BS: US Politics and Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 08:26 PM

well, Stephen Schneider, one of the main proponents of the global warming theory, in the 1970's warned of an imminent Ice Age. When he was asked about later this he shrugged it off by saying he was wrong.

as far as Wolfgangs last point about not being able to predict the weather more than a few days ahead and people's willingness to trust theories a century ahead, (Chaos theory, or sensitivity to initial conditions makes it difficult to predict what will happen past 6days or so because there are so many variables, on the other hand,
long term trends may not be as difficult, as we know that temperature has gradually increased over the last century, and atmospheric co2 has increased as well.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 09:51 AM

I'm interested to read about this debate on a more empirically focused level.

(1) The last survey I read about scientists' (experts in that field) opinions was a Gallup poll from 1992. Even then, 60% agreed that the global temperatures had risen but only 19 % attributed the increase to human activities. The opinions may have changed since then. Does anyone have newer polls?

(2) Last time I read about the climate models these models were tested by looking at their ability to predict the past changes starting back from now. The models usually were off from the mark at least by a factor of 2. Does someone have newer information on that question?

(3) There is not the slightest disagreement that carbondioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. There is also no disagreement since at least Arrhenius more 100 years ago that this factor viewed in isolation predicts an increase of the temperature. His prediction of the actual temperature increase was far off, but his argumentation that CO2 viewed alone leads to a temperature increase stands unchallenged. The debate is whether other factors resulting from a temperature increase (like increased rainfall, clouds etc.) will work in the direction of higher or lower temperatures. If someone could point me to newer results I'd like to read them.

Basically the question here is whether the earth climate works in a negative (like for instance in the Gaia hypothesis) or in a positive feedback mode. In a negative feedback mode the effects leading to higher temperatures will on the other hand trigger effects leading to lowering the temperatures, keeping all in all a balance (notwithstanding extremely large natural catastrophes like a hit by a big celestial body). Does anyone have newer informations on a consensus on the mode of feedback?

One last question that is often in my mind in these discussions: Everybody knows that a weather prediction for let's say the weather in two weeks is extremely difficult to make and should not be trusted a lot. Why do some people who on other occasions don't trust long-term (14 days) weather predictions and have a deep mistrust in scientific modeling and predicting in other fields trust here so completely in extremely simplified and simplifying global climate models predicting the weather not in 14 days but in 100 years?

Having said that I still think that acting as if the danger was true is the better option in the light of conflicting theories about the future. But I must say when I look back at the 'ice age' predictions from the 1970s I'm a bit skeptical about the new kids on the block predictions, especially if they come in some cases from the same people who have dismally failed in 1970 to predict the state of the world in 2000.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 01:31 AM

So, uh, Doug, it's uh called a Hummer because ..................................................................................................................



















IT DOESN'T KNOW THE WORDS!

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 01:17 AM

I bet he doesn't drive a Hummer. I bet he drives a Mercury Grand Marquis.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 01:07 AM

Why did I know that?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 01:06 AM

brucie: why a Hummer, of course, what else? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 08:55 PM

the US uses up 20mill. barrels per day. If more efficient
mileage regulations were required for vehicles (and required SUVs to meet the same standards as cars) it would save a million barrels a day.
(btw - the Bush administration actually opposes more efficient mileage regulations, and US automakers dont consider that a high priority - as opposed to luxury options)

(More efficient standards would more than offset any oil taken out of ANWR which is only estimated to be 6billion barrels)

in 20 years the US will probably use 30mill barrels per day,
and with China hunger for oil growing so rapidly, one wonders where youre going to find more. Youre going to need a lot more ANWRs.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 12:52 AM

We have a van that doesn't get the best gas mileage but we only use it on average once every one or two weeks. On those occasions, we mostly just go within about a 20 mile radius. This probabaly won't change any time in the very near future, because we require the van for when we need to tow our house (last time we did that was around this time last year, but we expect to need to do it again at least once more before we settle into somewhat more permanent housing). But eventually we will probably get a vehicle that has some of the new, less petroleum-dependent technology.

Our current living situation, I have discovered, is making an environmental footprint that is only slightly larger than the average for the rest of the world, and waaaaayyyy below the average for people in the US. We hope to continue to improve our impact in that respect.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 12:11 AM

I drive a four cylinder standard and spend about $35 dollars a month on gas. How's that, Doug? Not bad, huh? And my electric bills are an average of $50 a month. Not bad, huh?

What do you drive, Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 29 Nov 04 - 12:08 AM

brucie: right. I assume from now on you will be walking instead of driving, right? Carol C. would probably be more than happy to join you, but JTS would likely keep an eye on you I expect.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 11:18 PM

Some people are not at all concerned about the world that gets left to future generations. That's too bad, really. Fossil fuels are getting low, but we've always know they wouldn't be here forever. This is not about politics, per se; it IS about survival twenty years in the future. If you expect to have died before then, than maybe it need not concern you. I expect to be dead ten years into the future. However, I had hoped my children and those of other people could continue on with something resembling a decent quality of life. My political views have little to do with this. My personal views have everything to do with this. My human views.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 01:07 PM

You two dinosaurs seem to not realize that typing into a computer creates no more hot air than any other activity in which one sits relatively still for any length of time, like, for instance, watching FoxNews on TV.

Message to dinosaurs... evolve or face extinction.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 28 Nov 04 - 12:54 PM

If you liberals are so concerned about Global Warming, why don't you stop emitting all that hot air? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 08:14 PM

See also A Foreboding Thaw from the Times editorial section.


A

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,pitythefoo's
Date: 27 Nov 04 - 07:40 PM

I think you're all ignoring one of the most significant sources of dangerous emissions. The level of potentially lethal hot air escaping out of your collective pieholes is enough to make us all go the way of the saber tooth. I'd be interested to see the round of pre-"Y2K" posts attributed to this esteemed panel of experts.
Fair thee well, chicken littles.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 04:04 PM

True, Frank, but it does seem that scientists dance to the tune of the people who issue their pay cheques. Not meant to be offensive; meant to be an observation.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 04:01 PM

There are very few if any qualified scientists on this thread to offer a valuable opinion. There are many who have warned us.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 03:38 PM

One thing that I do not understand about emission control is why the emphasis is on automobile emission and not jet fuel emission. It seems that jets, trucks and busses are at least partially to blame. Is this being ignored because of the profits involved?

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 03:31 PM

global warming being denied by those ideologoically opposed to accepting it is occurring (Freda)
global warming denial (Mooman)

Sorry, Freda and Richard, I do not understand this particular argumentation here at all. There is no one in this thread (I know I repeat this, but I get the impression that repetition is here necessary) who has denied global warming is observed for some time now. Since you both can read I suspect you do not mean what I read you to say.

Do you mean the fact or do you mean the interpretation which causes the fact? If you mean the fact there is no use insisting upon what is undisputed. If you mean the interpretation I strongly object to the word 'denial'. Denial is used for someone denying something she knows to be true. This is not the case here. You should know that there is an open scientific debate about the causes (or at the very least about the relative importance of the various causes). The word 'denial'/'deny' in a scientific debate should be used with more care. 'Denial' is a term from a political debate and I did not understand you as wanting to contribute from a political point of view.

A debate can never be ended by strong words like denial. And this debate is still open as everyone knows who reads about it. I share your worries that the human influence could be larger than a few percent and I'd act (as a politician) as if the worries were true for the one error (acting without need) is much less fatal than the other (not acting though there is need) and doing our bit to reduce human made 'exhausts' cannot be really bad, for a couple of other reasons too. But I'll do everything I can to keep a debate open when there is still dissent. We can only learn from that and we should be open to errors in our position.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 09:37 AM

Yes, he really did. Tuesday, September 14, 2004.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 02:08 AM

One question, DougR -

How does Bush plan on getting that oil from the Alaskan wilderness to your home?

Oh, thats right! He doesn't make plans. Oops!!!

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 10:52 PM

Did he really say that? Ah, man, this is grim.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 10:07 PM

It's not just the profits, it's the tribalism. If Rush Limbaugh told them their sphincters had taste buds, they'd be sitting on lollipops.

Actual quote from Limbaugh:

"C'mon folks, think about it...If the ice caps were melting, the world's oceans would be getting cooler."

Wadda Maroon.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 03:00 PM

They just hate to see all those potential profits sitting there under the ground instead of in their pockets.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 01:38 PM

DougR says "All that oil just lying there that can be used to fuel our cars and our homes!"

For 180 days DougR, 180 days.

And who says 180 days?

Those far left environmentalist wackos at the US Department of the Interior*

*USFWS (2002), "Arctic National Wildlife, Refuge Report on the Potential Impacts of Proposed Oil and Gas Development on the Arctic Refuge's Coastal Plain: Historical Overview and Issues of Concern"

Then again, 180 days of oil does solve the whole problem 'cause the Bush supporters don't have memories that long.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 03:16 AM

The main threat to our planet will come when oil stocks deplete. When we have to burn wood and coal for heat, then we shall see polution such as seldom before in our planet's history. THEN, we will have serious issues that make global warming in a hundred years seem like issues we'll have time to solve. Right now, it's our almost complete and total dependency on fossil fuels that is scary. It's a dependency we have that will have to be reversed or seriously curtailed, because the planet cannot take it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 03:02 AM

---And thread "creep" is a perfect description, since you want to throw your own twisted insults around.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 02:59 AM

Now read above--this is an example of what should NEVER be in a position to either influence economy or environment. The tragedy is that such as this already ARE in powerful positions. However, since they don't much care about Iraqi kids, they are unlikely to worry over much about ours.....

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 01:54 PM

Good news today from CNN! Bush is going to drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness! All that oil just lying there that can be used to fuel our cars and our homes! Looks like he may be able to pull it off this time. Thread creep, I know, but I'm sure you wacko far left environmentalists would want to know this if you haven't heard.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 12:29 PM

Larry K, you old hippie you.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 12:23 PM

Yes, The Right loves to say "what's the big deal about a 5 degree rise in temperature?". They are, of course being deliberately obtuse, and insisting upon fiddling while Rome burns. Global average temperature increase in the world's shallow oceans of less than 5 degrees has led to the death of 70% of the world's coral in the last decade. The right wing coal miners say "big deal, it's just one dead canary".

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Stu
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 12:20 PM

Moonman - it is not an expression of denial over global warming, but just how much man's activities are causing it. In the case of global warming, my opinion is there is an impact from pollution and the relaease of greenhouse gasses, but the temperature is probably rising as we are on the upward curve of a warming-cooling cycle.

The real problems arise when you take into account deforestation, the overfishing and pollution of our seas etc. We are currently in the middle of what may turn out to be the largest mass extinction in the planet's history, and when you look at the P-T extinction, that is grim indeed. And there is no doubt about who is causing that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 11:11 AM

Like I said, it isn't just global warming that is the problem. It is the ozone depletion, climate change, sea level changes, agricultural ecosystem changes, pollution, etc. that comes along with the increased levels of greenhouse gases.

I can't even believe people are still debating whether or not these pollution issues are a bad thing or benign.

Our technology has saved us from ourselves and our idiocy so far, but we are most definitely running out of time and quick technological fixes to problems that result from global warming AND ozone depletion AND pollution.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 10:43 AM

They keep telling me that global warming is coming and if we don't do something it will be 5 degrees warmer in 50 years.   I live in Michigan and it is very cold here.    I can't wait 50 years.   Why can't that global warming come now.    Every time I look at my winter heating bills I keep thinking "if only we could have global warming now".   (Fortunately, I have a geothermal heating and cooling systems so my bills are very low)

Maybe I should go rent the movie "the day after"

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: mooman
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 10:18 AM

Sorry...end of post and link lost above...

I'm getting more and more brassed off by the global warming denial expressed by some here over recent years.

Here is a definitive report from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment organization published last Monday.

I'm afraid it's 146 pages of rather depressing reading...

Expecting the usual Pavlov's 'Catters to come along shortly and rubbish it.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: mooman
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM

I'm getting more and more brassed off by the global warming denial expressed by some here over recent years.

Here is a definitive report from the

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Stu
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 05:15 AM

There is a grain of truth in bb.s assertion that global warming is a natural phenomenon. As for returning to a 'normal' temperature, there is no such thing, as temperature variation is cyclic and doesn't really ever settle for any length of time.

There is some evidence we are in an interglacial, and the geological record is full of evidence that the earth has been much warmer, without permanent ice caps many times before (during the Mesozioc for instance). Check here for a brief discussion on the effects of interglacials and temperature variations between the ice ages.

There is no doubt in my mind that anthropogenic activities have exacerbated the process, but in geological terms this will not be noticed by geologists 10,000 years from now, who will see rapid warming but nothing that they would not expect.

All that said, Bush's attitude to the Kyoto protocol and the US public's deep desire to use the earth's resources as fast as possible and sod everyone else is not going to make life easier for anyone, including themselves in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 10 Nov 04 - 03:27 AM

Observe B.Bruce---the previous post. Now THERE is your political "spin". How you come to assert that I used it in my post I don't know. Unless it was the mention of the fact that Dixie Lee Ray was a right wing politician? Well , that is a fact, and no "spin" is involved. The term , in any case is similar to "political correctness"---it has been too often used in attempts to belittle opposing opinions. [ not that I accuse yourself in this instance!]
You are correct in restating on my behalf, though, my detestation of the Bush administration.
Peace----

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 09:53 PM

Sea level rise is by far NOT the biggest threat from global warming. How about loss of thermohaline circulation in the oceans? The geographic shifts in zones hospitable to agriculture and even habitation will be enormous. Imagine entire countries in Northern Europe either starving or moving south. The global upheaval will be unimaginable. The Pentagon is actually planning for such a cataclysm.

Five years ago, despite nearly unanimous scientific consensus, The Right claimed that global warming was a myth. Interestingly, they now admit that it is in fact real, but deny human involvement. The proof of human involvement (with deforestation and consequent loss of monstrous carbon sinks/reservoirs rivalling greenhouse gas emissions) is rapidly mounting and unanimity is again on the horizon, and The Right is again clinging vainly to tiny shreds of dissent.

Thoise who state that it is simply a natural cycle, and that life will go on are quite correct. Life on earth has survived many such cataclysms over the millenia. Life has even survived massive extinctions brought on by life forms themselves (witness the PreCambrian poisoning of anaerobic life due to their production of the modern oxygen atmosphere). After each cataclysm, life did indeed survive, even flourish. But, the array of life forms was often vastly different.

I have no fear at all that the planet and many life forms will survive global warming. But will my grandchildren? Are you willing to risk it? Is short-term economic hardship worse than possible condemnation of our descendants?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 09:42 PM

all the money spent in political arguing should be used to help those who will be most affected by the warming.

Should, but won't. There's no need for political argument about this, any more than there is about whether cigarettes cause cancer. But as in that case, there are people with vested interests in pretending the case is still wide open. And that most signifcantly includes the people in power in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 09:36 PM

Sorry, Carol- crossposted...

The location of all the alternate command posts and government shelters has been in the open press for better than 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 09:33 PM

Which is what I said- all the money spent in political argueing should be used to help those who will be most affected by the warming.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 09:31 PM

That's true, beardedbruce. I know about the under-mountain bunker in Drainsville, VA (my dad worked there for a while), and I've been past the one further north, I think in Loudon County VA (can't remember the name).

I bet all those beautiful old row houses in Georgetown and Old Town Alexandria will go under though.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 09:11 PM

Don't worry. It'll be poor people in other parts of the world who will really be hit before the USA has any serious problems.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 09:03 PM

WHich bunker doe you mean? None of them are very secret...

And I think 4 inches might not even get up to the Mall... Certainly not Capitol Hill.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 08:58 PM

Well, the good news is that Washington DC is also at sea level. The bad news is that the secret bunker under the mountain where the shadow government hides out is quite a bit above sea level.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 08:09 PM

Boab

Never heard of either one...


But I do have a college education, and a few decades of work experience. Sorry if I don't agree with your political conclusions.

And I certainly do not deny that global warming is taking place- READ MY POSTS!

I just don't think you can put the political spin on it that you are obviously trying to do. If a nearby star goes nova, I expect a number of people here to blame it on the Bush administration...

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 05:45 PM

well before florida and other parts of the south are underwater,
expect a lot more hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts and floods. The last couple years are probably only a small indication of whats to come.

recently an Inuit village in the north, came across an insect theyve never seen before and do not even have a word for in their language. It turns out it was a wasp. and it was a lot farther north than its ever been. The polar bears wait longer and longer each year for the ice to form so they can start hunting. The permafrost will melt,
(less snow and ice in the north will also reflect less sunlight into space and further increase global warming)

there is nothing wrong with the greenhouse effect, in fact thats what keeps us alive, it the runaway warming that is a threat.

Although GW BUsh finally admitted global warming is a fact, the Pentagon already published a paper last year on the same topic, and how to use military means to control diminishing resources.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 05:43 PM

It's supposed to be a very cold winter.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 05:35 PM

b.b.--by the tone of your postings, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you'd heard, or even read, Mona Sharon or Dr Dixie Lee Ray. Mona Sharon was a rabidly right wing columnist, and Dr D.L.R. claimed to be a scientist , and was also a right wing politician. Where they both are nowadays I don't know. Somewhere they can remain harmless I hope. Mona Sharon, like yourself, waved the "volcano factor" at everybody. The "scientist" Dixie Lee Ray, went so far as to deny the existence of acid rain! I do not deny the effects of volcanic activity. And, moreover, I am aware of the production of methane gas and co2 from the very fact of living and breathing as an animal. The methane emissions from cattle are enormous. But volcanic action, living and breathing --and eating--are essential parts of the continuation of life on this Planet; the profligate use of fossil fuels, the escalating masses of military vehicles [planes included], the over-consideration for those of us who drive gas-driven vehicles, and the constant barrage of t.v. advertising for gas-guzzlers which are seemingly being manufactured for blithering idiots who don't even drive on a highway ---none of these are essential, and indeed are having an obvious and accelerating effect on our world. We must recognise the difference between necessity and frivolity; otherwise, I dread what lies in the future for my Great-grandchildren---and I do have some.