Join Early Retirement Today
View Poll Results: Global Warming is
Real, it is caused by humans, and we should try to do something about it 59 50.43%
Real, it is not caused by humans, and we should try to do something about it 7 5.98%
Real, it is caused by humans, and we should not try to do anything about it 6 5.13%
Real, it is not caused by humans, and we should not try to do anything about it 24 20.51%
Not real, and we should try to do something about it just in case 5 4.27%
Not real, and we should not try to do anything about it 16 13.68%
Voters: 117. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-18-2007, 04:32 PM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post

If I'd added "but I'm not sure" or "minor contribution" variations to the options, there would have been a lot of poll choices.
No offense Al, but what good is a poll that leaves out the choice that appears to reflect the 'correct' answer ('correct' meaning it is what the IPCC is stating)?

I mean, I assume that the people who accept that Global Warming is real are partially influenced by the work and publications of the IPCC. So, if one puts stock their reports, then why not also put stock in what they are saying about it? And the IPCC is saying what kcowan said: 'Real, has a minor contribution from civilization, and is unlikely to respond in any meaningful way to CO2 limitation schemes.'.

As far as I can determine, the IPCC is not saying (at least the majority of the members) any of the other choices. So, the poll might be interesting to see what people *think*, but I really believe that the IPCC view needs to be one of the choices. Without it, there just is no perspective. It's like asking what kind of wine would you like with your meal, Mac or PC? I want CABERNET!

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-18-2007, 05:45 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
And the IPCC is saying what kcowan said: 'Real, has a minor contribution from civilization, and is unlikely to respond in any meaningful way to CO2 limitation schemes.'.

Odd, because the IPCC says:
  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
  • Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
  • Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.
  • The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
So it seems the IPCC is saying that global warming is real, that it's is primarily caused by people, that taking action would be beneficial, and that its not a natural phenomenon.

In each of these areas, the IPCC states that agreement is high and evidence is substantial to support these claims.
__________________

__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2007, 07:30 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,071
Re: Global Warming (my rant)

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...
--John Donne

It seems to me that there is much more going on with global warming than just an argument about who, what, or how it is caused. This global warming part seems to me to be a surface argument. Underneath is a far more important problem, with lots of direct evidence of its existence.

Global warming may or may not be caused by too much CO2 in the atmosphere. The final verdict may not be in, the final evidence of a world gone toxic isnít here yet. But one thing we all know is that the world population is still growing and that more and more pollution (especially the industrial sort) is entering the atmosphere every day. Combine a rising population with increasing toxic waste and I personally donít see how the air can get better, how our blue marble can maintain its colors and its vibrancy over time. By example, all of us have read about the toxic waste flowing down Chinaís rivers, getting more toxic as it passes by each city; we also all know that a number of Chinese towns in northern China have a majority of people and children laid to waste by toxic lead and heavy metal poisoning from factory discharges and burning of low grade coal. We also know that these toxic streams of wastes enter our shared oceans and our shared atmosphere and sooner or later are visited upon us, even if only by the shrimp from Thailand raised in off-shore shrimp beds imbued with local waters. They maybe are raised in a neighborhood of toxins and then put into our bodies. And maybe they donít exceed some excessive toxic limit by themselves . . . .

In our own personal lives we take great interest in the neighborhood we live in. And in fact, most of us buy our homes in places that conform to our own standards of comfort and hygiene. Most of us would be offended if the next door neighbor decided he didnít want to be hooked up to the sewage system, wanted to just dig an outhouse hole in the backyard and drain his grey water out near the back of his yard . . . . We, in fact, have numerous laws against such behaviors. We want standards, and we want the neighbors to conform to these community standards too. Like the slowly boiling frog, many donít want to get used to certain types of smells coming from other peopleís yard. We have standards. And we donít want to wake up one morning gagging from various smells and toxins that have slowly entered the environment and now begin to affect our health and our childrenís health. Thankfully, we mostly have good local laws governing such obviously crude and vulgar behaviors.

The G8 climate change agreements are nothing more--or less--than an attempt to have local environmental rules writ large, an agreement of major players on our big blue marble to all treat the environment the same or close to itóto have common rules in our community.

A thousand years ago, even a hundred years ago, such toxic issues didnít matter quite so much. If some environment got poisoned, one could just avoid it until nature cleaned it up the cheap and easy way. Now we have billions of folks all creating a larger portion of toxins in their everyday lives. And we have run out of frontiers and clean environments to run towards. In fact, the purest environments of twenty-five years ago, such as the rain forests of Brazil, are rapidly disappearing; those were the back up safe places, the places where lots of good purification occurred. We have fewer choices now; we are all now living on a mildly cramped Blue Marble. And we all spew too many toxins.

Global warming is just one facet of a much larger issue of environmental toxins as I see things. Focusing just on global warming as separate from other toxin issues slightly warps reality as far as Iím concerned, and it reduces the nature of the chemistry of mixed environmental poisons . Toxins in the air can and do hurt us; toxins in food can and do hurt us, etc, etc; and when you start mixing all these toxins together in the soup called ĎĒusĒ you may end up with a set of unidentifiable causes and effects, maybe some cancer here or some drought there or some extra irritability from just smelling some minor stink all day, thoughts and emotions gone awry from some plastic-like off-gassing. And one may give up or ignore the entire mess and just enjoy the frog-like warmness of it all. Better if things donít go that faróto my mind.
__________________
Compounding: Never forget! Never not remember!
greg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2007, 07:45 PM   #24
Dryer sheet aficionado
Rick S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 45
Greg... that is SO well said.

Who could argue with that?
__________________
This life is a test... it is only a test. Had it been a real life, we would have been given further instructions on where to go and what to do.
Rick S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2007, 08:39 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post

Odd, because the IPCC says:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

<the rest are repeated below>

So it seems the IPCC is saying that global warming is real, that it's is primarily caused by people, that taking action would be beneficial, and that its not a natural phenomenon.

In each of these areas, the IPCC states that agreement is high and evidence is substantial to support these claims.
It's not odd, actually. I don't see much (if any) conflict between those IPCC statements and 'Real, has a minor contribution from civilization, and is unlikely to respond in any meaningful way to CO2 limitation schemes.' (after all, that proposed poll statement is based on statements *from* the IPCC). Obviously, it's a bit tough to get all that info and nuance into a one liner for a poll, so sure, there's some gaps in interpretation that can be expanded on.

So let's take 'em one at a time:

*Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. - Full agreement there, GW is real.

*Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.


OK, the apparent difference here is the time frame. Global warming since the mid 20th century is about 6/10s of a degree C. Global warming since the last Ice Age is more like 8 degrees C. So what about the 7.4 C rise? I think it is fair to say that 0.6 is 'minor' relative to 8, it is less than 10%. So even if man is responsible for *all* the temperature change since 1950, it is still *minor* compared to what Mother Nature herself has contributed.

*Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.

Again, no conflict. This is exactly what I've been saying. From the info I've taken from the IPCC reports, yes we will see continued change. Now, what do they mean by 'varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.' ? Well, the IPCC numbers I've referenced before:

Quote:
# Scenario A1T - * A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.
* Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)


# Scenario A1FI - * A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels.
* Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)
So, by 'varies greatly', they mean to say (using numbers from the middle of their range) that we will get a 16.5" flood under the fossil fuel economy, and a 13" flood with a non-fossil fuel economy. Note that their estimates are so wide, that there is a more than 50% overlap in the two scenarios. Which is to say, this ain't no exact science. So either way, we need to take some probably extreme measures to adapt to the flooding. How much more to adapt to 13" vs 16.5"? I don't know, but it is going to take a significant amout of adaptation to either scenario. At least it is not the 20 FEET that Al Gore likes to dramatize in his slideshow.

* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

Again, no conflict. I never said man had no role in it (just a minor one, overall). In fact, turn that around and they themselves are saying that there *is* as much as a 5% chance that the climate change *is* due solely to natural processes. I tend to think man has had an impact, I tend to doubt that it is *the* major contribution though (again, think about the ice age - those natural processes are very powerful).

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2007, 09:21 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick S View Post
Greg... that is SO well said.

Who could argue with that?

Reporting for duty, sir!

Ok, what I won't argue with is Greg's passion. I totally agree that it is important to protect our natural resources, to conserve and not poison our environment, and I admire people that are willing to take positive action in those areas.

But..... passion can be misguided. If you passionately pursue an activity that ends up doing more harm than good (the law of unintended consequences), is that a good thing? We need to understand and prioritize.

a few points:

Quote:
there is much more going on with global warming than just an argument about who, what, or how it is caused.
But if we don't get some understanding on the who, what, and why we can't be expected to solve (or adapt) to the problems that it can cause.


Quote:
Combine a rising population with increasing toxic waste and I personally don’t see how the air can get better,
Greg, have you checked the air figures for major cities in the US in the past 50 years? It *has* gotten better, despite increased population. Mainly due to legislation and technology - catalytic converters and computerized engine controls and engines that can handle no-lead gasoline.

Quote:
By example, all of us have read about the toxic waste flowing down China’s rivers, getting more toxic as it passes by each city; we also all know that a number of Chinese towns in northern China have a majority of people and children laid to waste by toxic lead and heavy metal poisoning from factory discharges and burning of low grade coal.
True. Interesting that China signed the Kyoto Accord (because it exempts them), yet the US is criticized for not signing it (remember that Al Gore had his chance). Yet, our air is getting cleaner, and theirs dirtier?

Quote:
even a hundred years ago, such toxic issues didn’t matter quite so much. If some environment got poisoned, one could just avoid it until nature cleaned it up the cheap and easy way.
A little history lesson might put that in perspective. I'm reading 'Devil in the White City' - they describe Chicago in 1893. Cholera, diphtheria outbreaks from sewage in the drinking water ( as much as 10 to 15% of the population of the city DIED from one outbreak!); garbage, manure and dead horses rotting in the streets. Fumes from coal burning factories and homes visibly hanging in the air and making it hard to breath. And at a fraction of the current population!

That is not to say we don't have serious problems today, but let's not view the past in rosy-colored revisionist-history glasses. Things are *so much* better today!

And yes, I do think that we need to look at Global Warming and pollution as separate (but often inter-twined) issues. I'll throw this one out again: We can sequester the CO2 from coal plants, but... the coal plant will use 30% more coal. Hmmm, we aren't quite sure how much that reduction of CO2 will mitigate global warming, but we do know that 30% more coal mining means more destruction of forests, more run-off, more loss of habitat, etc. I think it's important to understand which of those is the 'right' thing to do. That is not the same as doing nothing.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2007, 10:00 PM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wildcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lou-evil
Posts: 2,025
ERD50 -

Are you by any chance Dick Cheney?
__________________
"These walls are kind of funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them"
wildcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2007, 10:26 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
ERD50 -

Are you by any chance Dick Cheney?
Why, you want to go hunting?


I posted that the air in US cities is cleaner, but I was just going by memory. The actual numbers are pretty amazing:

Air pollution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
In the 1960s, 70s, and 90s, the United States Congress enacted a series of Clean Air Acts which significantly strengthened regulation of air pollution. Individual U.S. states, some European nations and eventually the European Union followed these initiatives. ....


The effects of these laws have been very positive. In the United States between 1970 and 2006, citizens enjoyed the following reductions in annual pollution emissions:
  • carbon monoxide emissions fell from 197 million tons to 89 million tons
  • nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons
  • sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million tons
  • particulate emissions fell by 80%
  • lead emissions fell by more than 98%
source: Air Quality and Emissions Ė Progress Continues in 2006 | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | US EPA
Yeah, I really long for the 'good old days' - not.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 07:16 AM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,071
ERD50:

Busy day for me, and as always usually the real world takes precedence over e-world. I'll think about what you said and respond either tomorrow or the day after. Your arguments are not that different from mine because you basically agree that there are connections.

A teaser:

You said:
But..... passion can be misguided. If you passionately pursue an activity that ends up doing more harm than good (the law of unintended consequences), is that a good thing? We need to understand and prioritize.

I think I understand what you are saying here? You're looking at things as forms of extremism, that one human--or group of humans--can undershoot the mark or overshoot the mark, that, perhaps, one side of the issue goes too far one way (Al Gore) in his perceptions of world pollution and subsequent solutions; and another group sees/imagines fewer, if any, real problems regarding pollution and/or global warming, that engagement with the G8 is a waste of time and effort (you know of whom I speak).

These appear to be the two epicenters around which all the global warming forces are gathered for the coming epic battle for planet Earth or until Al Gore and the Democrats are elected over the next 20 years.

I think we each understand both sides mostly*, so an e-solution between and among us should be easy after we work together prioritizing what is important. And we both are probably willing to change if the evidence changes or if the arguments appear worthy of consideration?

*You have an excellent handle on some of the facts and evidence, much better than mine.
__________________
Compounding: Never forget! Never not remember!
greg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 10:24 AM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
It's not odd, actually. I don't see much (if any) conflict between those IPCC statements and 'Real, has a minor contribution from civilization, and is unlikely to respond in any meaningful way to CO2 limitation schemes.'

Uh...except that thats not what they say.

They say, and quite succinctly...or in 5000 pages if you like, that there is global warming, it is primarily caused by people, and that there are ways to meaningfully respond, both in short and long term strategies.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 10:47 AM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
Uh...except that thats not what they say.

They say, and quite succinctly...or in 5000 pages if you like, that there is global warming, it is primarily caused by people, and that there are ways to meaningfully respond, both in short and long term strategies.
If it is cause by people can we work on reducing their numbers along with CO2?

How about some ideas to reduce the current population and slow population growth?
How about these ideas:
1. Death with dignity - allow the terminally ill and others who choose to die with dignity.
2. Promote birth control
3. Incentavise people to have fewer or no children (currently most countries give tax deductions for children)
4. Penalize countries that have high growth rates (maybe higher interest rates on debt)

Regardless of the global warming debate reducing the population will do the most for the enviorment and reducing suffering around the world.

I think we feel comfortable to discuss CO2 but we need to discuss and come up with solutions for the item that makes us uncomfortable i.e. population growth.
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 10:50 AM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeBird View Post
A perfect example of this hysteria at work is one fellow who is a very obvious "save the planet" type person (which I have no problem with since I also like drinking clean water and breathing clean air) but about a month ago he gave me a hard time and short lecture about me using Styrofoam cups.

I quickly engaged and reminded him that I live only 3 miles from work and he drives 30 miles (one way) each day. I also reminded him of recently flying his entire family to Oklahoma one weekend for a wedding and did he realize how many pounds of jet fuel per hour and per person that it takes to keep that big bird in the sky? After this comparison of carbon footprints he hasn't discussed "solutions" with me since and I continue to enjoy my guilt-free one Styrofoam cup of coffee every morning. By the way, he just flew his family to Israel for two weeks.
That's the hypocrisy of many save-the earth types. They want the benefits of modern society but they want YOU to change.

As an aside, I don't believe that everyone realises the magnitude of the proposed cutbacks. If a 50 % cutback is to be achieved then if we cutback all of the transportation to zero (stop all cars, airplanes trucks etc.) then we still have 20% to go. Perhaps if we eliminated all air conditioning (everywhere) and computer use we would get somewhat close to the proposed targets.

The proposed cuts will never be enacted in my opinion. People talk a good game but won't change when the impact is closer to home.

That's the hypocrisy of many save-the earth types.
__________________
MasterBlaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 11:12 AM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
Uh...except that thats not what they say.

They say, and quite succinctly...or in 5000 pages if you like, that there is global warming, it is primarily caused by people, and that there are ways to meaningfully respond, both in short and long term strategies.

Show me (succinctly) what you mean by 'ways to meaningfully respond' in the short term. I gave the IPCC numbers several times - 100 year scenario; 8 to 18 inches flooding with action, 10 to 23 inches w/o action.

Maybe you want to call that 'meaningful response', but I don't see where it changes much at all. There is so much overlap in those estimates that we need to plan for a 'bad case' scenario no matter what. Maybe, maybe we avoid 'worst case' for a few years. But how meaningful is that really?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 11:27 AM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
ERD50:
I'll think about what you said and respond either tomorrow or the day after.
Thanks Greg, I look forward to your responses.

In the mean time, this might help keep the discussion focused:

Quote:
I think I understand what you are saying here?
Maybe not exactly. I'm trying to ignore the extremists, and focus on the content of those IPCC reports. The IPCC may carry their own bias, I don't know, but I think it is the best we have, and the most often cited by the non-extremists. Assuming their info is the best we have - what should we do?

My frustrations/observations:

I don't think people are really getting the message that is in those IPCC reports. I think the common (but wrong) message out there is:

Quote:
NOTE - My view of the 'wrong' message - don't misquote me!

Terrible things are going to happen (20 FOOT floods), and we can avoid all this if we just lower our carbon footprint (drive a hybrid, use CFLs, plant a tree, promote bio-fuels, use solar, wind , etc). We have to save the planet - you owe it to your grandchildren - do something!

<end of 'wrong' message>
.
But, (and correct me if I am misinterpreting the data in the IPCC report, but I don't think so) the above is *not* what the IPCC is saying. The IPCC seems to be saying something more like this:

Quote:
NOTE: My view of what the IPCC *is* saying:

Terrible things are going to happen. It's complex, and we can't predict with any kind of accuracy, but at this point in time our calculations say that over the next 100 years, without action, we will experience 10 to 23 INCH floods, and if we take extreme measures to lower our carbon footprint, terrible things will still happen, 8 to 18 inch floods.
Note the overlap in those estimates. 8-18 inches with action, 10 to 23 inches w/o action. So we could experience 15 inches of flooding and be well within the bounds of *either* scenario! We may not even know if we were right even after the fact! When you can take two paths of action, and are still likely (~ 50%) to end up with similar results, that should influence the decision making process. So we are going to get 8-18 inches under the best case - and what are we doing: rebuilding New Orleans??!! Hey, I love NO, but does it make sense to rebuild in light of this information??!!

Or, as was put in another post, all that action may only delay the flooding by a few years. We would still need to deal with it.

If the IPCC really was saying that lowering our carbon footprint could avoid (or even greatly reduce) the impacts, I'd be waving the flag high and wide for carbon reduction. But, in light of what they say, I think we need to be weighing the situation very carefully.

The consequences of this distorted message:

A) Putting a lot of effort into carbon reduction will likely mean taking money *away* from preparing for the flooding that they say we will get in either case.

B) Some attempts at reducing carbon emissions will adversely affect the environment in other ways - choose wisely.

C) If we take measures to reduce carbon, people will think that we are 'solving' the problem, and won't focus on the necessary plans to prepare for the expected flooding for either scenario.

D) Since the message is being warped, people will once again claim the scientists got it wrong, when it was actually the media and some public figures that misrepresented the data. Of course, the scientists *might* have it wrong too...

So, yes, I think we *should* be doing *something* - but what? Fortunately, we have some time (really), this flood isn't coming tomorrow, next week, or next year. I think we will learn a lot more in the next five to ten years, and that can help us to focus our plans, Right now, we should be investigating plans to lower our carbon footprint and understand the pros/cons, conserve, and reduce pollution. I'd love to see a 5x reduction in the cost of solar/watt! But most importantly, every coastal city should start putting together a plan for how they are going to deal with a range of flooding over time. If we start planning now, and update that plan as we learn more, we can adapt and at least minimize the disruption that will likely occur under *either* scenario.

This is *not* like Katrina, as Al Gore compares it to. We have many years/decades to get out of those cities if we need to, not a few days.

Sorry, this got longer than I was shooting for, but those are my thoughts. It's not bumper-sticker-simple, it takes a few paragraphs to put a (hopefully) cohesive thought together.

Thanks for listening, -ERD50

PS: My kids got on the mail list for Rolling Stone magazine. I saw the cover this morning and they had articles on GW. All the typical media hype that I feared. Sheryl Crow and Dave Matthews may be fine musicians, but do they really understand what they are talking about when it comes to these complex issues? Have they read the IPCC reports? I doubt it. Yet, they can influence so many young minds. And much of that information may be completely counter-productive.
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 11:38 AM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,359
ERD:

Before you get all hysterical lets look at what we really know and what we don't really know.

What we really know is that the last century has seen an unprecedented (in modern history) warming trend. That's all we really know for sure.

All of the other statistics and predictions are based on long-range computer models. These are somewhat similar to weather prediction models but extend out much further in time. They propose a model for the climate and based on their assumptions predict forward. Maybe the models and their results are close to being accutrate but (as weather models show) they probably are not.

Some people make the observation, that since the weather models really aren't all that great how can the climate models be all that great ? Add in the vested interest that environmental scientists and environmental lobbyists have in getting funded by claiming that the end is near, and some observers (myself included) are really skeptical of these doomsday predictions. After all your climate model staff doesn't get more money and your staff doesn't grow if your models predict that the future will be like the present.
__________________
MasterBlaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 11:44 AM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
They say, and quite succinctly...or in 5000 pages if you like, that there is global warming, it is primarily caused by people....
Just want to make sure of the context of that statement. Yes, the say there is global warming (duh! It was 90F here yesterday, and the exact spot I'm sitting at was under hundreds of feet of ice 14,000 years ago!).

However, the IPCC only associates human action with the warming over the past 50 years. That's about 6/10th of a degree while we have had about 8 degrees warming since the ice age. I don't think we can extrapolate that man was responsible for the other 7.4 C warming. So, man is *not* primarily responsible for the long term warming, Mother Nature is. But we still need to figure out what we are going to do about it, no matter who caused it.

I accept the IPCC on that issue 50 year issue, but one danger in focusing too much on that 50 year cycle on an internet forum is that you open yourself up to every fringe lunatic data-miner who will show 50 year cycles that seem to contradict what the IPCC is saying. And that just distracts from the real meat of the issue.

That is part of the reason that you see so much overlap in their numbers w/wo action. Some of the continued rise is probably due to a natural cycle. And some is in the 'that train already left the station' category. Which is interesting and important to understand, but since we can't change the past, it doesn't change the impact we can have going forward.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 12:20 PM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster View Post
ERD:

Before you get all hysterical lets look at what we really know and what we don't really know.
Hysterical! Hysterical!

Long-winded? Boring? Obsessive? Persistent? - OK, but heck, I'm not hysterical.


Quote:
What we really know is that the last century has seen an unprecedented (in modern history) warming trend. That's all we really know for sure.
I'm not sure what to make of that? Isn't that like saying: Wow, this is the most rain we've had since the last time we had this much rain?

I don't have the credentials or the resources to evaluate the accuracy of the IPCC models. But, I can read their reports and try to put the data in perspective. The predictions could be wrong, but what else do we have to work with?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 12:37 PM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
kcowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific latitude 20/49
Posts: 5,718
Send a message via Skype™ to kcowan
Thanks ERD

I appreciate your balanced approach. I think the height of the dikes in NO is probably the most practical discussion for the present. Add a Cat 5 and see what is needed. As each season passes without another Katrina, the political will erodes. But if we don't have the will to do something about NO, then all we are doing is releasing more CO2.
__________________
For the fun of it...Keith
kcowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 01:19 PM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
I think we should propose a completely different poll:

1. Any issue brought up that looks liberal is not true
2. I said it couldnt be true and then a crushing weight of people who actually know what they're talking about proveed that it was, but i'm going to try to save face and stick with my line.
3. I have a huge hairball around government spending and/or programs and it doesnt matter what the issue is, i'll oppose it.
4. I'd like to be dry, able to breathe the air, sit outside in the sub-100 degree weather once in a while and eat tuna fish more than once a month.
5. I failed 3rd grade reading.
6. I dont like Al Gore
6.1 What was this topic about anyhow?
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2007, 03:29 PM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,155
TAl, I wish you had another option:

"We don't have enough data yet. We should continue to study."
__________________

__________________
Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Warming statistic -- any truth ?? Rick S Other topics 43 06-18-2007 08:46 PM
The Most Intelligent Statement Made on Global Warming (IMO)... gindie Other topics 58 06-16-2007 07:44 PM
Global warming and financial positioning janeeyre FIRE and Money 274 04-18-2007 04:25 PM
global warming real estate investment ideas? winnie Other topics 13 03-15-2007 07:12 PM
A New Global Warming Strategy marty Other topics 3 02-13-2007 08:54 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:12 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.