Global Warming Poll

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster Smaller cars and CFB's and windmills won't change anything.

I didnt realize I was involved with this...I guess I better go put some pants on and get to work.

Thoughtful post Greg...but jeez... even I already gave up on the guy who reads something and translates it into what he wants to hear...

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg A few months back while staring at Fidel Castro on the wall...

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow... John Lennon



Great discussion, btw. Are humans the only creatures who foul their own nest?

Carry on... Stephen Stills

[MasterBlaster]

CFB:

You have turned into quite the overbearing blowhard, nothing good to say.

Again, My point about global warming is that proposed solutions like CFL's and windmills just won't get us there.

Or to put it another way, unless you light up you house like a department store changing all of your lights to CFLs will almost offset that new plasma TV. So where's the offset.

[kcowan]

Then there is this: ]Read the sunspots

Quote:

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments.

They claim to have some really compelling data.

[TromboneAl]

Anyone see the PBS special on Global Dimming?

Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming[14] According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter." to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster CFB: You have turned into quite the overbearing blowhard, nothing good to say.

Well gosh mister blistee...wasnt even talking about you...


But you're in the pack...

[greg]

MasterBlaster said:

CFL bulbs, windmills...

That's the problem. People have not realized the magnitude of the cuts that are being proposed. CFBs and windmills help, yes that's true but they help only in the low single digit percentage of total emitted CO2.

If we are really serious about solving global warming we probably need to eliminate private cars. Cut electricity usage by two thirds. and so on.

The lifestyle implications are profound and far reaching and draconian. And I suspect that almost everyone when confronted with the reality of what some environmental activists are proposing will object to the solution.

Smaller cars and CFB's and windmills won't change anything.

I don't know if I agree with you, and I also see a sort of self-created defeatism in the above comment. It seems to sort of allow you to do nothing and justify it in your mind--maybe.

By analogy: if your son takes up smoking at a young age, you can whine an forbid til you're blue in the face . . . and it's possible no good comes from it. You can say that 'each cigarette does just a little bit of damage, and after a time, after maybe 20-30-40 years and millions of puffs, some black swan will probably visit itself on you. We don't know today what that black swan might be; it might simply be car accident that happens while you reach down to find the coal that fell in your lap. Or it might be cancer, or it might be emphysema or something else.' Who knows? But we do know that it is better not to pollute one's body than it is to pollute it. And that some as yet unknown negative consequence will be more likely. All sane folks know this. At least the ones I hang around with.

It's not that hard from this point to jump to the conclusion that the body Earth faces some toxic stuff brewed up on the surface. There are many different forms of it. Plus, just about every person has this strong desire to NOT do something about it because it seems to impinge on their personal life in some way. Some even think all cars will have to disappear and they'll have to go back to walking everywhere and burning candles instead of electric lights. Lots inferences/conclusions right and wrong can be drawn from global warming and the arguments extended out from the facts. (I guess that's where most politics come from: an organized but limited perspective on whatever issue is being examined; because if we knew the entire truth and all the consequences of all actions, we wouldn't make no stinkin wrong decisions ever. No one would have to bring their limited thoughts to the table to share and find a real solution.)

Oh, ohhh. There I go again.

Anyway, I don't think its a gigantic either-or situation, either continued technological advancement that requires lots of toxins or we start heading back to the stone age with little torches soaked in whale blubber and flints to light them. We can easily have both high tech advancement and reduced toxins. This means almost all folks can have cars--maybe. And simply finding methods to reduce toxins coming from them increases the likelihood that millions, maybe billions, more can be made. (That little Tata Motors air pressure car impressed me very much, 120 mpg on air pressured up by a little electricity, perhaps with electricity made from a single $50 solar panel--at some point in the future. This might happen within the next few years. I see it as within the grasp of Indian entrepreneurs in the near future. And I see it as creating a far better world soon. But Chevys are OK too--for a little while.

[wildcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny I didnt realize I was involved with this...I guess I better go put some pants on and get to work. Thoughtful post Greg...but jeez... even I already gave up on the guy who reads something and translates it into what he wants to hear...

OMG, are telling us you post in the nude?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg ERD: I’m back ..... .

Greg, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

The agreement:

I think it's fair to say (and I'll use a cliche' to try to keep this short) that we BOTH feel it is our duty to try to leave the earth a better place than the one we entered. (harps gently sounding in the background).

I think any disagreement is over what actions can be taken to actually achieve that goal.

Health Analogy: I agree that in health matters, a little (exercise & diet) can go a long way. But with the GW issue, it looks like the IPCC is telling us that a lot of change (getting totally off fossil fuels) goes only a little way (from 16.5" flood to 13" flood, or only postpones this flooding by a few years). About 80% of the problem remains after these actions. I said before, if I thought a little (or even moderate ) amount of change could result in considerable improvement, I'd be preaching obsessively in favor of those changes.

Quote:

We have a serious global warming problem—or so the vast majority of experts say.

Yes, and for the sake of this discussion, I am trying to stick to the IPCC statements and evaluate them. I'm not trying to mix in the alternate views.

Quote:

The easiest argument to make is to just say “Let’s wait until all the evidence is in before we make a decision.”

Yes, easy, but that is not what I am saying. I say, let's take the IPCC report as it stands, and try to figure what we should be doing. And, if getting off fossil fuel leaves us with 80% of the problem, then I say that getting off fossil fuel is *not* a 'solution' by itself. For one, we better be planning for 13" to 16.5" of flooding, because it looks like we are going to get that no matter what we do. And if focusing on reducing fossil fuel usage detracts from planning for flooding, or draws people into complacency (whew - we solved that problem!) that is a mistake. It may not need to be an either/or thing - but we do need to evaluate and prioritize, as best we can.

CFLs and coal - MB is right, you (and him) are overstating the benefits. Going from a 60W bulb to a 14W CFL in some home lighting is good (I'm doing some of it myself), but that is going to be a minor % of total power. Found some data:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/lighting/chap2.html Residential lighting thus represents three percent of total U.S. sales of electricity to all sectors.

So, best case - every bulb in every household changed: 14W/60W * 3% is less than 0.7% of total electrical consumption. That even overstates it - 13% of residential lighting is already regular florescent (same source), which is even more efficient than CFL. So, CFLs are fine, but a drop in the bucket.

I don't see this as 'defeatist', I see it as realistic. It takes more than good intentions to resolve problems.

I am all for alternate energy sources. It may or may not help GW much, but I'd like to reduce the environmental impact of collecting and burning fossil fuels. Price fossil fuels to represent their true cost and then let the market figure out which alternate energy sources make sense. Capitalism would jump to the challenge of providing an alternative to $0.50/kWhr electricity (or whatever it would be) like dogs on a bone. But what Congress is going to support $0.50/kWh electricity? In Illinois, there was a big debate and lots of wailing over allowing the rate to increase from the $0.08 freeze up to $0.10.

-ERD50


PS - I sure hope your computer monitor is an LCD, not an old CRT power hog!

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 NOTE - this is wrong: So, best case - every bulb in every household changed: 14W/60W * 3% is less than 0.7% of total electrical consumption.

Whoops! Math error - I should have multiplied times the savings, and the dang edit button timed out...

60-14 = 46. So 46/60ths SAVED - .767. Multiply that times the 3% usage and you get a potential 2.3% reduction in electrical energy consumption. That's better, but I think we need to shoot higher than that to make meaningful change. Small changes are nice, but again, that might lead people into complacency. We need BIG changes, or BIG sources of alternate energy - probably some of both.

-ERD50

[greg]

ERD50:

And I'll stick with my human body/health analogy not only because it can be used as a powerful explanation tool but also because organic analogies may very well be closer to the truth--maybe. Also, as you've already noticed, I don't like to go down to the statistical/evidentiary level. As we both know either of us could cherry pick evidence (even from the same report) til the cows come home. But you could probably do that better than me (unless CFB helped me).

Back to the analogy: I suspect it's very rare for a person to die from one single event and or cause (discounting war and such and accidents) as related to disease. I suspect that mostly, especially older folks, die from a set of complications: One may have a black swan of cancer enter one's life, and as it progresses it may eat away the liver or attack the heart or some such thing as that. A series of cascading events precipitates death oftentimes. So too, I suspect (and I think you agree?), with what is going on with toxins in the environment. Global warming is just one specific identifiable and somewhat measurable ongoing process; it is a single facet of a larger deterioration which is dovetailed into larger, more complex whole.

Now if you believe the above, and I think you may (?), then there are multiple things you can do to fix things. Many small, incremental things that when started and worked on collectively may greatly improve the prognosis of the patient. Same with cancer patients: if you can boost their red blood cell count, keep them feeling positive about outcomes, maybe lessen the radiation treatment or whatever for a couple weeks so that the body and mind can rebalance and recover a bit, then you have a better chance of a decent recovery. These things are all incremental, small decisions, small events, small effects, etc (in this sense a doctor is more artist than scientist at times: he senses/intuits what is needed, listens carefully to the patient, and, hopefully, engineers a masterful recovery--with that natural abilities of the patient too.

Now, to slightly modify my analogy in the middle of the argument: if a excessively obese person walks into the doctors office, should the doctor think to himself "Man-oh-man, this tub-a-lard is so far gone I'm just gunna send him away." This sounds similar--to me anyway--to what you're thinking about global warming: we have so far to go just it get to a mildly reasonable place that it's not worth attempting it. Plus, it will be very painful to me and the rest of the world too. WTF! Am I close?

But the fact is that a good doctor (or a good president; or a good country that other countries respected) might be able turn that patient around. And that might be done by with the patient feeling good the entire time. The fatty boy could maybe get all pumped by the doctor; the fatty boy might start feeling better when he ate less food; the fatty boy might start to exercise AND enjoy it. Might, maybe, could, would, . . . . And the alternative is?

To paraphrase the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld: "NO black swan for you, fatty boy."

In real terms you are a bit of a drama king yourself. That IPPC report may itself be written by marginal drama kings and queens too. All this rectification of global warming doesn't have to take place tomorrow, and it doesn't mean it has to be horribly painful. It can be easily be done incrmentally and slowly. It may very well be enjoyable AND edifying. Ask Nords if he enjoys discussing and putting out solar panels? It's not all about floro bulbs or all about losing one's gas powered car. It's all about making life better and enjoying it more. Using our brains to make life better for everyone. But it might require thinking a bit less about making money or lowering taxes. Poop[, I'm a drama king too.

PS Did you know you are limited to 4 emoticons/posting? WTF?

[greg]

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat OMG, are telling us you post in the nude?

Well...boxers at the time. But I can accommodate ya if theres some compensation involved...

I'm pretty sure california must have some law or other regarding the enaction of energy savings processes while in ones underwear.

Just for clarity, i'm currently wearing shorts.

[wildcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny Well...boxers at the time. But I can accommodate ya if theres some compensation involved... I'm pretty sure california must have some law or other regarding the enaction of energy savings processes while in ones underwear. Just for clarity, i'm currently wearing shorts.

Money whore

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Arent we all? It really just comes down to the price, doesnt it?

By the way, I just shot orange juice out of my nose. Thanks.

At least I know where I can get a pretty cheap new computer to replace this one once the keys start sticking.

[Bigritchie]

Horizon Project.............

[greg]

Howdy ERD50:

I'm not a psychologist but I play one on message boards.

You said earlier:

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.

I haven't read the IPCC report and may not. From what you've said, it mildly offends me that they appear obsessed with future flooding across the coastal regions of America. This doesn't help create a good environment to solve problems. In fact, fear mongering creates an imbalance that inhibits the mind from making cool rational choices and implementing realistic goals--as I see things. By example, I saw (and have experienced) the George Bush fear machine in action. After 9-11 . . . nevermind . . . some poor choices were made.

One can construct a similar psychological situation that has probably actually been done in real life. A fatty guy walks into a doctor's office (no this is not the start of a joke) and the doctor scares the heck out him, telling him he may die soon if he doesn't start losing weight today. The patient leaves the doctor's office in severe distress and then rather than deal with the issue, he runs off for an ice cream sunday so that he has enough energy to plan a full scale eating binge. I think stuff like this really happens. I think doctors are probably trained (somewhat?) to deal with this stuff--the proper psychological shaping of a patient's reaction to a frightening event. Too bad many of our politicians (and some scientists?) aren't capable of this also. They are so frustrated by inaction to their ideas that they pump those ideas up to get a supposed better reaction. That's my guess. And I've done it too: sometimes something is so important to me that I mildly pump it a bit, to put it mildly.

Anyway, I think for the most part folks need to be charmed into doing things. They don't like doing things that they find personally offensive or destructive to their current way of life. A rational, trusted leader, especially in a democracy, is needed to guide folks to the promised land. (As an aside: when GWB said he was "a uniter, not a divider" I perked up a bit and listened to him; but almost immediately after elected the first time, I noticed that the country almost immediately developed fractures and divisions: this told me huge amounts about the man. And it also amuses me now that this phrase has come back and bit him on the a**. Much of the country has now united against him. He has created what he wanted, but differently than he imagined. Poll ratings against him are approaching 80%.) Anyway again, I strongly believe that forcing compelling folks to do things rarely if ever creates good long term results, especially in a democracy. Mostly, folks need to be drawn in with solid, rational ideas and stable emotional support. I know I like things to happen to me this way.

By example, someone made a comment on this thread that maybe we should punish countries that don't stop their populations from growing excessively fast or don't stop polluting--something like that anyway. This stuff rarely works and when it does usually not for very long (again see GWB and the spoils of force and fear). We actually know how to reduce population growth in poor countries: make sure the poor feel fairly secure about their future old age. Poor folks in Africa, for instance, mostly have lots of kids because that's their retirement plan. But as soon as they start making even slightly more than subsistence wages they stop making babies future little retirement plans. In fact, they go out on their own and look for birth control methods. The dominoes all sort of stand up and things start falling in a much better direction. And they actually spend more time thinking about their children as children rather than selfishly, as little IRAs. This is a good thing. Maybe all they need is a few good ideas and a nudge, a turning of minds away from misery and toward small money making enterprises.

Time to conclude: So, to my mind it doesn't help to dwell too significantly on such things as huge barrier walls to prevent Florida from going under water at some point down the road--black swanish fear mongering--even if it may be true. This mostly frightens folks and creates inertia--at best. Better to highlight the smaller incremental positive things that can be done in the near term that will for the most part encourage folks to do positive things step by step. Pointing out and polishing up huge disasters won't help much. Nor will highlighting some crazy sort of soon approaching Apocalypse . Small, positive incremental changes that actually work and provide near term good feed back may be the way to go with this whole global warming mess.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Greg - I'd recommend you read the IPCC report 'summary for policy makers'. I think you'll find its a lot more informative and covers a lot more ground than whats been bandied about here. Further, the summaries of the mitigation and impacts reports are available in a "pre edit" format.

[greg]

Well I read the IPCC summary. Whew! and Holy Moley, Rocky. Also, I have to pretty much fall down on CFB's side of the argument: humans seem to have caused a lot of the problems related to current global warming. And we're the ones who need to fix it . . . starting soon. Thanks CFB

I'm also beginning to understand just how important national leadership is, not paralysis or stonewalling.

I still believe that the first things we should be doing are the easy steps like encouraging/mandating florescent bulbs as replacements for incandescent ones, encouraging solar, wind, and perhaps tidal energy alternatives with various incentives, etc. I also think we need to develop some sort of five and/or ten year plan that sets up some goals and methods of implementation (primarily thru incentives or mandates?). I'd like to see things like coal's future footprint as a portion of electrical usage be discussed publicly with all ramifications both negative and positive. It shouldn't be hidden behind closed doors. As ERD50 said, the IPCC report seems to be a good place to start.

I know the issues transcend Democratic and Republican ideologies, but the solutions can include both perspectives.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Believe it or not, I was trying pretty hard to not have "a side". I was trying to point to the available facts as the actual scientific community has stated them, and attempting to mitigate misinformation regarding those statements.

Everyones entitled to their own opinions, even in the absence of factual support. But they're still just opinions.

So Greg, what was your take on the proposed actions to be taken? Based on what you read, do you feel that its prudent to "wait awhile" or that satisfactory immediate actions werent well formed enough to be actionable?

Whats surprising in looking back at the poll figures is that almost 40% of respondents feel that GW is either not real or not caused by people. I'm curious as to the source of their data sets and whether these can be made available to the scientific community...which has determined that is is real and is caused by people...at a high probability and with much supporting data.