion and use of stills would have any positive effect on global warming.  The emissions from carbon based heat sources, wood, coal, or even the sweet clean mother of all fuels: propane, would add far more CO2 to our atmosphere and would outweigh the benefits of escaping steam and its alchoholic byproducts.  Perhaps using the high alchoholic results of stills as a fuel may reduce the use of other fossil fuels but the misuse of such high octane liquids by persons of low moral character is also far too much to risk in our overheated climate.

L

I'll drink to that!

Dave Mitsky

Ahh!  I Beg to differ!

  Small, solar powered stills could be quite efficient, and used in millions of households.  No more trudging down to the liquor store for your 'git high'--you can enjoy it at home--carbon free.

  And-- as if you could ask for more--by simply turning down your thermostat BEFORE you pass out, Americans could save billions of lbs. of carbon each year--and not even know it!!

  It is this kind of nay saying and reactionary skepticism that has got us where we are.

  That's it.  This thread has gotten too political.

  I'm locking it out.

cyberpatzer:

 

  That's it.  This thread has gotten too political.

  I'm locking it out.

Insolent remarks are uncalled for. If you always have to push the envelope, don't get upset when you cross the line and action by a moderator is taken. If you truly want the thread locked I would be happy to oblige you. Otherwise, I'll leave it open for intelligent scientific non-political discussion. 

Insolent??

  Insolent??  Seriously?  Seems like the wrong word.  Insolent would be applied if someone were 'sassing back' to a parent, authority figure, or boss.

   First, I thought we were joking around.

  Second, web meter maids are none of the above.

  Steady now...

When last I weighed in on this topic in these forums I was one of the ones who contributed to the heating of the thread.  Since then I have learned much and my opinion has changed . . . not one whit.

cyberpatzer:

massive fires in California,

Could urban sprawl and increased population encroaching into the rural areas not more a factor than CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

 flooding in the midwest,

Record levels for some areas (mine), yes, but not for most of the Mississippi basin.  When you look east from my yard you look across a valley about 10 miles wide.  A valley cut by thousands of floods.

   drought conditions in the southwest--

6000 People a month are moving into the Tucson area, Phoenix is growing at a similar pace.  That sort of growth uses a lot of water.  To pin any shortage on CO2 emmissions is a stretch (in my opinion) compared to consumption and waste issues.  Isn't a desert, by definition, a continual state of drought?

 Abroad the situation is the same.  The artic ice continues to melt and yearly average temps continue to rise.

According to the US Geological Survey global temps have been at a flat line since 2000 and have actually decreased slightly since 1998.  Early in 2007 much was made about predictions from the mainstream climate scientists that '07 was going to be the hottest year on record . . . it wasn't.  It actually came in in 5th place.  Arctic ice melting?  Yes it is, but we've only been watching it for 35 years, so how do we know what is normal in climatalogical terms?  We do know that there is ample evidence of cyclic growth and shrinkage, but our understanding of the timing and mechanism of those cycles is rudimentary. 

I'm wondering if anyone has changed their views regarding warming, and US energy policy as a result of this?

My opinion remains the same as it has been since the beginning of the global warming debate:  We need to move away from dependance on fossil fuels in a reasonable, well thought out and sensible way (I don't want to replace the CO2 boogyman with large stockplies of nuclear waste).  We need to protect our environment from all of the threats against it (we are all in more danger from our water than we are from CO2).  And I don't want to be hearded by the media, and glory hounds into making costly --as in twelve 0's -- commitments that are going to be largely ineffective.  It seems that every weather related 'disaster' is laid at the doorstep of Global Warming.  Too dry?  Must be GW.  Too wet?  Must be GW.  Too hot?  GW.  Too not?  GW.  There is no cohesive pattern that can be tracked, linked, and proven, to blame CO2 levels.

A nobel prize winning US politician recently gave a landmark speech advocating a 10 year initiative to make the US a 100% carbon free energy producer.

I wonder if he took a carbon free mode of transportation to his speech, or if he flew there in a private jet that dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere on that one trip than you and I will generate in a year? 

We can't do anything to stop global warming, and here's why: we didn't start it. Fossil records show that global warming is actually caused by a 1000-year solar cycle of hot and cold. This makes sense, because from the late middle ages through the 1600s, it was very cold, like a mini ice age. Besides, Al Gore's theory of global warming has no real evidence on its side. It's just saying, this could happen. Yes, we may be heating up, but its not our fault.

Besides, who's to say that Earth's temperature is fine to begin with? If Earth were warmer, there would be HUGE food surpluses coming from Canada and Russia, which are filled with barren wastes unable to grow food because of the cold. Besides, it would take gigantic temperature changes for sea levels to rise more than a foot or two.

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, beating the "global warming" drum.  Earth has been "warming up" and "cooling down" since it was a little tike.  However, I do believe that the so-called intelligent life that inhabit the planet are doing things that aren't too beneficial for Earth.  We are expelling way too many pollutants into our atmosphere, ground and water that will come back to bite us in the "southern hemisphere".  We are using up resources that nature has provided at an alarming rate, that when gone...they're gone.  No taking a mulligan, no getting them back.  We are "settling" and inhabiting places that were never meant to be as populated as they are now.  Thus, leading to further destruction and resource misuse.(is that spelled right?)

Yes, the fires in the West are bad.  But until we started moving into most of these areas and our houses and belongings started getting torched at the rate they are now, these fires would have been a blurb on a news cast or in the paper.  And to be fair, the floods wouldn't be as big of a deal if large populated areas hadn't been established in areas where they really shouldn't have been.  Man thinks he can take control  Mother Nature to further his own selfishness. Nothing could be farther from the truth.   Point is, these "disasters" have taken place forever in some capacity or another.  Now we THINK they're so bad because they are now affecting people and media is such that we all know about it two seconds after it happens.  Let's step back and try to put things in perspective before we start running around yelling, "the sky is falling" and, as stated by Terry I believe, not lay all of our world's woes on the doorstep of global warming.  (side note:  my thoughts go out to those caught in any of the fires or in the floods.  I'm not a total goober!)

Are there problems needing attention and remedied?  YES!!  To say it's all because of global warming?  NO.

Just a layman's viewpoint.  Not scientific, I know. 

  Your responses please me greatly.  I decided a few months ago that it is very likely that the status quo will be preserved this November, and that I should pay attention to the mechanisms by which this should come to pass.

  While I am not cheered by this conclusion, I decided to picnic off my liberal friends, and have placed several side-bets (politcal hedge funds, I guess) to cheer me.  So far, four free lunches when the other guy gets in (my choice and with drinks--LOTS of drinks, believe me!), and two lunches for the proxy war with Iran that should start before Feb., 08.

  So, while it may seem petty, I get to feel like I'm winning when were losing.  I'm gonna take my time on those lunches, cause it will be a long 8 years, again.

  Its funny how people want science in one case (UFOs) and outright reject it out of hand on others (IPCC).  I'll spend some time contemplating that one...

cyberpatzer:

  Second, web meter maids are none of the above.

cyberpatzer,

With all due respect, my friend, I think this is uncalled for.  The moderators of these forums do a great job of trying to keep activity here within the bounds set by the administration.  It's a thankless, unpaid, job that requires them to make calls most of us would back away from.  I don't agree with everything they do, but I don't have to, they are the voices of authority here and I agree to that everytime I log in.

Terry D

Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

cyberpatzer:

    Its funny how people want science in one case (UFOs) and outright reject it out of hand on others (IPCC).  I'll spend some time contemplating that one...

No conflict here.  In the case of UFO's I ask for verifiable, scientific proof.  In the case of global warming I ask for the same thing.  All the IPCC shows are trends, projections, and models without any concrete linking evidence between CO2 levels and the effects they project.  Effects that are not matching their models, by the way.  In some cases the actions (projected effects) are occuring faster than the models, and in others they are slower, or even completly absent.  The science is iffy at best.

I've tried to stay out of the UFO thing, but,...I have stated that it's hard for me to believe there isn't life somewhere out there other that what is found here on Earth.  However, "life" doesn't have to mean there are green, monkey-sized, intelligent beings scouting out our little planet.  I don't rule it out.  Just show me some proof!  Proof, not conjecture or rantings from drunk rednecks.(Nothing against rednecks.  I AM one.  Just not a drunk one)

As for global warming, again, proof is needed.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist.  I'd just like to see some good hard proof. 

The problem with studying global warming is that it's so chaotic. We're trying to model a chaotic system. If we can't do any better modeling small-scale, short-term weather than we do today, then how can we expect to do better with long-term climate modeling.

That is why trends figure so prominently in climate studies ... they're the first things to statistically pop out of the data.

I don't expect too much in the way of "hard proof" in either meteorology or climatology as a result ...

What we can do is continue to measure, improve accuracy and data reduction, etc., and continuously search for patterns. We may be able to link up some cause/effect scenarios that way. But it won't be quick ... the changes we're monitoring take decades. We need to step up the pace and the technology or we may find what we're looking for far too late to do any good.

Meanwhile, there can be little doubt that dumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere while at the same time allowing slash & burn methods to continue in rain forests is a bad, bad idea. We need to curb both activities insofar as we can.

  I apologize to the moderators who I love dearly and have helped me greatly this last year.

  I have a severe authority problem stemming from too many years in a Catholic grade school...

   I agree with Jeff.   The fact is, weather modeling and all of the necessary parameters requires massive computing power and a tremendous amount of factors.  You are right when you say it is statistical guessing-- both the quantitiative estimating of the factors and the factors themselves. But don't underestimate statistics.  The world is warming--a whole lot, and it does track with the increase in human CO2 emissions.  You have to acknowledge (or not, of course), that mother nature has been trucking along for 4 billion years+.  The biosphere in that time has become tightly intertwined.  Now, in the last 250 years, humanity begins massive industrialization that geometrically escalates.  We have just begun to impact the Earth in a serious way through pollution and carbon emissions.  And, by, chance, we witness a large change in warming trends?

  Of course, maybe it is all wrong.  But free, green energy into perpetuity sounds good, as does energy independence, as does doing the right thing by mother nature, who provides for us.   And if we are wrong..well.  It could get very nasty indeed.  Sometimes (or not) you just have to bite the bullet and make a pragmatic, hard decision.

  An old saying: "A man does what he can".

  Or not.

I agree that green energy is a necessity.  Harnessing the sun and the wind offer great possibilities and rewards.  I am not trying to imply that our CO2 "dumping" is not a grave concern and something needs to be done.  The sad thing about it is that something was needing done years and years ago.  Man, being the fat, dumb and happy creatures we are, noticed a problem and thought we could make it go away or it would go away on it's own.  Now, we're in dire straits.  And, it's sad to say, the U.S. is behind the learning curve I feel.  Sure, Europe still has it's problems, but I believe they're trying a little harder than we are.

The change to green energy will create some issues for society and the way it operates.  We need to consider all that and not just on coming up with these alternative energy sources.  Technology needs to speed ahead.  But, the main ones with this technology are also the ones that use our current situation to put groceries on their tables.  They keep doing just enough to keep the minority somewhat quiet.  And, yes, I do think there was another shooter on the grassy knoll.

What I was trying to say earlier is that let's not rush to blame everything on global warming.  Man has disregarded and "trashed" our world in many other ways than just causing excessive amounts of CO2.  Can't blame one thing and one thing only.  It's a collective issue.

Since this is just another Off Topic discussion, Not in the form of an Astronomy related Poll, I have moved this thread to the Off Topic discussion forum.

Have A Nice ___________

cyberpatzer:

Insolent??

  Insolent??  Seriously?  Seems like the wrong word.  Insolent would be applied if someone were 'sassing back' to a parent, authority figure, or boss.

  

Look the word up. You'll find  the definition as presumptuous and insulting in manner or speech; arrogant, disrespectful, impertinent. Regardless of whether its to a parent, authority figure, boss, or web meter maid. 

By the way, the rest of the discussion has gone well. 

No internet parking tickets for now.