Global Warming Poll

[ERD50]

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:

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[wildcat]

ERD50 -​

Are you by any chance Dick Cheney? ​

 

[ERD50]

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

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 – Progress Continues in 2006 | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | US EPA

Yeah, I really long for the 'good old days' - not.

-ERD50

 

[greg]

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.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

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.

 

[dex]

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.

 

[MasterBlaster]

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.

 

[ERD50]

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]

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:

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:

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:

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.

 

[MasterBlaster]

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.

 

[ERD50]

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]

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.

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

 

[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.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

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?

 

[Sam]

TAl, I wish you had another option:

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

 

[CuppaJoe]

Is this "old timer" day? I remember back in '86 when the office clown was joking that the animal Styro will soon be extinct. Well today, I had my first "to go" lunch in a pressed paper box, that place had Styro last week; it makes no difference to the taste of the food.

Sold my car in January 1980 and funded by Retirement accounts with the amount I would have spent on the car.

 

[ERD50]

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?

Fortunately, my CFB Secret Decoder Ring came in the mail today. Let's see what CFB really means....

Translated:

Well, I have no data to counter the other posters to support my own personal beliefs, so I'll just declare this whole thread invalid and all the posters in it idiots. Weapon of choice: a cluster bomb of straw man, red herring, ad hominem, irrelevant items and a dash of personal insult thrown in for good measure.

Note to self: reserve words like 'boob' and 'h*c*s' for other threads.


With the deluxe model (not consistent with LBYM), you also get the alternative translation:

We were brought out of several Ice Ages by 20,000 cave men simultaneously rubbing sticks together. Without benefit of written word, this technique was lost and had to be rediscovered every 50,000 years or so.

No, really.

C'mon CFB, you can do better than that. Right?

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Someone help me with this one......


I remember in college (I think it was economics) where there was predictions from someone that the earth could only support so many people and that we needed to do something to stop the population growth... it got the name from the guy who said it... it was in the 18th or 19th century and we now have a few billion more people than he said could be supported...

Long term predictions are usually very far off reality... so I don't put that much stock in them....

But, let us reduce energy consumption and clean up the air and water (which can be SEEN as a problem TODAY)... and if this 'helps' the long term models then great..

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

C'mon CFB, you can do better than that. Right?

Oh i'm sorry, was I too verbose again?

Lets keep it to as few a number of words as possible.

We have excellent data on the current matter at hand. It says that we created a problem and we can solve it. I supplied the direct bullet points from the scientific community that says exactly what I just said.

Some people just dont like the answer, or dont like the people asking the questions.

But to be fair, i'm completely willing to accept that you're an idiot, if that is your will. I aim to please.

 

[Nords]

Someone help me with this one......
I remember in college (I think it was economics) where there was predictions from someone that the earth could only support so many people and that we needed to do something to stop the population growth... it got the name from the guy who said it... it was in the 18th or 19th century and we now have a few billion more people than he said could be supported...

Malthus, and Isaac Asimov popularized his scary numbers in the 1970s.

Thomas Malthus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do we do all day indeed.

 

[ERD50]

Some people just dont like the answer, or dont like the people asking the questions.

I love questions, I'm taking the time to post here to learn. One way to learn is to have your own understanding challenged.

We have excellent data on the current matter at hand. It says that we created a problem and we can solve it. I supplied the direct bullet points from the scientific community that says exactly what I just said.

Really, it says that? Where?

Does taking a 100 year sea level rise from the 10-23 inch range to the 8-18 inch range 'solve' the problem? I'd call it roughly a 20% reduction, still almost 80% of the problem remains. Solved? Tell that to the people in the lowlands.

I didn't see any bullet points that said they could solve it. Maybe my reading level is poor, maybe I just missed it, but I would love to see that info.

thanks - ERD50

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'm figuring english isnt your first language, not that theres anything wrong with that. It seems you're going to make incorrect statements, then when those are proven wrong, shift the argument to other irrelevant points.

The IPCC summary for policy makers includes two full sections on short and longer term activities. Two separate studies are currently being run by the IPCC to give specific actionable items and time frames.

One deals with mitigation of emissions, the other deals with how we react to the results of the existing higher temperatures and the implications.

But then, you knew all of that given your extensive knowledge of climatology, right?

Perhaps we should go back to that part where you said the IPCC stated that man was not responsible?

""There is no question that this is driven by human activity" - Susan Solomon, an IPCC panel director

"[The report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years." - Dr. Sharon Hays, Associate Director/Deputy Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and head of the US delegation to the IPCC

"We have to be responsible members of the global community and we must do something in this area. . . I think the time has come for us to develop a roadmap for the future." – IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri



So whats next? Will we be debating the meaning of the word "is"?

 

[Rick S]

I wonder.... is how it was done really the important question here?
Granted, I'm sure it is the one that is most polarizing, but isn't the more pertinent question:

Is there anything we can or should do about it given that all choices on funds spent are "either/or" ?

 

[ERD50]

Geez, I was hopeful there for a second that I was going to learn something.

Who is having trouble with the language? We've been through this already, you are repeating yourself:

".... including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years."

So, what is the context there? "The last 50 years". I've hashed this out in the previous posts - here you go:

ERD50 earlier post -

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.

So... almost 8 degrees Mother Nature, about 6/10th of a degree partially man-made. IOW, we are riding on Mother Nature's roller-coaster. Maybe we can tip it a bit one way or the other, but it doesn't look like much does it? And if we can - then why doesn't the IPCC say - OK, reduce carbon emissions and most of the the sea level rise goes away?

Nothing in my statements is intended to let man-kind 'off the hook'. I'm just saying that we need to try to understand what we can and cannot change, and take the appropriate actions. As far as I can see, most of that action may be to adapt to a rise in sea level. Is there something 'evil' in that view that ticks you off?

And, you didn't answer my earlier question - you said the IPCC says the problem can be solved. I said that their numbers indicate that we could maybe reduce the rise in sea level by about 20% (leaving 80% of the problem). Are you backing off from that one? If I'm wrong, I'd like to know so I don't continue telling people that.

-ERD50

PS - RickS - I agree, I hope this post answers your question too, thanks

 

[ERD50]

I wonder.... is how it was done really the important question here?
Granted, I'm sure it is the one that is most polarizing, but isn't the more pertinent question:

Is there anything we can or should do about it given that all choices on funds spent are "either/or" ?

Rick S, Understanding the cause is important only to the extent that it helps us determine solutions. Beyond that, it is only of academic interest (and forum argument food ). But, many would say it is tough to know where you are going if you don't understand where you came from.

What should we do about it? Well, I keep going back to the IPCC report that seems to say that doing the 'non-fossil fuel' thing only softens the problem by about 20%. So, I think we better figure out how to move people out of low lying areas, because 20% isn't that much.

There's a couple far out ideas I've heard, but they might work. Send up 'stuff' in orbit to block a few percent of the Sun's rays - reversible if we could remove it from orbit too. Iron fertilization of the oceans supposedly can absorb a lot of CO2 (side effects?). Some researcher says he can make a CO2 filter device, but it takes considerable energy to get the CO2 off the filters (reducing the net benefit). These ideas were all covered on the 'Science Friday' podcasts if you want to check them out.

Any one else got ideas?

-ERD50