I was going to say something, but I can see that its pointless... if people want to keep their heads buried in the sand and let industry decide what might or might not harm people (and the environment) I'm not going to change their mind here and I don't want to directly point out illogical statements and make it personal any more then it is.

I just hope that outside agencies and the public keep on the government to determine what is harmful to people before it harms, or continues to harm, many. Perhaps we can work to prevent these burgeoning illnesses more vs working to cure them. The same sentiment goes for the 'environment' (which really just is a word for the world at large).

In the meantime I guess I'll have to do my best to keep the cars cool and aired out..

 

Well theres an unbiased, trustworthy source of information.

 

Not really, I think you just do not like him or what he says because he proves you wrong every single time! (there fore, you proclaim him a biased liar.)

Did you read about how Al Gore predicted the earth will be a "Frying Pan" in 10 years due to global warming?

 

Um, you're smoking crack. (just to start the discussion as a mature adult )

IF you look at atmospheric C02, the rise starts with the industrial revolution, and pretty much tracks industrial output so closely you could confuse the curves. While methane is worse than C02, the fluorocarbons (totaly man made) have atmospheric lifetime of well over 1,000 YEARS! For sake of legislation, the politicians have chosen to look at 100 year impacts, and most of the relative claims sited in the media are based on the impact over this timescale. Some of the compounds put out have lifetimes of over 10,000 years, or well over 100x the impact used for legislative purposes.

Here's a source for you to start looking at stuff....

http://cesp.stanford.edu/

One of the problems with this specific debate is that responsible scientist will admit that the science isn't complete yet, but that the consensus is converging, and the news isn't looking good.

But those with vested interests in the status quo, would take my last sentacne, an stop at word 20 and say "See, even they don't agree! LEt's keep doing what we've been doing until theres concrete proof!" and use that as a rationalization for willfull ignorance. To show that I'm not going completely off topic, this ties into the weighting of possible outcomes and the costs (total, not just monitary) of these multiple possible outcomes to create a guide for basing decisions of costs now vs costs later (like the auto insurance analogy). What's the cost of moving manhatten? OR Bangledesh?

Here's another laffer. There are often quotes about how good some warming would be due to improved shipping in the North West passage. But they forget to point out the change in sea level that would accompany this change in planetary temps would mean that hundreds of millions of people would be displaced by changing coastlines.

I am totaly baffled why so many people carry car insurance, but refuse to look at the cost of being wrong here as a metric for guiding decisions today. IT's as if we, as a society, choose to have the teen attitude, "couldn't happen to me".

Also, if you use the financial interests correlation method, all those tree-huggers that get blamed for "spinning" the truth. What do they get out of it? Anything close to the LARGEST CORPORATE QUARTERLY PROFITS EVER that Exxon-Mobil just announced? I don't think so. So if you use the standard for conflict of interests, the tree-huggers should be listened to first, the universities second, privatlely funded think-tanks third, and somewhere in very, very distant forth is the industrial advocates.

Some other interesting tidbits. Some of the latest models don't predict as much early change in water levels, not because warming doesn't happen, but because the snow pattern has more falling on antarctica than currently does. Our planet is in some sort of quasi stable equilibrium, so one should expect a certain amount of negative feedback to help keep us in balance. What happens if we go past that? Serious **** happens, that's what. Because we, as an entire species, won't be able to do didlly squat about it if we go past the proverbial tipping points.

And to quote the coming and going of ice-ages misses many points, like the time constants involved. Very few things happen globally quickly. Reversal of the magnetic field hapens fast on geological time constants. Warming and cooling don't. But there is high year to year variation on local temps, so it makes it very hard to measure small changes in the face of large amounts of noise..... Something responsible scientist would admit, and vested interests would use, once again, to say "stay the course".

Interestingly, if you look at societal choices with regards to green house gasses, nuclear power is the right way to go. Sure we'll have waste issues, but LOCAL waste issues. Depending on carbon energy makes GLOBAL waste issues. And don't quote hydrogen energy economy. The US will create it's hydrogen by cracking methane, and re-mediating the C02 by pumping it back into natural gas wells to keep it contained, called sequestration. The only way to make hydrogen in the volumes needed to replace carbon is by cracking super-heated steam in, you may have guessed, nuclear reactors.

Turns out the biggest problem there isn't the waste lifetimes, it's nasty people who want to make bombs. Right now the world uses something called the "once through" fuel path. Where you take slightly enriched uranium, burn it once in fission reactors, and then deal with the spent fuel by burrying in as deep as possible. Problem is, this creates the byproducts that live for hundreds of thousands of years. If you go to somethign called a breeder reactor (fusion), with reproccessed fuel, you end up with waste that only needs a thousand or so years to become binign (pops calls it "lifetime of the Pirimids type problem") but you also make plutonium, which can be used to go boom! But it's also burned in breeders.

The only real way we have to save the planet from our selves is worldwide cooperation with localized reprocessing in a few countries, with the others agreeing that they will not undertake reprocessing, so we can all get the benefits of fission, without worying that every underdeveloped nation will shortly have enough plutonium to go nuclear blackmail at a moments notice.

Here's the real sad stuff.

This isn't fiction, look at industrialization rates, and power consumption per unit of economic productivity, and you have the demand side of the energy equation. this tells you how much carbon based energy you need to devolpe over the next 3-10 decades to keep the world wide lights on. The rest is pretty simple math. The conclusions are inescapable. The path is clear. and we, as a global community, are choosing not to embrase the correct choices. And to make it even more embarrasing, the US leads the pack in not doing anything about it.

Matt

ps, makes the new car smell thing seem pretty trivial, which it is, but the decision mechanisms societies use to evaluate data and decide what to do about it are identical. See, this rant wasn't completely off topic!

 

HEre you go!

This shows the rise in GHGs that happend with the Industrial Revolution. No human impact? Give me a friggin break!

Matt

 

Now, I can see how if you listen to Rush, you'll find this stuff either new, or BS. But what can I say, he cuts off anyone who doesn't agree with him. You can look at his OWN LIFE and find that for pretty much everything he's done, he's been a hyporcritical parasite (just the latest being the about face on drug offenders he did when his addiction to pain killers came to light). He's a perfect example of only quoting the data that supports your positons, as opposed to a fair reading of the peer reviewed data avaialbe on any subject, but who can blame him, hes gotten rich off of his schtick.....

Anyway, this is from a presentation given by an employee of the US GOV! to a semiconductor manufacturing meeting in Santa Clara in 2003..... You can see that while Methane has a higher impact that CO2, it doesn't live as long. You can also see that those nasty man made chemicals have greeh house impcats that are much larger.... If you want to consider the lifetime effect of the compound, take the 100 year impact, multiply it by the lifetime, and divide by 100. Truly scary numbers.

Matt

 

....Yeah; Im smoking crack. . To end that as a mature adult.


As Im in no position to challenge your knowledge of science, I did find this article of which I do think you might find interesting. It actually takes into consideration all the variables; which on the other hand, seem to be ignored from the left. Interesting.

Heres a quote.

"Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate."

I could just keep quoting and quoting, (which is what i found myself doing) but I encourage you to read the article.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html

 

Okay, now its obvious you hate Rush Limbaugh. Why? Because he DOES allow liberals JUST like you to come on the show and express their opinion. Many times. Each and every time he out debates them and either proves them wrong, or persuades them that he is right. Have you even listened to the show? Its true sometimes he does cut them off, as does every host, but this is just when a caller is expressing some wild or obscene opinion that cant be delt with. Defeating the liberals is how he became famous. Lets stop "slinging mud" just because we cant find any pertainable facts.

Edit: And besides, if Libaugh is a "hypocritical parasite" than what the **** is Michael Moore? (Besides a detriment to society?)

 

 

Read the entire article; not just the graphs.
The concentration has been going slightly downwards; on the contrary to your post and beliefs.

 

This is such a compelling arguement your making here. Very persausive, full of fact and certainly no opinion or emotional argument in that at all.

Who would ever consider Mr. Limbaugh, in any way an expert in any field of science, excepting perhaps chemical dependence, as he's a self admitted drug addict. Regardless, to cite Rush Limbaugh as a credible source for information on global warming has to be one of the saddest, most disturbing things I've heard in a long time. No wonder we're all doomed.

BTW, as I read the charts you put up, levels are increasing, not falling. 0 years before the present would be 2000, 100 would be 1900. In 2000 the CO2 ppm is ~350 in 1900 its 300, so how do they in any way support your statement that levels have decreased?

 

This exact same arguement came up in the discussion of the effect of daytime running lights. You can always find at least one article that says the world is flat. I don't see Rush submitting his data or result to peer review panels, or is peer review a tactic of the environmentalists too? He plays to the public. Go to the conferences on climictic modelling or change. There you will find wider sources of data on this subject.

The broad consensus of the experts in the field (and Rush, sadly, is not among them AND neither is Al Gore) is that the human effect on global warming is INCREASING, not decreasing. The broad consensus of the experts in the field is that we won't suffer the worst consiquences, nor will our grandchilderen, but their children probalby will.

We can both go harvest individual data and summaries here, till the cows come in (farting or not) and not change anyone's mind. So be it, such are the nature of off-topic forums.

And while you say Rush kicks butt in his home turf, ever see him on a panel of experts OUTSIDE of his home turf? Nope. He plays the oldest game in the book. Set up your own pins and knock them down.

Mr Econ makes some good points, and his comments about preparing for the less extreme higher probability possible outcomes happens to be exacly what I'm saying global society isn't doing, taking and unbiased look at the data, looking at the probabilities that these outcomes would occure, and do a risk weighted evaluation of costs vs expected benefits to figure out where we out to put societal efforts into improving our chances in the face of an uncertain future.

But sadly (and this bears on the track record of the various advocates that I listed) if you look at the correlation of short term financial interestes with the tendancy to support the position that maximized the chance of these very same financial gains, you find that industrial advocacy isn't a very good indicator or scientific validity NOR social well being.

Sad but true.

Or should we go back to lead based paints in nursery schools? Asbestos as an isulating fire retardant in roofing materials etc etc etc.

Matt

 

Thank you, as was yours.
There you go again, since you have nothing pheasable to say, you have to sling mud. A never cited Rush Limbaugh as a source, I simply suggested you listen to his show. No wonder we're all doomed? It is your friend Al Gore who says the world only has 10 years left!


You are correct, they have increased and I mis-spoke. I also didnt read over all of the article.
"[SIZE=5][/SIZE]CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks "
The chart which i mis-read proves that.

 

Well you claim my MINI puts holes in the atmosphere.

Sir, i dont think there is a very "wide" source of data and funding on this subject/project/study.

Thats not true. Did you even read the science report? Obviously not. Earth is getting warmer, as it has in its natural scale for thousands of years. The human effect is between 0.2 and 0.3%.



Would you like to talk about Vioxx?

 

What a great debate going on here!

I've been listening to Rush for 15 years. I agree with him most of the time. When he disses conserving energy and resources, that pisses me off. He can drive his Maybach and laugh at us all he wants. It's the nut cases who burn Hummers to protest, ignoring the fact that more pollution was released through the fire than the normal lifetime use and recycling at the junkyard... that's who Rush is talking about.

I'm sure Mr. Sun and Ms. Earth's volcanoes don't have any effect on our climate. And who says the Earth shall never deviate in temperature, or weather patterns? I would not deny humans have had some effect.

What annoys me is the blatant safetycrat agenda forced down our throats, at a cost to all of us. Look how many safety devices are on cars nowadays, and who pays for this? The so-called International Building Code is getting ridiculous! And the Fed's unfunded mandate to reduce arsenic in our water, with special equipment, so ALL water pumped is arsenic free but only a tiny fraction of 1% is consumed by humans? Don't get me going.:impatient

 

I think things are getting confused here, and is misdirecting some anger; the people trying to protect you and yours from illness and birth defects resulting from chemicals and byproducts are not in one lump with car manufacturers putting in safety equipment, lawmakers requiring building codes, or even people concerened about global warming. They are all seperate issues and it seems that general frustration is clouding everything and leading to apathy.

I don't know about you, but I want every safety in place to prevent some company from putting chemicals out there that will make me or my friends or family ill. Since many companies apparently have no scruples or conscience someone needs to monitor them that will do a good and thorough job of it.

 

Then what the hades does Rush Limbaugh have to contribute to a conversation on global warming other than to promote a political agenda that you happen to support and this board happens to strictly disallow the discussion of!?! Why did you reference him? Keep him, Ronald Reagan (who you seem to like to quote without attribution), Gore, Ghandi, Bart Simpson, etc. out of the conversation, as they are neither relevant, nor are they 'friends' of mine or, I suspect, yours. Finally, you are indeed right I have nothing "pheasable" to say, as "pheasable" isn't a word that exists in the English language.

The chart you put up shows an accelerating increase in CO2 levels of somewhere around 27.5% in 100 years. To state that the levels have been increasing over 18000 years is irrelevant. The issue is the alarming rate of increase in the recent past. This increase just so happens to coincide with an explosion in human population and with it an increasing reliance on mechanisms that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can choose to ignore this "coincidence", nevertheless, forces larger than you or I will have little mercy if you're position on these matters turns out to be wrong. Theres plenty of archeaological and geological history that suggests that organisms that become too dominant can overwhelm their environment and in turn are ultimately struck down by natural forces. Lest you think there is no historic precedent for suicidal mass extinction self inflicted through environmental changes on a global scale, I refer you the extreme drop in CO2 levels and the increase of oxygen in the Proterozoic. That organisms influence and change their environment is well documented. That certain atmospheric gases trap and retain heat is equally well documented. That the level of these gases has increased significantly in our lifetimes is, regardless of causality, alarming and ignoring or simply claiming that this is a natural occurence it isn't going to make the dangers go away nor make the consequences any less severe.

 

I tried to say too much on my first post in the middle of this debate, sorry to get you confused. But when I look at the big picture, it frustrates me to see how overboard the government is getting in saving us from ourselves.

We won't have many companies left to pollute our country, because our regulations are driving away manufacturing. They are moving to other countries that don't hold the same values as US. We (the USA) are downwind from China. Will you please tell the Chicoms to adopt our policies?

 

This is a political, not scientific, discussion. Locked.