Global Warming

[mcdude]

This Citizen's Article (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/CITIZEN0101/103210092/-1/CITIZEN) attributes the lack of ice this winter to global warming. Sad to think of what implications this may have for the future.:(

[ITD]

This Citizen's Article (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/CITIZEN0101/103210092/-1/CITIZEN) attributes the lack of ice this winter to global warming. Sad to think of what implications this may have for the future.:(

Oh my, look at the upside, if this is true it will be a longer boating season.:D

[JK47]

Yet this week's temperatures are an average of 10 degrees lower than usual?

[jrc]

If it get real warm we'll be catching fish like this:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/outdoors/20060320-1251-bn20bass.html

[MAXUM]

Got to just love these "global warming" people...

So I guess the globe has not been warming at all since the last ice age? These thing occur naturally and if you look far enough back in history, IE millions of years ago, say around the time of the dinosaurs, the world was a very tropical place. So what was it back then we could blame global warming on, last I knew there was no such thing as an internal combustion motor. Darn tree huggers.

[GWC...]

Got to just love these "global warming" people...
So what was it back then we could blame global warming on, last I knew there was no such thing as an internal combustion motor. Darn tree huggers.

Hot air - they could not keep their mouths closed, then, either... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

They should try selling Global Warming to the people in Grand Island, Nebraska with their 21" of new snow.

[Evenstar]

National Geographic.com has a short article called Arctic Ice Isn't Refreezing in the Winter, Satellites Show (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_arctic_ice.html). "For the second year in a row a large amount of Arctic sea ice did not refreeze during the winter as it normally does, a team of scientists reports. This trend may indicate an overall shrinking of Arctic ice cover due to rapid global climate change."

I'll agee that global warming can also occur naturally - but this is believed to have only happened after things like massive volcanic eruptions, or getting hit with a very large meteor. Man has now "progressed" to the point where we can now create natural desasters on our own.

[Good N' You?]

I wonder what they were blaming the early ice out back in March 28th of 1921....."The sky is falling, The sky is falling"

[jrc]

Last winter, people were teasing a politician for having a speech on global warming in NYC when it was -9F. The warming people said don't confuse weather with climate. But when we get a freak hurricane season or a warm winter it's always caused by SUV's.

1) Is the planet warming? Maybe a little, based on 150 year old weather reports.

2) If yes, is humanity causing the warming? Not at all clear, but maybe a little.

3) If yes, can we do anything to stop it? No (everyone agrees)
Slow it? Maybe a little with massive reduction in quality of life or world population. Even Kyoto only promises the tiniest reduction in the upward temperature trend.

4) Is the cure worse than the disease? Most likely.

[Lakegeezer]

It is spring in New Hampshire. The ice is melting in the lake, but yet it is below freezing outside. How can this be? If you stand back and take the long term view, you realize that by July, a return to winter or even spring will be a silly question. The ice will be gone, and it will be hot.

The earth is has been experiencing a global spring since the glaciers left New England, and now the earth is approaching a global summer. The ice caps are melting, Greenland is calving into the sea, glaciers in many places are melting at increased rates, the permafrost in Alaska is melting, sea levels are rising, and so on. Even the ice caps on Mars are melting. That is the evidence. The potential causes are many, including man, sunspots, orbit within our galaxy, and other causes yet to be determined. Figuring out the cause is interesting, but it leads to the blame game, and no country (especially the USA) wants to be held responsible for picking up the tab. The costs of the impact of climate issues during the next several hundred years will be huge. The earth entered global spring before humans were a factor. Did the industrial age speed up the onset of global summer by 5 years? By 100 years? By 1000 years? Good question, but I doubt there is any stopping it now.

We experience the transition to spring and summer every year, so have a good idea what is coming next at the lake. Our theories about what will happen next in the transition to global summer is still a guess at best. Scientists believe that over time, the earth has been encased in ice more than it has been warm like it is now. There is also evidence that once global climate changes start, they move quickly from one stable state to another. The evidence suggests that we are in a "move quick" period. This is similar to what we will experience at the lake in a few weeks as the ice melts, or those 3 days in May when the leaves just POP out. There is no going back. We can only look forward into the next cycle - and that is going to mean some changes. The past few weeks of cold weather have delayed what we thought might be a record early ice-out - but it won't matter. Massive human energy put into delaying the global summer would likely do just the same - delay but not stop the global summer from coming.

If we are in a transition stage now - we will see extremes for the next decade or so, as new patterns will emerge. One short-term pattern that seems to be emerging is that the snowstorms are more frequently south of the lakes region, rather than from the lakes region north. Our winters are milder, our falls are later, our springs are earlier. That pattern could last the next 30 years, or it could change next year. We could zip through Global summer in a decade and enter a new ice age. The only thing that is certain is that the climage is changing and will continue to do so.

More energy should be put into understanding what is happening, what will happen, and how to deal with what is coming next. Assigning blame to humans, is like blaming your neighbor's bubbler for an early ice-out. It had impact, and it matters locally for a short period of time, but in the long run, it doesn't matter much.

[Frdxplorer]

Let me qualify this statment by saying that I do not consider myself to be a tree hugger as it would normally be defined. I drive an SUV that gets ashamedly bad mileage, especially when I have my roof rack on. I am also a registered, and in all but a few rare circumstances, a voting Republican. But I do consider myself a lover of nature and the natural beauty that NH is so lucky to have alot of. Many of you are correct that the world has experienced many changes in temperature trends. However, anyone with a basic education in geology and global climate change is aware that in following these trends, it is very important to look back over millions of years, not the difference between 1921 and 2006. The changes that have taken place in the last hundered or so years have been much much much more rapid than the changes that changed landscapes on the earth hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. To outrightly dismiss global warming is, in my opinion, and that is all this is, a little irresponsible to future generations. Both for those interested in global warming, and those convinced that its not happening, I'd really suggest auditing a geology class that deals with global climate change at a local college. During my undergrad years, I found it pretty refreshing from political science, and as a current law school student, I would probably find just about anything refreshing from property and contracts. :rolleye2:

[SIKSUKR]

I don't think there is much of an argument that we have global warming based on observations from the last 150 years.But therein lies the problem.Some would blame it on man and some would say it's nature.How you can say this is all man made with such a small sample when the earth has had freeze thaw cycles for eons is beyond me.I do think we have some impact but how can it really be measured?LG makes some good observations.Looks like another topic that will stir up the pot again!

[ITD]

Sorry, I'm not buying Global Warming, at least with the data and the crowd presented so far. There's an interesting web site and this is just two of many articles on the subject.

http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/EDW.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/1stMonth.htm

Bottom line is there is no simple answer. Yes this was a warmer winter (I think) but not the warmest. I read somewhere that this was like the 5th warmest winter on record with the warmest one around 1880. Anyway if you do fervently believe in Global Warming, I suggest you stop driving your car, disconnect from the grid and do not heat or cool your house (yes even burning wood is detrimental supposedly). Lead by example.

[dpg]

Don't lose any sleep over this issue. By the time it's tropical in New Hampshire (or even close) anyone reading this forum now will have been dead for about 500 years!!!:eek:

[SAMIAM]

If we stopped using every internal combustion engine in the world tomorrow....it would have no effect on global warming when compared to the carbon dioxide caused by rotting vegetation.
Now,I'm feeling guilty for warming up my truck on cold mornings

[ApS]

"...1)Is the planet warming? Maybe a little, based on 150 year old weather reports.

2) If yes, is humanity causing the warming? Not at all clear, but maybe a little.

3) If yes, can we do anything to stop it? No (everyone agrees)
Slow it? Maybe a little with massive reduction in quality of life or world population. Even Kyoto only promises the tiniest reduction in the upward temperature trend.

4) Is the cure worse than the disease? Most likely..."

Is the planet warming?
Just one degree increase (Celsius °) has a huge effect! It's already being seen at Mount Kilimanjaro and Glacier National Park. Something like 90% of Earth's glaciers are retreating, and nobody denies that the oceans are rising.

Is Humanity causing it?
We've taken half of the sun's energy that's been stored under the Earth for a billion years and transformed it into heat in less than 200 years.

(Like peat and coal, oil is fossil plant life—forget the dinosaur part.)

Is there anything we can do to stop it?
Emphatically YES! Twenty years ago, when this issue was first envisioned, there were several cures suggested.

The most intriguing one involved placing a rotating reflectorized mylar spiderweb-like wheel into space between Earth and the Sun. The problem was that how—and when—do you remove it?

Should there be concern?

Depends:

1) Mother Earth is very resilient: One study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth) indicated that Earth was once covered in ice—a snowball. In the Cosmos, that is a death sentence for a celestial body, as nearly all a sun's rays are reflected back into space.

2) There are indications that the rate is increasing; otherwise, we and Mother Nature can just "take the ride". Some inhabited island-countries in the Indian and Pacific Oceans may become uninhabitable in our lifetimes. OTOH, new islands are being created in our lifetimes.

3) In 1999, Popular Science magazine stated, "Global Warming is a fact": They're not a sky-is-falling publication.

First, we should acknowledge Global Warming as fact.

[ITD]

Is the planet warming?
Just one degree increase (Celsius °) has a huge effect! It's already being seen at Mount Kilimanjaro and Glacier National Park. Something like 90% of Earth's glaciers are retreating, and nobody denies that the oceans are rising.

Is Humanity causing it?
We've taken half of the sun's energy that's been stored under the Earth for a billion years and transformed it into heat in less than 200 years.

(Like peat and coal, oil is fossil plant life—forget the dinosaur part.)

Is there anything we can do to stop it?
Emphatically YES! Twenty years ago, when this issue was first envisioned, there were several cures suggested.

The most intriguing one involved placing a rotating reflectorized mylar spiderweb-like wheel into space between Earth and the Sun. The problem was that how—and when—do you remove it?

Should there be concern?

Depends:

1) Mother Earth is very resilient: One study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth) indicated that Earth was once covered in ice—a snowball. In the Cosmos, that is a death sentence for a celestial body, as nearly all a sun's rays are reflected back into space.

2) There are indications that the rate is increasing; otherwise, we and Mother Nature can just "take the ride". Some inhabited island-countries in the Indian and Pacific Oceans may become uninhabitable in our lifetimes. OTOH, new islands are being created in our lifetimes.

3) In 1999, Popular Science magazine stated, "Global Warming is a fact": They're not a sky-is-falling publication.

First, we should acknowledge Global Warming as fact.


Sorry Aps,

Whenever anyone says words like "fact" to describe theories I begin to worry. "I remember" :laugh: the experts used to talk about carbon dioxide emissions causing global COOLING and how we were going to cause the next ice age. I also remember predictions of the swine flu epidemic, and how we were going to run out of oil in twenty years (by mid 90's).

The Mann hockey stick data used to prove Global warming is seriously flawed.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/update.fall04.html

Once again, if you really believe in Global Warming, which many people do, then stop driving your car(s), in fact permanently disable them so no one else can drive them either and stop using any fossil or organic energy that produces "greenhouse gases". There are enough of you that if you all did this and you are correct, we should see the results in 20 or 30 years. In the mean time don't bankrupt the rest of us.

[Lakegeezer]

Once again, if you really believe in Global Warming, which many people do, then stop driving your car(s), in fact permanently disable them so no one else can drive them either and stop using any fossil or organic energy that produces "greenhouse gases". There are enough of you that if you all did this and you are correct, we should see the results in 20 or 30 years. In the mean time don't bankrupt the rest of us. I subscribe in the theory that dramatic global change is underway - specifically, the theory of a continued warm up followed by a rapid cool down. However, I do not subscribe to the theory that ceasing the use of organic fuel would turn around the problem in 20 or 30 years - or ever. In my view, the tipping point has already been passed. To use an old expression, there is no sense in closing the barn door once the horse has run away. I encourage oil consumption, and hope that our civilization moves past the fossil age as quickly as possible, and on to what ever energy source is next.

[ITD]

I subscribe in the theory that dramatic global change is underway - specifically, the theory of a continued warm up followed by a rapid cool down. However, I do not subscribe to the theory that ceasing the use of organic fuel would turn around the problem in 20 or 30 years - or ever. In my view, the tipping point has already been passed. To use an old expression, there is no sense in closing the barn door once the horse has run away. I encourage oil consumption, and hope that our civilization moves past the fossil age as quickly as possible, and on to what ever energy source is next.

I guess I'm not convinced there is a problem at all. Weather patterns are cyclical and affected by things like El nino and La nina. This does not amount to climatic change. Glaciers have been receding for thousands of years. It's only very recently that we have had satellites to observe Arctic and Antarctic ice, no one knows if these remote bays freeze over every year. "Subscribe in the theory" is a good way to put it, leaves open the very real fact that it may be wrong.

[gtxrider]

:) :) Has anyone out there ever read or studied the Little Ice Age? In ran from 1300 to the the mid 1800's. It seems the world climate runs in cycles. Maybe if we wait long enough it will cycle back to another Little Ice Age but than again its been unseasonably cold here in New Jersey.

The sky is failing, we will all get the bird flu, New York City will be under water....don't worry be happy

[Airwaves]

Just FYI, on Wednesday's (3/22) NPR show "Fresh Air" there was a scientist who used to come down on the side of Global Warming is bunk, until he started to research it.

An interesting show for anyone who cares to listen, One of the more interesting points he made that surprised me, was that in the weeks following 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the U-S, the temperature in key cities actually dropped and it plays a role in Global Warming! Why?

I'm sure it's archived. :D

[Rose]

Just FYI, on Wednesday's (3/22) NPR show "Fresh Air" there was a scientist who used to come down on the side of Global Warming is bunk, until he started to research it.
...
I'm sure it's archived. :D

Is Tim Flannery the scientist you heard? If so, here's a link to the online article, as well as an excerpt from his book.

'Weather Makers' Seek to End Climate Debate (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5293273)

Thanks for the info, Airwaves. I found the first chapter of his book very interesting.

[mcdude]

:) :) Has anyone out there ever read or studied the Little Ice Age? In ran from 1300 to the the mid 1800's. It seems the world climate runs in cycles. Maybe if we wait long enough it will cycle back to another Little Ice Age

Does this mean that we may not be able to use our super turbo-charged bed on skiis to defeat the Alton Bay Christian Conference Center in the infamous Bed Race in our life time???
:confused:
McD

[Mee-n-Mac]

Does this mean that we may not be able to use our super turbo-charged bed on skiis to defeat the Alton Bay Christian Conference Center in the infamous Bed Race in our life time???
:confused:
McD

No, it just means we have to use an alternative fuel. People talk about hydrogen, perhaps we can use that :D Just don't ask where the H2 comes from :eek: Personally I think we should use Mexican food, beans and Magaritas, certainly been know to give me gas ... :laugh:

[ITD]

No, it just means we have to use an alternative fuel. People talk about hydrogen, perhaps we can use that :D Just don't ask where the H2 comes from :eek: Personally I think we should use Mexican food, beans and Magaritas, certainly been know to give me gas ... :laugh:

Too bad all the hot air generated during the HB162 debate (both sides now) couldn't have been harnessed, it would have powered New Hampshire for a year....:emb:

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Rose:
Is Tim Flannery the scientist you heard? If so, here's a link to the online article, as well as an excerpt from his book.

'Weather Makers' Seek to End Climate Debate

Yes, it was an interview with Tim Flannery!

[SIKSUKR]

One of the more interesting points he made that surprised me, was that in the weeks following 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the U-S, the temperature in key cities actually dropped and it plays a role in Global Warming! Why?

I'm sure it's archived. :D
Give me a break.You really don't believe that statement do you?Think about what you are saying.Planes not flying in the US,which constitutes about 1% of the earth would make the temp rise during that week?How could you possibly take a measurement taken over ONE week and conclude that it must be the planes not flying that influenced it?Temps fluxuate all the time.If this guy was serious,I would avoid any of his research.

[Woodsy]

Too bad all the hot air generated during the HB162 debate (both sides now) couldn't have been harnessed, it would have powered New Hampshire for a year....:emb:

Now thats funny... :laugh: :laugh:

Of course then we would be debating a where to put the wind farm to harness all the hot air! They would probably start with taking my house by eminent domain! :laugh: :laugh:


Woodsy

[Mashugana]

{snip} One of the more interesting points he made that surprised me, was that in the weeks following 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the U-S, the temperature in key cities actually dropped and it plays a role in Global Warming! Why? :D

Thousands of jet aircraft engines on at any one time in the US translates to many thousands of hot air generators constantly pumping out hot air in and over our cities. Can all these heat pumps add to a slight increases in overall temperatures? It makes sense to me.

Volcanic ash could be a visual example of how the atmosphere can be influenced. The ash cloud does not dissipate quickly. It travels hundreds of miles as it slowly spreads out. Artificial heat from jet engines can work the same way.

Every high school grad knows that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Picture all the mega-tons of force pushing against the earth to launch the space shuttles, rockets and to a lesser extent jet planes. They all generate thrust by pushing against the earth, what is the equal and opposite reaction? Very slight variations in the rotation and/or axises of the Earth. Since they are cumulative, add them up and you just might find that we are changing the way our planet rotates around itself and the sun. Result: Climate change and global warming.

Global warming is real. Buy your great great (x125) grandchildren ocean front property on an Arizona mountain top today.

[Taz]

To answer Maxum's question, global warming during prehistoric times was caused by dinosaurs expelling methane due to massive flatulence. I read once that cows give off enough methane to influence the green house effect.

[MJM]

Back in the late 40's, scientists were so concerned with the Earth's COOLING, that they were investigating possible ways to enhance melting of the polar ice caps (e.g. spread dark soot over the ice). And that was after scientists 80 years prior to that had been concerned about the Earth's WARMING....

It's all a cycle, perfectly natural, and of such massive proportions us little old humans have little or no impact on it.

[ApS]

"...One of the more interesting points he made that surprised me, was that in the weeks following 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the U-S, the temperature in key cities actually dropped and it plays a role in Global Warming! Why? I'm sure it's archived..."

Don't you have that backwards (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/)?

The criss-crossing of commercial air traffic's wispy "contrails" reflect the sun's energy back into space, just as those "wispy" cirrus clouds do. When the contrails disappeared post-9/11, the Earth should have warmed up!

High-altitude air traffic could be "covering for" our Energy used on the ground (including nuclear energy and the burning of fossil fuels). I don't think anyone can deny burning fuels isn't "warming".

"...if you really believe in Global Warming...then stop driving your car...In the mean time don't bankrupt the rest of us...."

Among theories, I "believe" in both Global Warming and Darwin's Theory, even as quoted here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19871&postcount=2). Really, though, they are both effectively Fact. On Darwin, ask your medical doctor: He will have taken a "Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy" course among his pre-Med required classes.

Aside from dramatic technological intervention (such as the previous gossamer-mylar-umbrella), there's nothing mankind can do to "un-bankrupt" your business, should you be dependant on gasoline and oil. (Abundant coal gives the U.S. much more time).

The latest, most well-thought-out, and most excellent, theory (The ApS Theory) :) is that we are, indeed, heading into a long-overdue Ice Age.

Civilization is only temporarily slowing "The Approaching Cold of Millennia" with relatively large amounts of heat and carbon dioxide, though sometimes—like burning fuel to make contrails—working at cross-purposes.

I'm putting this kind of money on it:

http://home.earthlink.net/~farfrumhom/images/twocents.gif


:emb:

[VarneyPoint]

For all you non-believers, here is a summary from the most recent issue of Time Magazine...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html

I think it gives a fairly nice summary of what is going on. I encourage everyone to check it out.

[ITD]

.... there's nothing mankind can do to "un-bankrupt" your business, should you be dependant on gasoline and oil. (Abundant coal gives the U.S. much more time).





But I wasn't talking about business, I was talking about us, we the citizens. The liberal braintrust and others always look to business to fund its social experiments, what they don't get is that business just passes these extra expenses onto their customer. Who is the customer? Why it is almost always you and I. If the business can't pass on these added expenses, then they go out of business.


The latest, most well-thought-out, and most excellent, theory (The ApS Theory) :) is that we are, indeed, heading into a long-overdue Ice Age.

Civilization is only temporarily slowing "The Approaching Cold of Millennia" with relatively large amounts of heat and carbon dioxide, though sometimes—like burning fuel to make contrails—working at cross-purposes.

I'm putting this kind of money on it:

http://home.earthlink.net/~farfrumhom/images/twocents.gif


:emb:

Your scientific prowness is exceeded only by your modesty. :rolleye2:

[Weekend Pundit]

As much as many have come to believe that we are the main cause of global warming, many climatologists are looking at an age old cause - solar output. While mankind's activities are a contributing factor, the variations in solar output have a far greater impact on Earth's climate.

Just a reminder - Earth's icecaps have been melting for the past 6,000 years. It is not a recent event. The rate of melting hasn't been constant.

One article I ran across said that something like 36 cubic miles of ice melt in Antartica every year. At that rate it will all be gone in...let's see...about 194,000 years.

[ApS]

It's all a cycle, perfectly natural, and of such massive proportions us little old humans have little or no impact on it.
Still, global warming is fact.

In a warming cycle, there are 6 Billion of us setting forests on fire for agriculture, igniting underground coal deposits, burning grasslands, igniting oilfields, heating homes, illuminating the night skies, "flaring" gas, "over-transporting", and cutting forests to assist the progress of lightning-caused fires and the "usual" volcanoes. (Excepting nuclear power generation, all increase carbon dioxide levels, making a "heating loop" for Mother Earth).

Should we be in a cooling "cycle" instead, this may only be a 200-year "blip" of warming. A Winnipesaukee shed, built near me post-war, had 2x6s on 12-inch centers.

(For the snow load—who knew?)

Back in the late 40's, scientists were so concerned with the Earth's COOLING, that they were investigating possible ways to enhance melting of the polar ice caps (e.g. spread dark soot over the ice). And that was after scientists 80 years prior to that had been concerned about the Earth's WARMING....

Satellites monitoring the oceans' heights and "computer-modeling" have changed they way we look at weather and climate.

Of course, government grants to universities keep things hopping, too!

:)

[Airwaves]

APS wrote:
Don't you have that backwards?

The criss-crossing of commercial air traffic's wispy "contrails" reflect the sun's energy back into space, just as those "wispy" cirrus clouds do. When the contrails disappeared post-9/11, the Earth should have warmed up!

If I recall, and it's been a week now since I heard the piece, the earth's radiational heat is reflected off clouds, contrails, etc and bounces back toward the ground helping to keep us warm, especially at night.

It's most noticable during the winter, the temperatures are lower on clear nights than on cloudy tonights during similar weather systems because the earth's heat is lost on a clear night with nothing to reflect it back.

You're local TV weatherdude calls it "radiational cooling". I was surprised to hear that there is enough air traffic over the US that would have had a radiational cooling effect when it wasn't there suddenly.

The type of clouds that would prevent the sun's rays from reaching and warming the earth to begin with would be something you'd find after catastrophic volcanic eruption or in the extreme, a nuclear winter.

[Mee-n-Mac]

If I recall, and it's been a week now since I heard the piece, the earth's radiational heat is reflected off clouds, contrails, etc and bounces back toward the ground helping to keep us warm, especially at night.

It's most noticable during the winter, the temperatures are lower on clear nights than on cloudy tonights during similar weather systems because the earth's heat is lost on a clear night with nothing to reflect it back.

You're local TV weatherdude calls it "radiational cooling". I was surprised to hear that there is enough air traffic over the US that would have had a radiational cooling effect when it wasn't there suddenly.

The type of clouds that would prevent the sun's rays from reaching and warming the earth to begin with would be something you'd find after catastrophic volcanic eruption or in the extreme, a nuclear winter.

First the article orignally mentioned by Airwaves only stated that increased differences between night and day temperatures were noted in the 3 days post 9/11. The author (David J. Travis, University of Wisconsin) made no conclusions as to whether the net effect was overall warming or cooling. Second the effect of contrails (and cloud cover) is to both reflect sunlight back into space (thus decreasing the Earth's temp) and to block IR from the ground and subsequently reradiate it back (thus increasing the Earth's temp). I've yet to see any definitive article stating which effect dominates; the numbers presented for both effects are within 1-2 % of each other. One report estimated that contrails would effect the Earth's temperature by 2050 but that made some ambitious assumptions concerning the growth of air traffic. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9919.html

The effects of clouds (rather than contrails) is hotly debated right now. I don't know of anyone who claims that existing models for clouds are accurate.

[ITD]

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060330/NEWS10/603300345/1002

[Grant]

Read this week's TIME magazine cover story (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html) -- a real eye-opener on the global warming front.

[Great Idea]

I refrained from responding to the "World is flat" responses earlier in the thread because I knew the article from Time was coming out... we should all read it and look at some ways to work on the problem. Check out Greenland.... this is a real and serious issue that we are contributing to. Lets not be the generation remember as the consumer pigs who ignored the signs and kept using and abusing..... Clean fuels and energy are out there. Its all just supply and demand. If we start demanding it someone will start supplying it.

[Grant]

And if you all want examples -- beyond global warming -- that strike close to home, consider the changes in Winnipesaukee in recent years.

I've been on the Lake for all of my 44+ years, and have seen some very disturbing developments recently. Winni is a glacial lake, so it's been around a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time, yet in a relative nanosecond, we've trashed it. Look at the algae blooms that come each summer. NEVER saw that when I was a kid...or even a teen...or in my twenties...and I spent a LOT of time with a mask on. Turbidity has changed as well. The water to our house always has come from the Lake...and, up until the last ten years or so, that is what we drank (smart or not...). Today, it's strictly the bottled stuff. Beach closings at Weirs due to bacteria. MTBE from fuel spills. Mercury-tainted fish. Mifoil from other bodies of water. Zebra mussels. What a mess. And it's all from us, the troublesome species that wants it all and trashes it at the same time.

Crank up the global temp a degree or two, and things get really weird. Sorry for the rant.

[MAXUM]

LOL what a bunch of garbage. Opening statement says it all...

No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.

Really.... because all the other planets in our solar system are looking like such better alternatives to earth to live on right? Great lets take all these tree huggers and ship them off to pluto! Enjoy your stay on a healthy planet! Notice how these "intellectual" people site global warming as a scientific "fact", even though the theory has been around for a while yet never has been proven. Let's talk fact, and the fact is that man has had NO proven effect on the temperature of the globe hence the reason why this is still a theory and probably always will be. Earth was a much warmer place before the ice age, who was to blame back then? How about global cooling...Oh yeah that evil killer asteroid that said EXXON on the side of it right? See back billions of years ago the "big oil" Neanderthals that are to blame! Crash the planet's climate into a cold state where everyone will need oil and gas to keep warm.

Please, I'm all for conservation and newer clean burning technologies, and of course exploiting natural forms of energy, but where are these people when it comes to defending that wind farm off the MA south shore? Oh that's right, not in my back yard. They way you give up your SUV but keep your hands off mine.

[ITD]

Please, I'm all for conservation and newer clean burning technologies, and of course exploiting natural forms of energy, but where are these people when it comes to defending that wind farm off the MA south shore? Oh that's right, not in my back yard. They way you give up your SUV but keep your hands off mine.

Red hill and the other hills around the lake would be perfect for wind farms. Think of the amount of fossil fuels we would save.

Oh well, when politicians like Al Gore (the inventor of the internet ;) )start making speeches about doom day due to global warming my BS meter goes haywire.

There are enough serious problems with the "hockey stick" graph to make any expert who says global warming due to human use of fossil fuels is a fact suspect.

Time is trying to sell magazines, and this week I'm sure they did very well.

[trfour]

The scientists can't seem to agree on global warming! Don't let's get any politicians involved in this topic.

Politicians and diapers both need changing, and for the same reason. :laugh::)

[Airwaves]

This is pretty much my last comment (maybe) on this topic because I don't have the knowledge needed to carry on an intelligent conversation on this subject.

I am not a scientist. Not even close!

However, a vast majority of scientists who study such things, and devote their lives to this subject, believe our current way of living (our meaning the human race not just Americans) is having a severe impact on our planet.

I have seen photos of the ice melt on the polar caps. Again, these scientists say while those ice melts are cyclical, the fact that they are so dramatic in such a short period is alarming.

Do I consider myself a tree hugger? No, I drive an SUV. However I am open minded enough to consider what the folks who know much more than I know, might be right.

The U-S Govt says the issue needs more study. I ask you, who do you trust, a politician who needs more study (and needs to fundraise to be re-elected) or a scientist who has devoted his/her life and career to this topic (and needs grants to continue the research).

Remember, once people thought the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the Universe.
:eek:

[Lakegeezer]

And if you all want examples -- beyond global warming -- that strike close to home, consider the changes in Winnipesaukee in recent years. Well said Grant. I've only been on the lake for 25 years, but also notice significant changes. There seems to be 1000 points of change if you just look around a bit.

I've often wondered what those from 100-200 years ago, such as Ben Franklin and Edison would think of all the technology of 2000. At the same time, I wish I could see 200 years into the future and know what 2200 will be like. How much will the climate really change? If it is significant, what will the citizens of the earth have done about it?

[VarneyPoint]

I've tried to refrain from this debate but I do want to make one point. The people who do climate research have very little to gain from raising awareness on global warming. Do you really think that they are becoming rich off this stuff? Do you think they have a hidden agenda? Do you think climatologists run around saying "global warming is real," because they think it is fun??? The answer is no. A climatologist doesn't get rich by educating people about global warming. He or she doesn't become famous or ink a book deal. Nope, they live a normal, quiet life trying to do their small part, yet they get referred to as "tree huggers" or "liberals" or "whack-jobs," by people who know nothing about science and even less about climatology.

However, the people who vehemently deny that global warming is occuring, do have an agenda. They have a lot to lose in terms of money, power and influence.

I am not a tree hugger and I am not a liberal. But when I read that polar bears are being found drowned everywhere I get worried because polar bears didn't just forget how to swim and they certainly didn't forget that they belong on the ice. Ever stop to think why they are drowning?? Because they got caught on a piece of ice that breaks off a glacier and floats out to sea, melts, and the polar bear ends up so far from land that he drowns from exhaustion.

Wake up people, global warming is real. Is the complete and full truth known, no, of course not. As we continue to study it, we will learn more. But a lot is known and it all points to a problem right now and down the road.

Sorry for the long post, but some people are so closeminded. Is your personal existence threatened by someone with a Ph.D. (btw, having a Ph.D. means you pretty much know everything there is to know in your field) who works at a reputable university, does some experiments and publishes the results in a peer-reviewed journal?

ps- there is no proof that God exists either, but the majority of the people on the planet have no trouble with that one...

[MAXUM]

It's been estimated that the 1980's eruption of Mt St. Helens put more green house gases in the atmosphere than man has EVER put in the atmosphere in the modern era. Hmm better put filters on all those volcanos out there to make them more earth friendly when they erupt!

Enough said, I'd prefer my tax dollars that are spent studing "global warming" be either returned to me so I can spend it more wisely, or better yet take that money and develop alternate power sources that are useful. There is no dispute that we can do better than fossil fuels, so lets do it and quit wasting money trying to prove some dumb theory. I don't need to waste millions upon millions of dollars to know that pushing for new clean burning or alternative technologies is good for everyone, the earth included.

[Grant]

There is no dispute that we can do better than fossil fuels, so lets do it and quit wasting money trying to prove some dumb theory. I don't need to waste millions upon millions of dollars to know that pushing for new clean burning or alternative technologies is good for everyone, the earth included.

Well said. And now you'll have to excuse me -- I need to go fuel up my Suburban. Am I a hypocrite?

[ITD]

Well said. And now you'll have to excuse me -- I need to go fuel up my Suburban. Am I a hypocrite?


Only if you have a "Mother Earth" bumper sticker on it.:D

[Grant]

What if I'm fueling it with BioDiesel?

Are there enough french fry joints in the Lakes Region to fill my 30 gallon tank?

If not, y'all better belly up to the counter and satisfy yer RDA for GREASE!

BioDiesel...noble cause...but it seems that the primary emission, water vapor, is also a chief GREENHOUSE EFFECT contributor.

I'm confused... :rolleye1:

[SIKSUKR]

Thanks for the voice of reason Maxum.I said it in an earlier post and I''ll say it again,global warming may very well be occuring.That catchy phrase "global warming" is a hot buzzword now but that's not the issue.The debate is whether it's man-made or a natural occurance,or the combination of both.I don't know how you can measure temp. change over the last 100+ years and conclude this is manmade.The earth is how many millions or billion years old?We have had numerous radical climate changes hot and cold way before man arrived on this planet.I love polar bears too but just because they are drowning does mean it is at the hands of a manmade climate change.

[cowislander]

It’s all a conspiracy by those limp wristed commies at Harvard. I for one have far more faith in the judgment of Exxon/Mobil lobbyists than the chief atmospheric scientist for NASA, and his ilk, who are pushing the commie conspiracy. We should ask the boys down in DC for another round of tax breaks for the poor folks driving Hummers and Suburbans! :cool:

[jeffk]

I've tried to refrain from this debate but I do want to make one point. The people who do climate research have very little to gain from raising awareness on global warming. Do you really think that they are becoming rich off this stuff? Do you think they have a hidden agenda? Do you think climatologists run around saying "global warming is real," because they think it is fun??? The answer is no. A climatologist doesn't get rich by educating people about global warming. He or she doesn't become famous or ink a book deal. Nope, they live a normal, quiet life trying to do their small part, yet they get referred to as "tree huggers" or "liberals" or "whack-jobs," by people who know nothing about science and even less about climatology.

However, the people who vehemently deny that global warming is occuring, do have an agenda. They have a lot to lose in terms of money, power and influence.


The people who study these issues certainly do have a lot at stake. They have built up a very large industry to push their point of view. Vast amounts of funding is at stake for both research and marketing. If they can't "prove" their point the funding dries up and their jobs go away. There is also a lot of prestige associated with these positions. I don't think they are necessarily dishonest but they are biased and they are certainly not disinterested parties.

The businesses and others that are questioning the global warming theory are asking for reasonable proof that 1) global warming IS happening to a degree that it could be harmful 2) man IS adding significantly to the warming effect 3) proposed changes WOULD BE EFFECTIVE in significantly reducing the warming effect.

It is known that the proposed "fixes" would have severe worldwide economic consequences. Yet, as far as I know, no one has produced a climate model that correctly models the changes in climate over the past few decades. The experts are still guessing as to why the changes that they have been able to measure have happened. Once we have a model that has some level of confidence we might be able to project into the future and decide if there really is a problem that we can do something about and if we want to accept the economic impacts that might be required to fix it.

[ITD]

Check out this article, bet we won't see this in the Boston Globe or NY Times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1017204.stm


And another one from a PHD, who "pretty much knows all there is to know in his field"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

[jrc]

This is from a bunch of Canadian scientists:

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

The whole thing is here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Guess I'll still need to winterize the boat next year.

[Lakegeezer]

Thanks, ITD and jrc, for your good examples of these important and opposing points of view. The article about Professor Bill Gray, from Colorado State University, is especially interesting. It describes how the famous hurricane predictor is passing the baton of his job to a new guy, so that he can spend more time studying global warming.

My gut still tells me that the earth has already passed a tipping point, and the climate will get warmer for the foreseeable future. Its good to read articles which present evidence that the melting we are seeing is a short term event. My real question isn’t “if the earth is warming”, but for how long? Will it be years, decades, centuries, or millenniums?

[Grant]

Bumper sticker recently sighted on a Suburban:

"I'm changing the environment -- ask me how."

[Great Idea]

Fact.... The average global temperature has increased one or two degrees in the last 10-15 years...... sound meaningless? That is the quickest change in temps in the last 3 MILLION YEARS. I like my toys and burnin fossil fuels too however its time for us all to open our eyes and ears and see the evidence for what it is...... I suggest everyone watch the NOVA special regarding Solar Shading that is currently on PBS.... real science, real data, real scary. The world is no longer flat.....

[ITD]

Fact.... The average global temperature has increased one or two degrees in the last 10-15 years...... sound meaningless? That is the quickest change in temps in the last 3 MILLION YEARS. I like my toys and burnin fossil fuels too however its time for us all to open our eyes and ears and see the evidence for what it is...... I suggest everyone watch the NOVA special regarding Solar Shading that is currently on PBS.... real science, real data, real scary. The world is no longer flat.....

That's not a fact, it's a theory and I don't believe anyone believes the temperature has gone up more than a 0.5 degrees so far and others think number is much less to the point of being in the "noise" decade to decade, year to year variation. Please read the articles jrc and I posted and you will see that the data collection and interpretation is suspect. BTW the earth was never flat, contrary to POPULAR belief back in history.

[Rose]

Please read the articles jrc and I posted and you will see that the data collection and interpretation is suspect.

Likewise, you should watch the Nova episode on Dimming the Sun which Great Idea references. As a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist, I know I'm more likely to listen to the NASA climatologist who has been studying this for 30 years than the tropical meteorologist who is just joining the fray.

[chipj29]

Fact.... The average global temperature has increased one or two degrees in the last 10-15 years...... sound meaningless? That is the quickest change in temps in the last 3 MILLION YEARS. I like my toys and burnin fossil fuels too however its time for us all to open our eyes and ears and see the evidence for what it is...... I suggest everyone watch the NOVA special regarding Solar Shading that is currently on PBS.... real science, real data, real scary. The world is no longer flat.....

Wow, that is pretty amazing. I wonder how they got the data from way back then? :confused: Let me guess, it is found in the ice. No wait, in the trees. No, the dinosaurs told us. :laugh:

[Great Idea]

Study it very thoroughly and comprehensively then come back and debate the subect...... its not constructive (or fun) to debate an issue when your opinion comes from only what you want the answer to be rather than what the evidence supports. Like I said before I would love to keep burning my two stroke oil, driving my go fast boat and driving my big high power SUV but something tells me that is quickly going to change. I don't want to be one of the folks who ignored all the evidence and listened to oil industry lobbyists and paid researchers who's only goal is to create confusion regarding the issue so that we would continue the use of fossil fuels. 20 years from now we will be remembered as the generation that either made the right choice and started the changes aggressively or the one that ignored all the warning signs and really @%$$%$#@ the plant.

In this case ignorance won't be bliss....... STUDY and READ the material that is out there. The NASA scientist that Rose speaks of is one of THE most respected authorities in the field. Read his stuff, watch Nova , talk to the folks who study climate on Mt. Washington.... then come back and talk to us. Your laughing at us having read little if any real data on the subject???? (Read about fossilized tree/plant rings and ice cores regarding past temperature cycles) We should be the ones laughing at you but we won't waste time on it. Become knowledgable and join us in trying to come up with solutions.

[jrc]

...its not constructive (or fun) to debate an issue when your opinion comes from only what you want the answer to be rather than what the evidence supports...

That pretty much sums it up, that door swings both ways.

BTW which one of the sixty scientists on that Canadian letter, works for the oil industry?

The global warming rhetoric is approaching peak shrillness, a sure sign of collapse.
(This is in reference to the world not this forum, I'm not calling anyone shrill)

[lakershaker]

As the insightful Wall St. Journal editorial linked to below shows, true debate is not encouraged within acedemia when it comes to global warming. The author of the article, Dr. Richard Lindzen, is an endowed chair professor at MIT. I think that all would agree he could be described as objective. Unfortunately, when it comes to those government grants paying for study of global climate change, if you aren't supporting the thesis that global warming is occuring, and caused by human intervention, you tend to get cut off and banished...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[Lakegeezer]

Is there any reason for local action? Global climate change could have an impact on the lake, and even as the debate goes on we see the changes occurring in the lake. Coincidence? Causality? Has there been an impact yet on the lakes region in NH? We should document the changes that we perceive for future historians? For example, the past winter season saw no ice-in, a poor snowmobile economy, and an early spring.

[chipj29]

OK so maybe the Earth really IS warmer than it was last year, 10 years ago, 100 years ago. OK call it global warming if you wish. However, how do we KNOW that it is being caused by man? Is it POSSIBLE it is being caused by other reasons that we do not know about? From what I have read and heard, there are a million theories on the cause, but the absolute cause is not known. Science is all about proven theories...are there any? Every "proven" theory seems to have an opposite theory, therefore I am not ready to buy into it yet.

[SIKSUKR]

Chip,that answer makes way too much sense,formulated by clear thinking.I feel this is another in a long line of liberal scare tactics that may or may not have any merit.I remain very skeptical.

[lakershaker]

But I will post one more from today's Washington Times. Good summary for those not wanting to read the whole thing:
"Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions." "

I certainly hope they are right, as I never got to go out on the ice this winter!

But my favorite warning recently: On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases. :emb:


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-115953-7360r.htm

[ApS]

"Global warming and the pollution and burning of fossil fuels that cause it are threats we see here in California and everywhere around the world. These pollutants blanket the globe, trapping heat and creating the "greenhouse" effect - the warming of the earth's atmosphere. All of this impacts California's water supply, public health, agriculture, coastlines, forestry, and much more.

"We have no choice but to meet this challenge. So, we will mobilize with an aggressive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

* We will fully implement California's landmark greenhouse gas law which requires cleaner burning vehicles sold in our state starting in 2009.

* We are going to accelerate the timetable to get more energy from renewable sources with a 20% reduction by 2010 and a 33% reduction by 2020.

* We are greening the state's fleet of government vehicles - 70,000 of them - to be the most fuel-efficient in the world.

* And we are recruiting businesses up and down the state to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because it makes sense for our environment and our economy. Those who have already reduced their greenhouse gas emissions have saved billions of dollars.

Pollution reduction has long been proven to be a money-saver for businesses. It reduces operating costs, increases profits and creates new and expanded markets for environmental technology.


California can and must reduce pollution, reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming and at the same time improve our economy.

I've excerpted this one to comment on it:

* We will continue to push my initiative to have one million solar powered homes and buildings in California to save energy and reduce pollution.

My BIL lives in Sacramento, and hand-built a solar panel array to benefit from California's Energy incentives. Most of the day, his electric meter runs backwards :look: sending electricity back to the grid and reducing his electric bill at the same time. California homeowners have the lowest electric bills of any state.

When he (BIL) arrives at Lake Winnipesaukee, he sets up a portable solar array to charge battery-packs to power his kayak electrically! Even with my most conscientious efforts, I can't beat this individual effort!

Anyway, maybe the fact of Global Warming "sounds better" coming from a celebrity? :confused:

[VarneyPoint]

The author of the article, Dr. Richard Lindzen, is an endowed chair professor at MIT. I think that all would agree he could be described as objective.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220


Lindzen is on the payroll of big oil. Google him and you will find that he has many ties oil and coal interests, specifically "consulting" fees. Doesn't seem to be objective to me.

[Island Girl]

Oh, no!!! Giving up fresh grilled hamburgers on the island may just be too much for me... Then again... if the season gets extended by all this red meat eating... we could boat for more weeks, though we might have to give up snowmobiling on the lake.

What to do.. What to do??

red meat? snowmobiling?
red meat? snowmobiling?
red meat? snowmobiling?

I just cannot make up my mind.. guess I will go grill a hamburger now!

Hey, Pepper... I might consider giving up the red meat today if you will bring a lobster roll to Minge Cove... bring yourself something to eat as well and I will pick you up and bring you out here!!!! :D

(the sun came out here on Rattlesnake Island a couple of hours ago and the east wind died down.... paradise!!!}

Tongue in Cheek
IG

[John A. Birdsall]

[QUOTE=SAMIAM]If we stopped using every internal combustion engine in the world tomorrow....it would have no effect on global warming when compared to the carbon dioxide caused by rotting vegetation.
************************************************** ***
If this is the case then everybody should cease eating baked beans, especially those from Boston who are full of "hot" air!
:emb:

[Winnigirl]

Lindzen is on the payroll of big oil. Google him and you will find that he has many ties oil and coal interests, specifically "consulting" fees. Doesn't seem to be objective to me.


Exactly. Thank you, VarneyPoint!

[Great Idea]

Thank you Varney Point.....
drill down further and you will find that many of the Canadian "scientists" work as consultants/lobbyists for the coal/shale conversion industry up there. They want to sell/promote the coal shale industry. Fossil fuel... Do your homework and STUDY ALL the aspects of the subject and make note of who is paying who for the various research. I once thought as you did until I did the due diligence. I have spent many hours over serveral years reading/researching the subject. The evidence is so overwhelming its not funny. I was blown away when I noticed in almost 90 percent of the cases in which a contrary to global warming arguement was presented the research/opinion had come from someone paid or affiliated with the oil and coal industry. Keep one thing in mind...... all the major scientific communities/groups in the world have NEVER really disputed the fact that Global Warming exists,just to what extent it exists. If you do what I am suggesting it will make you angry that folks seem to think it is ok to actually deceive the public as long as they benefit financially from it. Go ahead and do the reading....... me telling you isn't going to do anything to change your opinion. Please look on line at the NASA climate change report and the edits made by the current administration's EPA head before it was published..... THAT will really open your eyes ......

[ITD]

Imagine that, an oil company sponsoring studies relevant to their industry, oh the horrors. Next there will be medical companies sponsoring medical studies, oh where will it end. I'm willing to bet if I drilled down the alarmists of global warming I'll find they're sponsored by let's say Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or some other such environmental group, I haven't checked but I bet I'm right.

[VarneyPoint]

So Great Idea,

Am not sure if you are challenging me or agreeing with me? I am confused by your position. I actually am a scientist, have dual degrees in chemisty and biology, and am a published author, so I have a pretty good idea as to how industry sponsored research works and places to look that are peer-reviewed instead of op-ed pieces in newspapers.


ITD, ever stop to wonder if there has EVER been a study sponsored by an oil/coal company that has said "global warming is real and man is causing it?" I bet you haven't, I wonder why? Do you think that perhaps they would lose a lot of money if that happened? Last time I checked, Greenpeace wasn't making a $25 billion profit in a single quarter.

[Great Idea]

with your comments Varney Point and was thanking you for pointing out the fact that the researcher in question was paid by the coal industry. Thank you also for pointing out the obvious to ITD. Never have these paid researchers come up with anything in opposition to what the oil companies want us to hear. Like you said ITD.... you haven't really looked into it. Before you argue further perhaps you should study it? Please do. Your in for a shock. Did you also know that 80 percent of the US population now believes that some form of human influenced global warming is now taking place? 5 years ago it was less than 50 percent. Education is a wonderful thing! STUDY the subject and READ ALL the data that is scientifically verifiable (not just the opinion pages) and then look at the sources of funding behind the opinion or research. Is NASA who gets it funding from the current administration paid for by the "Greenies"??? Read what there EXTENSIVE research and data has to say and then tell me its biased liberal BS tree hugger stuff.....

By the way , I am politically conservative and never considered myself a "tree hugger" however I do value education and I took the time to educate myself on this topic and it opened my eyes WIDE to the oil/coal industry CRAP we are being fed by the hired climate "experts" .... Protecting the environment will become a "conservative" issue once it starts to dig into people's pockets ...... it has started already.

[Lakegeezer]

The shale era is inevitable, but maybe the carbon can be consumed more cleanly. The energy companies are going to make tons of money hording the last bit of fossil fuel. Maybe the industry should be nationalized for a while? It is not in the interest of the oil companies to have a quick switch-over to a new energy. That would lower its profits and upset its stockholders. Wouldn’t it be nice if the carbon energy industry would re-invest its profits in developing successful non-carbon sources of energy?

It will take at least 20 and more likely 100 years to convert to a non-carbon based energy source, but there isn’t much progress yet. Hydro electric is pretty much tapped, wind farms are failing to be accepted, solar power still isn't efficient enough, and nuclear safety problems are still questioned. Locally, perhaps we could harness the power in the weekend boat wake and use it to power our lights for the rest of the week. J

What ever the energy answer turns out to be, the conversion has not yet really begun. There is no desperation yet – even in the face of shortages and suspicion of climate impact. It would be exciting to live through the evolutionary period where more than 20% of new houses and cars are built to use non-carbon energy sources. It would be the most exciting change since the dawn of the space age.

[ITD]

So Great Idea,

Am not sure if you are challenging me or agreeing with me? I am confused by your position. I actually am a scientist, have dual degrees in chemisty and biology, and am a published author, so I have a pretty good idea as to how industry sponsored research works and places to look that are peer-reviewed instead of op-ed pieces in newspapers.


ITD, ever stop to wonder if there has EVER been a study sponsored by an oil/coal company that has said "global warming is real and man is causing it?" I bet you haven't, I wonder why? Do you think that perhaps they would lose a lot of money if that happened? Last time I checked, Greenpeace wasn't making a $25 billion profit in a single quarter.

My position throughout this thread has been clear, I think anyone who claims Global Warming is a fact based on what has been presented so far is wrong. As a scientist I would expect you to know the difference between a theory and a fact. There are too many legitimate questions unanswered for someone to draw any conclusions to the data presented. When the Global Warming conclusion is challenged the challenger is derided, a typical tactic when the challenge can't be answered.

[GWC...]

So Great Idea,

Am not sure if you are challenging me or agreeing with me? I am confused by your position. I actually am a scientist, have dual degrees in chemisty and biology, and am a published author, so I have a pretty good idea as to how industry sponsored research works and places to look that are peer-reviewed instead of op-ed pieces in newspapers.


ITD, ever stop to wonder if there has EVER been a study sponsored by an oil/coal company that has said "global warming is real and man is causing it?" I bet you haven't, I wonder why? Do you think that perhaps they would lose a lot of money if that happened? Last time I checked, Greenpeace wasn't making a $25 billion profit in a single quarter.

Speaking of Google, perhaps a google of "Chernobyl's coffin is cracking" would add to the theory of global warming.

Also, what effect is China having upon the situation?

More importantly, what is the cumulative effect upon the Lake?

[Great Idea]

"I haven't checked but I bet I'm right." ITD's abve post....

How do you know the data isn't there and if it was paid for by "tree huggers" if you haven't looked into it? Shouldn't you spend the time doing so before you choose to arque with folks that seem to have spent the time studying it, have an extensive backround and are knowlegdeable regarding the data?

[ITD]

"I haven't checked but I bet I'm right." ITD's abve post....

How do you know the data isn't there and if it was paid for by "tree huggers" if you haven't looked into it? Shouldn't you spend the time doing so before you choose to arque with folks that seem to have spent the time studying it, have an extensive backround and are knowlegdeable regarding the data?

First, to answer your questions, I "haven't looked into" whether the "tree huggers" (your term not mine) have paid for the Global Warming studies, I really don't care. As far as your second question (in bold above), are you referring to yourself or someone else posting here?

Global Warming is not a fact, humans causing Global Warming is not a fact, most of the experts don't call it a fact, they generally qualify their responses. What about the people with extensive background and are knowledgable regarding the data who say the data is flawed, the methods are flawed and the conclusions are flawed. How can you so easily ignore them? This has become politicised and the solutions proposed will bankrupt most of this country. Someone posted a few days ago that the "world is no longer flat" yet in the past that was the popular and political "truth" most people believed it. True science doesn't care about opinion or popular ideas. Please though, I urge you to unplug, bury your car(s) ( so no one else will use them) stop using fossil fuels or any other type of fuel that must be burned, if all the believers actually did this it should make a huge difference, according to your experts. But don't try to impose that on me based on your theories and opinion.

[VarneyPoint]

Actually, ITD, 99% of the scientific community has agreed that the earth is warming. There is very little dispute among believers and non-believers that the earth is actually getting hotter. I will grant you that there is SOME debate as to how much a role humans are playing. My own beliefs, research and convictions tell me and many others that humans and our activity play a role. I will grant you that not everything is known. How can it be? Isaac Newton invented physics in the 17th century. It took 300 years before Albert Einstein came along and revolutionized it. If we listened to you, people should have just rejected Newton because "it wasn't a fact." Are you advocating that we wait and wait and wait and wait until every last tiny detail is known about climate change? Should we just sit around hoping it isn't true? You know, some people think an avain influenza is going to strike the world at some point in the future. Should we do nothing because it's not yet a fact? Should we wait until a pandemic influenza virus strikes the world before doing something about or should we prepare and try to prevent it from happening?

It really is unfortunate that climate change has become a political issue. It shouldn't be. No reasonable person is suggesting you "bury" your car. I certainly have not told you or anyone else to do anything other than open your mind. Think about it this way, though. If I am wrong and human induced global warming turns out to be wrong, then oh well, I am wrong. BUT if you are wrong, and human induced global warming turns out to be right, are you and others like you going to look back and realize that you did in fact have the chance to do your part to help slow it down or even stop it?

If only one person reading this message board has become more aware of the issue of climate change and has decided to learn more and do their part to reduce their use, then I feel pretty good about it.

[jrc]

but I can't let facts be trampled.

.... No reasonable person is suggesting you "bury" your car....

From Al Gore's Book:

...it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period...

that was 1992, only eleven years to go ;)

Wikipedia also says this:

In 1992, the same year Gore published his book on the subject, Newsweek journalist Greg Easterbrook wrote about calls by Al Gore and Paul R. Ehrlich for journalistic self-censorship about criticisms of climate change, saying they had "ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore's words, undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take." Easterbrook wrote: "Skeptical debate is supposed to be one of the strengths of liberalism; it's eerie to hear liberal environmentalists asserting that views they disagree with ought not to be heard."

It seems his censorship instructions were heard, loud and clear.

[ITD]

but I can't let facts be trampled.



From Al Gore's Book:

...it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period...

that was 1992, only eleven years to go ;)

Wikipedia also says this:

In 1992, the same year Gore published his book on the subject, Newsweek journalist Greg Easterbrook wrote about calls by Al Gore and Paul R. Ehrlich for journalistic self-censorship about criticisms of climate change, saying they had "ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore's words, undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take." Easterbrook wrote: "Skeptical debate is supposed to be one of the strengths of liberalism; it's eerie to hear liberal environmentalists asserting that views they disagree with ought not to be heard."

It seems his censorship instructions were heard, loud and clear.

Thank you JRC



Actually, ITD, 99% of the scientific community has agreed that the earth is warming.



Another fact? There is no possible way you can know this yet you clearly state this as a fact.


If we listened to you, people should have just rejected Newton because "it wasn't a fact." Are you advocating that we wait and wait and wait and wait until every last tiny detail is known about climate change? Should we just sit around hoping it isn't true? You know, some people think an avain influenza is going to strike the world at some point in the future. Should we do nothing because it's not yet a fact?


Another group of people acted on their "facts", the popular opinion of the time a few hundred years ago. People died, remember the Salem Witch Trials? Mob mentality seems like a good idea to the mob......


No reasonable person is suggesting you "bury" your car.


I'm going to keep driving my car. I said you should stop driving yours since you so fervently believe it causes Global Warming, act on your beliefs, lead by example.


I certainly have not told you or anyone else to do anything other than open your mind.



So I have a closed mind because I don't agree with you, please give me break. Seems to me a person with an open mind would form an opinion based on both sides of an arguement. An open minded person would listen to the opposing viewpoints and not resort to name calling.

[SAMIAM]

Very nicely said,jrc......can't wait for the reply.

[VarneyPoint]

ITD,

Since you choose to selectively respond to only portions of my post, and arguably the least substantial points of it, thereby taking the whole thing out of context, I'll be brief.

1.) The earth is warming. It is a fact. The surface temp has risen 1 degree in the last 100 years. This is not debated. Everyone accepts it. As I already said in the previous post, there is debate as to the extent of human induced influence. I believe it to be significant, others believe it may be small or none. If you care to look it up, most institutions with an opinion on global warming will back up the claim that the earth is warming regardless of who is to blame. I'll leave it at that.

2.) Comparing the Salem witch hunt of the 1600s to a scientific debate is hardly a useful or relevant analogy. Can't you come up with something better?

3.) I'm glad you are going to keep driving your car because for the 3rd time, I haven't told you to stop driving it. Despite believing that man is the major cause of global warming, I am also a realist and recognize that we simply cannot stop on a dime.

4.) I am leading by example, I am trying to increase the overall awareness of this important issue. As I stated in my last post, if only one person reading this thread begins to think differently about the issue, then I am happy to have helped. Have my posts been so inflammatory as to keep you up at night? As I said, if I am wrong, then no harm done. But if you are wrong, will you be able to say the same thing?

5.) I certainly did not "name call." I did not mean to imply that you had a closed mind, as I never actually used those words. I simply am expressing my hope that everyone, not just you, ITD, will find it useful to challenge their personal convictions.

6.) Why not enlighten us as to your personal opinion on the subject? So far, all I really know is that you don't believe global warming is fact and constantly use the ambiguity of the situation to beat back anyone who posits otherwise. I have actually agreed with you to a certain extent that everything is not fact. There are some debatable issues and not everything is known. I have challenged you with relevant examples that you have not responded to. Do you have anything else to offer? I noticed you once posted that you really don't care to look into who pays for the research on climate change. So if you don't care to learn more about the process, why are you here posting?

SAMIAM,
I'm glad I can be so entertaining...:)

Al Gore was a politician at the time, he obviously had an agenda. Also, the wikipedia, while great for getting general information, is not a great resource when it comes to accuracy for scientific claims as it is not subject to editorial review.

By the way, in 1992, had work actually started with real funding on producing a new type of engine, I'm almost sure we would be there either now or in a few years time. Honestly, it took 3 to 4 years to invent the atomic bomb in the 1940s and they had to do in complete secrecy. If we had some real leadership on the issue, I'd bet we could get ourselves off of oil which for economic reasons would be great (I'm sure everyone has noticed how high gas is), for security reasons would be great, and environmental issues would be even better. Guess I wasn't brief afterall. Sorry.


Websites for people in the crowd:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[secondcurve]

Varney Point:

I tend to agree that global warming is a serious issue and that many people have their heads buried in the sand. The good news is that before it becomes an uncontrollable problem, I feel that we are going to see astronomical oil prices which will curb demand and speed up the search for alternative energy sources, which I hope will have a less of an impact on the earth. I fear that this transition could be quite bumpy (if not much worse), but the end result should be more earth friendly.

Unfortunately, the only way that global warming and energy independence for the USA will be addressed, is through sky high oil prices. The good news/bad news is $100.00 a barrel oil is on our door step. Now, if only it could wait until October since running my 225 4-stroke Yamaha this summer is going to cost me a small fortune!

[SIKSUKR]

Varney Point:

I tend to agree that global warming is a serious issue and that many people have their heads buried in the sand. The good news is that before it becomes an uncontrollable problem, I feel that we are going to see astronomical oil prices which will curb demand and speed up the search for alternative energy sources, which I hope will have a less of an impact on the earth. I fear that this transition could be quite bumpy (if not much worse), but the end result should be more earth friendly.

Unfortunately, the only way that global warming and energy independence for the USA will be addressed, is through sky high oil prices. The good news/bad news is $100.00 a barrel oil is on our door step. Now, if only it could wait until October since running my 225 4-stroke Yamaha this summer is going to cost me a small fortune!
While I don't agree with seconcurves conclusion that global warming is a serious issue,I think he'\she's right on with high oil prices actually being a good thing in the long run.This will no doubt help speed the research towards alternative fuel while making current ones under developement(hydrogen) much more price competitive and therefore more incentive to accelerate the progress in these fuels.While I don't like the rise in gas prices,we have become so used to low gas prices relative to the rest of the western world,with Europeans having been paying $4-5 a gallon for years.I think the "good times" are behind us.

[ITD]

ITD,

Since you choose to selectively respond to only portions of my post, and arguably the least substantial points of it, thereby taking the whole thing out of context, I'll be brief.


Ok, I'll respond point by point below, you obviously think my point that your facts are actually not facts is "least substantial" I'm not sure this will do any good, but I'll try.


1.) The earth is warming. It is a fact. The surface temp has risen 1 degree in the last 100 years. This is not debated. Everyone accepts it. As I already said in the previous post, there is debate as to the extent of human induced influence. I believe it to be significant, others believe it may be small or none. If you care to look it up, most institutions with an opinion on global warming will back up the claim that the earth is warming regardless of who is to blame. I'll leave it at that.


Exerpt from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1017204.stm


Data from weather stations on land and at sea have been used to reconstruct variations in the Earth's annual-mean surface temperature over the past century.
These show a warming in the range 0.3-0.60C over the period. But the sceptics doubt whether much, or any, of the warming can be linked to increases in C02.
They make the point that much of the data comes from weather stations close to towns and cities. The warming may simply reflect the heat associated with the growth of those towns and cities. Any "real" warming that may exist once this bias has been properly extracted falls well within the "noise" of natural climate variability.


And from: McIntyre and McKitrick (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/submission.1.final.pdf)



In a recent paper


1 (herein MM03), we developed an updated version of the climate proxy
data set used by Mann et. al.2 (MBH98) to compute a Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature
index. The most significant changes were the replacement of obsolete versions of proxy data
used in MBH98 with current versions from the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
(WDCP) and the use of conventional principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce networks of
tree ring chronologies to regional aggregates using the maximum period in which all sites were
available. Applying the methodology of MBH98 to the new data yielded an NH temperature
index in which the values in the 15th century exceeded those in the late 20th century, thereby
contradicting the conclusions in MBH98 of a unique 20th century climate warming





So the point: It is not a fact the earth is warming, everyone does not accept the "fact" that the earth is warming, it is debated, you are wrong to say it is not debated.



2.) Comparing the Salem witch hunt of the 1600s to a scientific debate is hardly a useful or relevant analogy. Can't you come up with something better?


Sorry you don't like my analogy, but a witch hunt is a witch hunt. I think it's very relevant in that if anyone dared to disagree with the popular theory they were ostracized and threatened with the same fate as the "witches". Some things are timeless, if you don't like it or agree, I can't help you.


3.) I'm glad you are going to keep driving your car because for the 3rd time, I haven't told you to stop driving it. Despite believing that man is the major cause of global warming, I am also a realist and recognize that we simply cannot stop on a dime.


For the third time, I never said you told me to stop driving my car, I said you should stop driving yours.


4.) I am leading by example, I am trying to increase the overall awareness of this important issue. As I stated in my last post, if only one person reading this thread begins to think differently about the issue, then I am happy to have helped. Have my posts been so inflammatory as to keep you up at night? As I said, if I am wrong, then no harm done. But if you are wrong, will you be able to say the same thing?


Ah, but here is where you are really off base, you claim "if I am wrong, then no harm done", nothing could be further from the truth. What you advocate, (drastically reducing CO2 emmissions) will cripple our economy.
Just about every usefull bit of work done in this country requires the production of "greenhouse" gas. Your theories and their solutions have a huge cost associated with them. Who do you think would end up paying those costs? Why you and I would.


5.) I certainly did not "name call." I did not mean to imply that you had a closed mind, as I never actually used those words. I simply am expressing my hope that everyone, not just you, ITD, will find it useful to challenge their personal convictions.


"I certainly have not told you or anyone else to do anything other than open your mind."

There it is in quotes, no you didn't use the words "closed mind", but you strongly insinuated it. Projected it perhaps? I challenge my personal convictions almost daily, how about you?




6.) Why not enlighten us as to your personal opinion on the subject? So far, all I really know is that you don't believe global warming is fact and constantly use the ambiguity of the situation to beat back anyone who posits otherwise. I have actually agreed with you to a certain extent that everything is not fact. There are some debatable issues and not everything is known. I have challenged you with relevant examples that you have not responded to. Do you have anything else to offer? I noticed you once posted that you really don't care to look into who pays for the research on climate change. So if you don't care to learn more about the process, why are you here posting?


I think my position is quite clear on this, Global warming is not a fact, "everyone" does not accept it as you stated above (contradicting yourself).

Who is being beaten back here? I don't agree with you and you seem to get very worked up, trust me I am losing no sleep over this. You seem to associate who funds a study with the veracity of the study. Does this mean that every corporate sponsored study is tainted? Every study sponsored by special interest environmental groups is unbiased? What else do I need to offer? You keep harping on the point that I don’t care to look up who sponsored the research that supports Global Warming, if I do will it change your mind? I doubt it because unless you are paranoid it really doesn’t matter. I have provided links and in this post quotes. I have provided the links in previous quotes, if that’s not a response to your “challenges” then I don’t know what is. Why do I post in this thread? I post because I see people posting theories as accepted undisputed fact when indeed they are not. I can’t help it if they get upset when I point out their mistakes.


Ah, I've run out of time, I will address the balance of your post later.

[jrc]

....Al Gore was a politician at the time, he obviously had an agenda. Also, the wikipedia, while great for getting general information, is not a great resource when it comes to accuracy for scientific claims as it is not subject to editorial review.

By the way, in 1992, had work actually started with real funding on producing a new type of engine, I'm almost sure we would be there either now or in a few years time. Honestly, it took 3 to 4 years to invent the atomic bomb in the 1940s and they had to do in complete secrecy. If we had some real leadership on the issue, I'd bet we could get ourselves off of oil which for economic reasons would be great (I'm sure everyone has noticed how high gas is), for security reasons would be great, and environmental issues would be even better. Guess I wasn't brief afterall. Sorry....


Just to address a few issues:

Al Gore is still a politician, he has no scientific schooling, he has done no scientific research, so all his opinions are merely his political opinion of studies he has read. (research in this context means making measurments in the field)

I used Wiki for quotes from his book and quotes about his politics, not for science. Do you doubt the quotes?

Building a new engine technology is really just a small part of project. The difficult problem is the energy source. Even at $100 a barrel, there are no cost effective and politically viable alternatives to petroleum.

[SIKSUKR]

Here's some food for thought for people who beleive this is absolute fact.

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000027.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000023.html

And here's how our wonderfull liberal media reports it:

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000010.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000066.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000056.html
My point with this is not to prove or disprove theories,only that that's exactly what we are dealing with here when we talk of man induced climate warming,Theories and what if's.There is a lot more research to be done before Ill jump on that bandwagon.

[VarneyPoint]

Alright ITD,

Let's just agree to disagree. I would love to respond to everything, but I simply don't have the time to go through everything as I am sure you don't either. The real substance of this thread has been lost with our back and forth as it has degenerated into a debate of semantics, tone, implied points, perceived insults and the like. I am not about to change your mind and you are not about to change mine. I get your point, it's not fact, fine. Our posts have gotten too long and convoluted for anything of substance to really come out of it. I trust the people on this board to make up their own minds despite our banter which is quickly approaching childish levels. This will be my last post on the issue. I'll let you have the last word and let others post a little.

[Great Idea]

Some of us appreciate your attempt to point to scientific data and write clear, concise posts. Your efforts to present science and sites that support the data with actual research rather than "opinion sites" and so called conservative rants by so called experts who work for the big oil/coal companies will hopefully aid in educating those who are open to study and learning. Don't waste your time however attempting to debate the issue here. The responses are always predictable and lacking any real effort or research into the issue at hand. The sea level could be rising , tornadoes ripping thru the state and temps could be up 10-15 degrees and these posters would still be saying it wasn't real and we had nothing to do with it. 2005 was THE warmest overall average global temperature in 10,000 years.....most of us would like to know why and if there were things that man could do to slow this trend. Your/our "opponents" here attack rather than spend the hours it would take to really absorb the data that exists and THEN form an opinion . They had their opinion perhaps since birth and will continue to look at only the "data" that comforts and protects there self serving lifestyle.

[Winnigirl]

Here's some food for thought for people who beleive this is absolute fact.

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000027.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000023.html

And here's how our wonderfull liberal media reports it:

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000010.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000066.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000056.html
My point with this is not to prove or disprove theories,only that that's exactly what we are dealing with here when we talk of man induced climate warming,Theories and what if's.There is a lot more research to be done before Ill jump on that bandwagon.

I just want to reiterate that Richard Lindzen, who is one of the experts referred to in your first link, has ties to the coal/oil industries as Varney Point mentioned in a post dated 4/21. In the 1990s, Richard Lindzen received $2500 a DAY in consultant fees from coal/oil interests. As a matter of fact, according to Ross Gelbspan's Boiling Point book, Lindzen does not deny this.

[ITD]

Some of us appreciate your attempt to point to scientific data and write clear, concise posts. Your efforts to present science and sites that support the data with actual research rather than "opinion sites" and so called conservative rants by so called experts who work for the big oil/coal companies will hopefully aid in educating those who are open to study and learning. Don't waste your time however attempting to debate the issue here. The responses are always predictable and lacking any real effort or research into the issue at hand. The sea level could be rising , tornadoes ripping thru the state and temps could be up 10-15 degrees and these posters would still be saying it wasn't real and we had nothing to do with it. 2005 was THE warmest overall average global temperature in 10,000 years.....most of us would like to know why and if there were things that man could do to slow this trend. Your/our "opponents" here attack rather than spend the hours it would take to really absorb the data that exists and THEN form an opinion . They had their opinion perhaps since birth and will continue to look at only the "data" that comforts and protects there self serving lifestyle.


You people are priceless!!!!!! Here is another example of your "open minded", "non-inflammatory", "obviously scientific", "debate" tactics. :emb:

Sorry Varney Point, I really wanted to let you have the last word here, but then the above appeared I just couldn't resist.

[Great Idea]

ITD,

Until you do your homework and study the subject and present some info that isn't from tainted sources then the joke is on you and everything I said above is supported by your own responses and resistance to do some reading. Varney Point has and I have only asked you to study the research and you haven't done it. We told you why we held the opinion we do and Varney point provided you with links that demonstrate actual scientific studies. You won't read or consider them so unfortunely that appears to be closed minded on your part. Truth hurts. Further you provided some data and we unlike yourself looked at it and considered it. There was no scientific verification of the data and further it was pointed out by Winnigirl the source is a paid lobbyist from the oil/coal industry. We looked at your evidence , researched it and responded. That is fairly open minded? Yes? We keep posting our arquements supported by real science and actual statistics that can be verified if you read the studies. You counter telling us that its bull and liberal noise/hysteria yet you won't do the work to study it? Thats not priceless or funny..... just kind of sad. Keep laughing ...... hopefully some of us will pick up the slack for you and do something constructive to educate others and actually improve the situation for the future generations.

[MAXUM]

Everyone.... global warming is a THEROY not proven scientific FACT.

Let me put this in perspective... E=MC2 is fact. There is not enough evidence to suggest global warming is either fact or fiction at this time, or any time in the next few million years period.

The true facts are as follows:

Scientists on both sides of the arguement produce all kinds of evidence to support thier points, however how OBJECTIVE are thier studies??? Some may be based on fact but there is simply not enough data to extactly know what temperature trends were say 1000 or 10,000 years ago. Oh one can speculate or interpret evidence to estimate trends, but estimates are not hard numbers. This is why global warming will remain a THEORY from probably the next 100,000 years or so. Even at 100K years, a mere moment in time considering the age of the earth. What is fact is that evidence from the past show we've had wild global temperature changes long before the internal combustion engine was invented. Hmm.... explain that!

Politicians cherry pick the scientists that find in thier favor to bolster thier ideas of regulation and legislation. If they can't find them they will "fund" a study with OUR money to find evidence to support thier position.

I resort back to my original point, I could care less if global warming is fact or fiction, however we all have a responsibility to do what we REASONABLY can do to take care of the world we live in since it is the only one we got. If that means investing in alternative resources fine, lets spend the money creating something useful, not more studies that are tainted at best and prove nothing. Think of the billions of dollars that could have gone to real research in developing alternative power instead of some long forgotten "study". Lets all move on from senseless debate and invest in a %^&$ solution!

Enough said.......

[ITD]

ITD,

Until you do your homework and study the subject and present some info that isn't from tainted sources then the joke is on you and everything I said above is supported by your own responses and resistance to do some reading. Varney Point has and I have only asked you to study the research and you haven't done it. We told you why we held the opinion we do and Varney point provided you with links that demonstrate actual scientific studies. You won't read or consider them so unfortunely that appears to be closed minded on your part. Truth hurts. Further you provided some data and we unlike yourself looked at it and considered it. There was no scientific verification of the data and further it was pointed out by Winnigirl the source is a paid lobbyist from the oil/coal industry. We looked at your evidence , researched it and responded. That is fairly open minded? Yes? We keep posting our arquements supported by real science and actual statistics that can be verified if you read the studies. You counter telling us that its bull and liberal noise/hysteria yet you won't do the work to study it? Thats not priceless or funny..... just kind of sad. Keep laughing ...... hopefully some of us will pick up the slack for you and do something constructive to educate others and actually improve the situation for the future generations.

Oh no, no, no, you're not drawing me down this road again. Don't tell me what I have and haven't studied. Look up McIntyre and McKitrick. I've called no one any names, unlike you. Fact vs. theory, look it up in the dictionary. I don't buy your premises. When you educate others please teach the whole truth, not just your slant. And like it or not, you're priceless.:)

Well said Maxum, all except the e=mc^2 part...........nevermind, I still like the way you think.;)

[ApS]

"...Everyone.... global warming is a THEORY not proven scientific FACT..."

In 1998, Popular Science stated that Global Warming is a FACT. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did likewise (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=30973&postcount=71). This year, the President's own Council on such things said the same.

Want a neutral report? Take Swiss scientists:

"...In order to be able to deal with the negative effects of climate change in the short term and avoid them in the long term, Swiss Re proposes two strategies: the first is climate protection, which is necessary to prevent global warming from accelerating to such a degree that humans are no longer able to adjust. This approach includes reducing the degree of human intervention in the natural climatic system. Secondly, society as a whole must learn to anticipate changeable climates..." http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwswpspr.nsf/fmBookMarkFrameSet?ReadForm&BM=../vwAllbyIDKeyLu/rzig-5c4l2l?OpenDocument

The two schools:

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".

While I defer to Limbaugh's acumen in politics, I strongly disagree with his broadcasting of misleading environmental news: Once, I attempted to "call him on it". (Literally).

At the time, he was discussing "Ozone-depletion", a problem that didn't appear until Andes Mountain tourists were getting sunburned in just fifteen minutes! Scientists rapidly determined the fact of Ozone depletion and Congress dragged itself into outlawing the worst of the Chloro-Flouro-Carbons. (Abbreviated "CFCs" — found in air conditioning systems.)

As to Global Warming, Senators defeated the Kyoto Treaty 99-0. There's little question that Congress did the right thing for Western economies: China (not affected by Kyoto) is discussing oil drilling in the Gulf -- off Cuba! On the other hand, Iran (with huge oil reserves) could be hit with UN sanctions. (So don't go looking for fuel prices heading downwards).

There are too many "moneyed interests" to reduce Humanity's effects on Global Warming; but take a look at this lake as a microcosm of this planet.

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?

[jeffk]

Climate fluctuations, warming and cooling, are normal and have been occurring before man became a significant player in the world.

The methodology of global temperature measurement has only become precise in the last few decades. Measurements prior to that become more questionable the further back you go. Even current measurements may be influenced by the local "heat island effects. The amount of warming (.6 C, 1.1 F over the last century) is in the "noise" of our ability to measure temperature accurately.

Computer models suffer greatly from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). There is still no model that is able to accurately project climate changes.

CO2 is not the most important contributor to "greenhouse" effects; water vapor and oxygen are more significant. The amount of CO2 that is contributed by human activities is disputable and is probably less than that contributed via "natural" causes. More CO2 may be a positive contribution to the biosphere.

Overall, climate is extremely complex and we do not know how all the components work and interact.

Here is a link to a discussion of some of the issues of interest:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

This is a summary of the points in the discussion:


The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems


I don't deny that some warming may be going on. However, the amount of warming, the cause of it, whether it is a problem, and how much we can control it are very unsettled issues. The current proposed costs for "fixing" it are enormous and very real with very uncertain benefit. We need significantly better information before committing enormous resources to this questionable effort.

[ITD]

{snipped} Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?



Here we go again, are you going to show us that petroleum ring around the lake picture again? Still waiting for the answer from the last time you pulled out that picture.:rolleye2:

[jrc]

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".
....

1) Wrong. What's your definition of a scientist, a person who agrees with global warming?
2) Like Al Gore, Rush has no scientific training so he is only parroting someone else's research. Let's judge the science not the politician or entertainer who point to it.


Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?
....

The biggest effect fossil fuel has had on Lake Winnipesaukee is MTBE getting into the drinking water. Since MTBE is soon to be banned that problem should be gone. Other problems from gas and oil entering the water should be helped by the changeover to fuel injection and the change away from two-stroke engines. A true lake lover would work hard to speed this up. See this article:

http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=8057

The important sentence:
...In the five years since the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency prohibited most two-stroke engines, those residual gas products have declined between 80 and 90 percent...

[MAXUM]

In 1998, Popular Science stated that Global Warming is a FACT. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did likewise (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=30973&postcount=71). This year, the President's own Council on such things said the same.

Want a neutral report? Take Swiss scientists:



The two schools:

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".

While I defer to Limbaugh's acumen in politics, I strongly disagree with his broadcasting of misleading environmental news: Once, I attempted to "call him on it". (Literally).

At the time, he was discussing "Ozone-depletion", a problem that didn't appear until Andes Mountain tourists were getting sunburned in just fifteen minutes! Scientists rapidly determined the fact of Ozone depletion and Congress dragged itself into outlawing the worst of the Chloro-Flouro-Carbons. (Abbreviated "CFCs" — found in air conditioning systems.)

As to Global Warming, Senators defeated the Kyoto Treaty 99-0. There's little question that Congress did the right thing for Western economies: China (not affected by Kyoto) is discussing oil drilling in the Gulf -- off Cuba! On the other hand, Iran (with huge oil reserves) could be hit with UN sanctions. (So don't go looking for fuel prices heading downwards).

There are too many "moneyed interests" to reduce Humanity's effects on Global Warming; but take a look at this lake as a microcosm of this planet.

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?


Wow - very interesting indeed.

So Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a real expert on the subject....

Popular Science may very well have published supporting information for the THEORY of global warming, that does not make it scientific fact.

The President's council may have supported the THEORY of global warming, but that does not make it fact.

As I have said before you can find as many people supporting the idea that global warming is a fact as you can that say it's not. Fact is the earth has experienced climatic changes naturally a LONG time before humans were around driving internal combustion engines. Matter of fact it has been estimated that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens threw more greenhouse gasses in the air than all the emmissions combined of internal combustion engines since they were first invented. Hmm.... better put a catelytic converter on every volcano across the planet then huh?

Ah yes Ozone depleation, I was watching NOVA a couple months back where they have discovered through ice core samples that there has been historically a fluctuating hole in the OZONE for thousands of years.

Personally I could care less what gas prices do, if they remain high then just maybe that will finally get people thinking about conservation and new replacement technologies. Again I say invest the money in inovation not more studies that are just nothing but theory and estimations. Fact is there is no way to know for sure how much man has effected the climate. What is going on now may very well be a normal warming cycle and has nothing what so ever to do with fossil fuels. There is simply not enough data to know for sure.

Finally, the only thing that is wrecking Lake Winnipesaukee is milfoil, out of date septic systems, construction that is effecting run off and fertilizer used on the sprawling lawns infront of all the mc-mansions. None of these things has anything to do with internal combustion engines!

[JPC]

Did anyone watch NOVA this past Sunday? Interesting subjet on the dimming sun and how it applies to global warming.

[Orion]

Finally, the only thing that is wrecking Lake Winnipesaukee is milfoil, out of date septic systems, construction that is effecting run off and fertilizer used on the sprawling lawns infront of all the mc-mansions. None of these things has anything to do with internal combustion engines!

I think MAXUM has correctly established our immediate Lake concerns. But I'd like to also add it's not just the lawns at the McMansions, but all lawns where owners are fertilizing. hundreds of small lawn owners believe their use of fertilizers (even these so-called "natural" fertilizers) are not really impacting the lake. Here's the bottom line.....what's good for grass is good for algae and undesirable underwater plants.

[Bear Islander]

I was at the North Pole last week and I ran into some scientists that were part of the Polar Buoy project. They claim that the data they are getting from the buoys show alarming temp increases in the arctic. However there are theories that can explain this other than global warming.

Their pet theory was about disruptions in the polar stream that circles under the ice pack.

[skisox24]

I will concede to having maintained a healthy scepticism of the global warming hysteria. Yet my ego is humble enough to recognize its possibility.

I highly recommend a 2004 fast-paced adventure novel entitled State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. Its a great read, and its central theme pulsates with the very same issues that have been the essense of this thread. Yes, the novel is fiction, but throughout the story the author references factual footnotes that support the contentions made within the story's plot.

At the end of the book the author includes a section with his personal conclusions which he arrived at following his three year period of dedicated research that stands behind his intricate story.

Its a great beach book for the summer, and it might even provoke some enlightented thought on this controversial issue!

[MAXUM]

Here is the bottom line. Is the globe any warmer now than it was say 50 years ago. Maybe, maybe not. For this conversation lets say it is. So what exactly does that prove. IMHO nothing!

Lets say the globe is warmer now than it was say 10 years ago what does that prove? Again nothing!

Fact - scientists have been able to determine that the earth has undergone global temperature changes in it's past, at times being much colder than it is now, other times much warmer than it is now. All these thing happened without man being a factor. What is in question now is what we see going on around us a natural cycle or something that is man made. With only a couple hundred years of hard factual historical data, a mere blink in the history of the earth I find it very irresponsible for any scientist to either confirm or deny the idea of global warming. No matter there isn't a thing we can do to stop it, leading me to believe there is little doubt we are doing much to cause it in the first place. However doing our best to conserve and respect the earth we live on (with in reason, not hugging trees or spotted owls) is in the best interest of mankind as a whole.

The more studies that come out either somehow proving or disproving global warming the less credibility they have and so does the theory. There is simply not even 1000 years of hard data to come to that kind of conclusion.

[Pine Island Guy]

Saw Steven Wright at Hampton Beach Casino last Saturday and his perspective is...

"I believe Global Warming started when the Cold War ended"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[KonaChick]

There was an informative documentary on HBO last night about Global Warming "Too Hot Not To Handle". It presented some pretty interesting arguments that indeed Global Warming is real and we are headed for some big problems in the future. All I can say after watching the docementary and absorbing all the information is that a picture is worth a thousand words. If you have HBO and get a chance it's a good watch!

[Great Idea]

just keeps mounting..... this is one situation where it won't be pleasant to say "I told you so"...

John England, a geologist who was with the team that spotted the earlier grizzly.

"If we want evidence for climate change, we don't have to go to an isolated occurrence of a grizzly bear somewhere," said England, who holds a northern research chair on environmental change in the Arctic.

"The satellite imagery showing sea ice reduction over the last 30 years is proof positive of very dramatic changes in the northern hemisphere."

No one disputes that warming and cooling cycles are natural and have happend before.....
Its the SPEED at which the climate is changing that is at issue and supports with little doubt that CO2 generated by fossil fuels is the chief culprit. While changes happened in the past never has the change been so rapid. Ice cores and tree ring fossils demonstrate the past patterns over thousands of years regarding rates of warming and cooling and the evidence is undeniable.

[SIKSUKR]

How can one say"while change has happened in the past,never has the change happened so fast" and that means that fossil fuels are the culprit?We have had cataclismic events that wiped out the dinaseurs which are beleived to have been caused by a giant meteor colliding with earth.This event caused the earth to go into total darkness and kill almost all living things.How could this event not be much quicker than we are experiencing right now?It's these kind of conclusions that make me doubt some of theories that are presented.We simply have a much too small of a sample of climate varables to weigh to come to an absolute conclusion.

[Great Idea]

And how do you think they confirmed this event and the speed in which it impacted the environment? Sediment layers and tree ring fossils..... these events were measurable and could be tied to a cause. Other temperature changes were more gradual over a period of 100's of years.... we have exceeded this rate of "natural" temperature change and seen it occur in just 20-30 years. Why? Just as volcanoes or meterors did it quickly in the past we are accelarating the "natural" rate via CO2 and man made fossil fuel consumption.

[Cobalt 25]

SIKSUKR,

"...too small of a sample..."

Scientists for the past several years have been compiling vast amounts of incontrovertible evidence supporting the existance of global warming. Even President Bush, EVEN President Bush, has recently and quite reluctantly admitted to these conclusions.

We have no control over meteorites. We do have some control over what we emit into our atmosphere.

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter

[Winnigirl]

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter

Very true. However, I don't think Clinton is blameless in that either.

[ITD]

Please, all of you believers in Global Warming, give up your "greenhouse" gas producing activities immediately then. No electricity, no car, no heat. Put your money where your mouths are. Leave the rest of us alone. I still don't believe what's being promoted and it is being promoted.

[SIKSUKR]

SIKSUKR,

"...too small of a sample..."

Scientists for the past several years have been compiling vast amounts of incontrovertible evidence supporting the existance of global warming. Even President Bush, EVEN President Bush, has recently and quite reluctantly admitted to these conclusions.

We have no control over meteorites. We do have some control over what we emit into our atmosphere.

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter
If you took the time to read my posts in this thread,you would see I never said there wasn't global warming.My argument is with whether this is mainly a natural occurance or man-made.Obviousy we don't have any control over meteorites.That was not my point.Great idea said"never has change been so rapid"I was only disputing that,ok?As far as the Kyoto treaty goes,we are right on the money for not signing on to a feel good piece of propaganda that will have little if any impact on what it was created for.Alright,I'm off the soapbox for now.

[skisox24]

Agree SIKSUKR! I also concur with those that argue that our lifetime experiences are too small a sample from which to draw material conclusions.

[Seaplane Pilot]

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

[jrc]

Obviously the sinister oil company people have infiltrated the Denver Post. I like the McCarthyism analogy:

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of an oil company. Do you know anyone who is a member of an oil company. Will you name names?"

"What about this Exxon credit card, aren't they giving you cash back on every purchase. How can we trust your research when you're taking cash from big oil?"

[Great Idea]

Keep citing "editorials" and "opinions" and us "liberals" (by the way many of us are VERY conservative politically) that are inciting "hysteria" will stick to evidence and science..... more bad news for the climate below. Whether the warming is natural or not if there is even a small chance we can slow it down by lowering CO2 emissions I say lets do it.... worst case we clean up the planet and create vast new industries that would employ more people and create new jobs. Go to link below...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147504/

[ITD]

Keep citing "editorials" and "opinions" and us "liberals" (by the way many of us are VERY conservative politically) that are inciting "hysteria" will stick to evidence and science..... more bad news for the climate below. Whether the warming is natural or not if there is even a small chance we can slow it down by lowering CO2 emissions I say lets do it.... worst case we clean up the planet and create vast new industries that would employ more people and create new jobs. Go to link below...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147504/


Who'll pay for it Great Idea? If it ain't ecomonically viable it ain't gonna happen, unless my taxes pay for it, and I pay enough taxes.

BTW, that link was hardly scientific, looked a lot like editoral to me.

[Lakegeezer]

The climate changes are disrupting the normal flow of things, and businesses who depend on consistency are going to be in trouble. That means lower tax revenue for the state, and more pressure for higher business tax rates and maybe even broad base taxes on individuals. We all will pay for that.

The polar ice cap is melting and shrinking, and is possibly the cause of some weather pattern changes. Some parts of the northern hemisphere are warmer, some parts are colder. Here in NH, we seem to be getting warmer winters, longer growing seasons, and more frequent floods. Maybe warmer summers eventually, and that would help the summer economy - but that hasn't happened yet. It will take another decade to figure out if the pattern changes are a fluke or connected with the polar melt, but if the latter, then the winter economy in north country has to find something else to bring in the cash. Individually, you can't do much to change the climate. It is already past the tipping point, and it is unclear what <if anything> would bring it back. However, you should consider weather variability in investments that you make. Note how the cost of ski area season passes are way down from what they used to be. The ski area industry is a whole lot different than it was 25 years ago when climate change in NH was first being noticed. Will it even exist 25 years from now?

A good site for arctic climate information from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks can be found at: http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/index.php The information there seems to be unbiased. They provide both sides of the story (that is, what could be both good and bad). The facts are, the polar ice is changing. The old thick-pack ice is gone - washed out to sea in the 90's - and most of the polar sea ice is now "first year" ice. Our climate is partially driven by an ice-cap that is smaller than it was 50 years ago, smaller by about the size of Alaska (more than two times the size of Texas). Without some summer cold snaps to allow old-ice to rebuild, the ice will keep shrinking and we will experience what ever climate changes come with that.

[Great Idea]

and face the bad news. Global Warming is actually occurring..... Time to get busy and demand our paid officials take action. We all need to do what we can to reduce green house gas emmissions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/

[Dave R]

Not that I disagree, but it would be nice to know where/how it was measured. For instance, how can they know what the temperature of Lincoln Nebraska was 400 years ago?

[Just Sold]

:( I agree.....Here is the USA Today report: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-06-22-global-warming_x.htm

[LIforrelaxin]

I am all for helping the enviornment......but until until Politics stop getting in the way there isn't much headway to be made.....

[ossipeeboater]

this isn't the first time the earth has warmed up, not saying we shouldn't try to make common sense descisions to cut back emmissions on stuff but nothing will stop the natural warming and cooling actions.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

For instance, how can they know what the temperature of Lincoln Nebraska was 400 years ago? Agreed, and what about a 1,000 years ago? I've read some theories from credible (IMO) sources that speculate this is a cyclical thing. So, maybe the cycle started earlier? Who knows.

[Airwaves]

I've tried to ignore these threads, but when I see posts comparing the conditions on earth several thousands years ago, or even 1-thousand, or 2-hundred years ago, to the conditions of today, I have to wonder what the folks suggesting that, this is the way things are, are thinking!

Let's start with the most recent comparison,

1806, 200 years ago. There were CO2 emissions from trees (Ronald Reagan's killer trees speech), there was smoke pollution from burning the trees. Cow and Horse manure fermenting...

0806, 1,000 years ago, Pretty much the same sources as in 1806.

0006, 2000 years ago, ditto

2006. We all contribute, do I really need to make a list?

The Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are melting at a rate never scienticially documented prior to now.

There is much information available now documenting these changes.

It will take political leadership to change things, unfortunately that leadership is not happening from EITHER party, and never will! The folks on both sides of the political spectrum that are warning us are being called "disgruntled, quacks, etc"

Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

A country, a world, that can't see 50 years into the future? That is what we have become!

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

I won't live another 50 years, but my neices and nephews will. Your children will. What are we going to leave them?

One of the things that always amazed me, and I know I will be flamed for this, is the attitude in NH that everything is okay, "Live Free or Die".

That is a political statement, originating in the birth of our country. It does NOT mean "anything goes" especially regarding the quality of life of residents.

NH relies on a substantial tourism trade that focuses and promotes a prestine environment. How many times have folks on this board lamented the deterierating quality of the water of Lake Winnipesaukee? When I was a child growing up on the lake during the summer months, we use to lay a rubber pipe into the water. That pipe provided us with all of our unfiltered drinking water. I can tell you that I never NEVER suffered ill effects, not even diahrea!

It certainly would be in the best economic and environmental interest for the state to take a leadership role in preventing global warming and anything else that is a threat to the environment!

Just my humble opinion...flame away:rolleye1:

Please forgive spelling errors

[GWC...]

One of the things that always amazed me, and I know I will be flamed for this, is the attitude in NH that everything is okay, Live Free or Die.


Proper text for Live Free Or Die:

The motto was part of a volunteer toast which General Stark sent to his wartime comrades, in which he declined an invitation to head up a 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, because of poor health. The toast said in full: "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." The following year, a similar invitation (also declined) said: "The toast, sir, which you sent us in 1809 will continue to vibrate with unceasing pleasure in our ears, "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils."

A little different in its original text than "everything is okay".

http://www.state.nh.us/nhinfo/emblem.html

http://www.seacoastsearch.com/nhlinks/people/johnstark/

[Lakegeezer]

Its obvious we are in a warming period, and one that could last for decades or longer. However, I haven't seen any study that shows what would happen if greenhouse gas levels were reduced, or how much reduction would be required to stop the climate change. Sun cycles and volcanos contribute too. If everyone started using solar, wind and nuclear power to charge electric cars and heat homes, would the climate stop warming? Would it even slow down? Is changing to cars that get 50 MPG enough? There are political reasons for getting away from oil, but the alternatives are not here yet, nor are the models that predict the climate results.

[Waterbaby]

with all of the talk about global warming, greenhouse effect,etc. going on...... seems to me it has to be every country (and their inhabitants) in the world working together to do something about it and the likelihood of that is slim to none, IMO....... and with that said, i hope this isn't just another "jump on the bandwagon" thing that our politicians have going, to appeal to the "treehuggers" or "green" people in this country. do i think there is global warming going on? yes. and i base this on my own experience - wednesday was an absolutely, totally, gorgeous day here. mid-70s, dry, breezy, bright blue sky with white puffy clouds. the kind of day that used to be the norm, 20-25 years ago and even 10-12 years ago. THAT is what made me start to thingk there is something to all of this talk about the above. what can we do about it? i don't know. i DO know, however, that i am doing what i can -- recycling, composting, getting paper instead of plastic at the grocery store, asking that my meats (even at the grocery store) be wrapped in butcher paper instead of the plastic trays and saran wrap..... i don't know what difference my little bit is going to make, be it in 5, 50, or 500 years, but i'm trying.

just my rant, sorry for the lack of punctuation and proper capitalization - for those who know me you know i don't usually do this but i had to get this out. off of my soapbox now.

[Airwaves]

The biggest point.....BIGGEST POINT... of my post is to say

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RELIES ON TOURISM. TOURISM IN NEW HAMPSHIRE RELIES ON ITS PRESTINE BEAUTY!

New Hampshire "Tree huggers" are bad because they protect the very economic engine that keeps New Hampshire viable!

The " Greens", Hell, they should be shot along side the tree huggers while chained to a Christmas Tree (largest tree left in NH without those annoying tree huggers and Greens.

Is this limited to the United States? Nope, Is the United States the country the world looks toward for leadership. Maybe, maybe not. The United States has not signed the Kyoto Treaty.

So, want to breath some clean air and swim in clean water? Why come to NH? As I have said, I used to be able to lay a rubber pipe 10 feet into the water and drink without any problem.

Anyone want to try that now?

Would elimination of reliance on fosil fuels change anything at this point? Maybe, maybe it's too late.

What are you going to tell your children and grandchildren that YOU did to change things?

[JPC]

I haven't seen anyone mention that the global warming issue was important enough to merit a news segment by Charlie Gibson. I don't understand the science that goes in determining temperature levels in past history. So, I'm not going to ask to see the detail reports/data that were used to come to the global warming conclusions. I trust that the scientists know what they are doing and that global warming warnings are not a scare tactics.

[GWC...]

Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!


Perhaps, some day, the question will be, "Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that humans caused Global Warming?"

Some interesting reading:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinction.html

and also

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html

Note: Read "The common ground", Number 1, about global climatic change, just for giggles...

[jbess]

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!


This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today! :eek:

[Lakegeezer]

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!
This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today! :eek:Sound bites like this are part of the problem. There is plenty of mis-information around global warming. Now that it is becoming a political issue, the spin doctors are hard at work for political gain. The truth is no longer important.

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.

Much like the speed limit discussion, I fear that the spin doctors will use mis-information as a control tactic, yet focus on new rules that have no impact on the real issue.

[SIKSUKR]

[QUOTE=Airwaves]I've tried to ignore these threads, but when I see posts comparing the conditions on earth several thousands years ago, or even 1-thousand, or 2-hundred years ago, to the conditions of today, I have to wonder what the folks suggesting that, this is the way things are, are thinking!

Let's start with the most recent comparison,


Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

This is a great argument.Let me see.At the same time people thought the earth was flat they burned witches at the stake.The Romans worshiped all of those Gods that ruled the world.Yup,kill all of those Christians cuz their evil.Give me a break.We have the right to use slaves to the death to build those pyramids.Yup,a solar eclipse meant the gods were mad and the world was about to end.Come on.There was a lot of backward thinking in centuries past.Dont try to justify your point by midevil thinking cuz it only sounds midevil.I think our thinking is a lot more advanced today than to say"but,people used to think the world was flat".

[Airwaves]

SIKSUKR wrote:
This is a great argument.Let me see.At the same time people thought the earth was flat they burned witches at the stake.The Romans worshiped all of those Gods that ruled the world.Yup,kill all of those Christians cuz their evil.Give me a break.We have the right to use slaves to the death to build those pyramids.Yup,a solar eclipse meant the gods were mad and the world was about to end.Come on.There was a lot of backward thinking in centuries past.Dont try to justify your point by midevil thinking cuz it only sounds midevil.I think our thinking is a lot more advanced today than to say"but,people used to think the world was flat".

Exactly! At one time all those things were blindly accepted. Today we know that they are blatantly wrong!

Page 4 of today's 6/23 Boston Herald coincidentally carries a story headlined
"Gosh, it hasn't been this hot in about uh, 2000 years"
It's an Associated Press report on a Congressional request of the National Academy of Sciences. It concluded "recent warmth is uprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".

The article also shows new research linking global warming to the production of half the hurricane fuled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005.

They also studied evidence of the climate going back thousands of years and:

"The panel considered the evidence reliable enought to conclude there were sharp spikes in "greenhouse" gasses blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years".

Unfortunately I couldn't find a link to the article on line but since it is an Associated Press story I'm sure it will turn up in other papers that may have a link.

[Weekend Pundit]

I saw reports about the "warmest in 2000 years" claim. One of the TV reports showed the so-called hockey stick chart, showing greatly increased temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The only problem with that chart is that it is a fraud. It was never reviewed by the rest of the climatological community, the algoritm was never released or subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis, and the media and the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans Club seized upon it to 'prove' that human caused global climate change is fact.

It is not. It is still a theory with a lot of holes in it.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the solar output theory of climate change. There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the sun is the major driver of climate change and not homo sapiens.:rolleye1:

[ITD]

I saw reports about the "warmest in 2000 years" claim. One of the TV reports showed the so-called hockey stick chart, showing greatly increased temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The only problem with that chart is that it is a fraud. It was never reviewed by the rest of the climatological community, the algoritm was never released or subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis, and the media and the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans Club seized upon it to 'prove' that human caused global climate change is fact.

It is not. It is still a theory with a lot of holes in it.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the solar output theory of climate change. There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the sun is the major driver of climate change and not homo sapiens.:rolleye1:

Whoa WP,

Been there done that, don't know what your getting yourself into, but I am one of the few here that agrees with you.:)

[Airwaves]

Okay Weekend Pundit,

So, you are a scientist that has reseached this, perhaps you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences that made its report to Congress this week and you have an opposing point of view?

If you are a scientist then speak up and show us your credentials and show how the National Acacemy of Sciences is wrong.

If you are just another lamb being lead to slaughter, well... I guess you don't need to know what real scientists believe now do you? All you have to do is believe what the politiians tell you to believe.

Don't worry, after you're dead your kids will be left to sort things out.

After all, I quoted that bastion of liberalism, the Boston Herald!

[Dave R]

Okay Weekend Pundit,

So, you are a scientist that has reseached this, perhaps you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences that made its report to Congress this week and you have an opposing point of view?

If you are a scientist then speak up and show us your credentials and show how the National Acacemy of Sciences is wrong.

If you are just another lamb being lead to slaughter, well... I guess you don't need to know what real scientists believe now do you? All you have to do is believe what the politiians tell you to believe.

Don't worry, after you're dead your kids will be left to sort things out.

After all, I quoted that bastion of liberalism, the Boston Herald!

I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt. Often, scientists have a specific goal in mind when the research begins, and having such, clouds their judgement.

As an interesting parable, one could say that you have found a study that says exactly what you already believed and have used it as a confirmation that you were right all along. Why not start digging for papers that oppose your own views and really broaden your mind?

FWIW, I think global warming is probably happening but somehow I doubt a miniscule increase in carbon dioxide is gonna cause it. We are talking about a change from .002% to .0035% (worst case) CO2 in the atmosphere. It's such a tiny amount in the whole scheme of things.

What if this CO2 increase helped plants grow and decreased world hunger?

[jbess]

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.


Just to clearify, I am not of the party that believes the elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004. I was mearly agreeing to the fact that there is MUCH more interest in silly things like American Idol contests than things that really matter. I don't believe it is spin, but fact, that this country has taken a turn for the worst. Case in point, that the mere fact that there is legislation taking place for speed limits on the lake because of the lack of personal responsability is just more proof.

Joe

[Airwaves]

I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt.

Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

Now all those scientists can get on with the really important questions of the day....like "do you want fries with that"? and "Who is the next American Idol"?

[Weekend Pundit]

Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

No, they're not all wrong. Many climate scientists disagree with them, some because the methodolgy used is sloppy or suspect, as are some of their motives.

Earlier you asked me if I was a scientist. No, I am not. I am an engineer with a Masters in Physics, one used to dealing with data, using it to design, build, test, and if need be, redesign, rebuild, and retest advanced electronic and optical instruments. I understand scientific method: observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena; formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation; use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations; performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. I use it, or a variation of it, when delving into new territory when developing new instruments using bleeding edge technologies or working with PhDs to advance our understanding of optical phenomena.


I understand the process of peer review, which means to have the theory one has put forward reviewed by one's peers, both those that agree and disagree with it. If it is reviewed only by those who agree with it, then the review is suspect. It may cause a self-perpetuating positive feedback loop, blocking out all opinions or data that disagree with the theorem, particularly those that show the theory to be flawed. It is this problem that I see with the many proponents of anthropogenic global climate change. It is the problem with the National Academy of Sciences, a body that is supposed to be apolitical and open minded. It hasn't been open minded since the 70's and is less so today. It has become far too political to be considered unbiased.


In my previous post I mentioned the Mann “hockey stick” graph, the one that shows a marked increase in global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. It was used by the NAS as one of the proofs that human-caused global warming was indeed happening. But that graph has been debunked as being based upon questionable data, has not undergone true peer review, and neither has the algorithm used to generate the graph. For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory:


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf)



Other theories with a good deal of verifiable data that point to other causes of global climate change have been ignored out of hand. One such has been postulated by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute. Svensmark theorizes that the sun's output is the major driver of climate change throughout history, barring such things as volcanic eruptions and extraterrestrial events (asteroid strikes). He backs it up using carbon dating techniques on layers of soils, peat, and other organic layers in clay and sedimentary rock to determine the solar output throughout the past millennia: http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html (http://www.dsri.dk/%7Ehsv/Noter/solsys99.html)



Others have checked his data, including some of his skeptics, and so far no one has been able to prove his theory wrong. Yet others have gone beyond Svensmark's initial work and looked back a number of millennia and still his theory holds up.


The one thing I have learned over the years is that just because the media splashes theories of global warming across the pages/TV screens/computer displays doesn't mean they're valid. All theories should be taken with a large grain of salt until others have had a chance to dig deep and prove or disprove them. Anthropogenic global warming is one of those that should be looked at with skeptical eye. There are still too many unanswered questions, too many flawed computer models that are being used to extrapolate what Earth's climate will be like over the next 100 years. Basing environmental policies upon a problem that may not even exist is foolish at best and extremely dangerous at worst.

[Airwaves]

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.

[jeffk]

For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory

This is a very interesting read. There are two points that jump out; Mann's results do not seem to be reproducible and Mann seems to be unwilling to assist (even hindering) those trying to verify his work. Even without expertise in the subject matter these are significant reasons to question the conclusions that Mann draws as well as questioning his integrity.

In my opinion, much scientific work suffers from these types of problems. The only check on scientific work is that results are repeatable by other scientists, especially critics, and that rigorous review over time yields consistent results. This requires scientists to publish details of their research and support an open review process.

The current state of Global Warming theory is largely initial publication of observations and proposed explanations (theories) for those observations. They have not been replicated and reviewed. In fact, many articles that declare new observations often make comment about the fact that the current computer models can't explain the new data. That means that the existing models and the assumptions they were based on are WRONG. If we can't accurately predict climate behavior that is occurring right now, why would we think we have the slightest chance to predict climate changes 20 years or more from now?

If the "fix" for global warming was for everyone to chip in a few bucks and build a giant air conditioner for the planet I'd say, GREAT, let's do it. Even if they were wrong the cost is negligible and the impact controllable. However, the "fix" that is actually proposed would be severely crippling to our economy with a minimal impact on the problem. We simply do not have enough reliable information for a commitment of that scale.

[Weekend Pundit]

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.

Believe it or not, many scientists do have an agenda. It's called "funding". If you think that it is merely altruism that drives scientists, then you are sadly mistaken. It is funding. Funding is what enables scientists to do their research. Altrusim does not. Global warming is the research subject du jour, garnering much of the interest and a lot of funding.

And most scientists do not agree with the results of the research, at least when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. Only the most vocal and politically correct scientists appear to agree. Most of those who disagree rarely get the media play, or are derided as crackpots, or seem to have their funding slashed.

Am I a cynic when it comes to this partcular subject? You betcha. I've seen too much of what I've described here in the halls of academia, government, and in the corporate world. I speak from experience, not ideology.

[Airwaves]

As I stated, I am not going to write anything that will change your mind, not with the attitude that you "take the research with a grain of salt" or, "Scientists have an agenda" (yep, funding is an issue but if the scientists are wrong, then their reputation and future funding sources instantly dry up, that's generally known as peer review). Or, my favorite, "Most scientists do not agree with the research". Those would be the " most scientists" who still believe smoking does not cause lung cancer? (now whose funding source is in question?)

It appears that you folks who believe everything is just fine, find a few scientists who disagree that the earth is subject to global warming and that that the majority of the global warming has occurred based on what "we" have done in the 20th century, so it must be so...

So scientific resarch isn't to be trusted, media reports on that scientific research isn't to be trusted, but God bless the politicians (scientists all!) who have kept us on the straight and narrow and away from Kyoto! (BTW, the US Govt is a major scientific funding source as well).

One day, your kids will thank you.

edit:
Don't know how to show you how I edited my post, Here are the edits
(that's generally known as peer review) and
"God bless the politicians (scientists all!)"

[Great Idea]

Weekend Pundit.... you reference McKitrick's articles as others supporting your opinion have on this post. You speak of FUNDING? Guess who has paid for all of his "research" and "articles"? The COAL and OIL industry. Internal documents and emails published from the oil/coal industry lobbyists admit to such studies and articles done to create "confusion" and doubt regarding the theories of global warming.

The hockey stick is very relavent data. In only several other periods over the last many thousands of years have steeper spikes been seen in increased temperature as we have seen in the last 140 years. (YES , these temperatures can be accurately measured scientifically via ice cores, tree rings and tree fossils as well as sediment layers) In either case it involved a CATASTROPHIC event. Volcanoes and meterors were the culprits. So why such a steep increase and dramatic change in such a SHORT amount of time? What is the catastrophic event this time? ( Yes 140 years is VERY short) CO2 and green house gases are clearly contributing to the dramactic changes we are all witnessing around us. The evidence that fossil fuels is contributing to this are overwhelming.

The final flaw and myth in your arguement is that scientists don't agree. Over 80 percent of the scientific community is in AGREEMENT regarding global warming and as to its root causes. Go to all the major research foundations and communities in the world and verify this for yourself. Only a few stand against the tide .... like McKitrick..... who along with most of his peers are paid lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry. This isn't liberal noise.....

My final observation although not scientific should stir some consideration among skeptics....... just look around you! Do you really think all this drought then rain/flooding is normal?? 23 inches of rain since MAY1... we normally get 6 or 7. Just look at the flooding this spring, last fall as well as the hurricanes last season....... whats your gut tell you? Sure it happens once in a while but not every few months like it is now. My gut tells me that we need to start paying attention to what our earth/environment is trying to tell us...... something is "OFF" with our climate and we are contributing to it. AND we need to do EVERYTHING in our power to try and change it.

[Weekend Pundit]

Airwaves: I haven't said that I disagree that global warming, or rather, global climate change is occuring. Rather, I am disagreeing with the stated cause. Climate changes all the time. Anyone that believes the climate has always been like it has been over the last few decades is deluded or misinformed.

To hear some tell it, all climate change everywhere is our fault. This includes many of the same scientists that so many hold in such high regard, even though their theories, their computer models, and so on, haven't been able to predict what will happen next year, let alone 100 years in the future. That makes it all suspect.

Great Idea: In regards to funding, where do you think the scientists who say all global climate change is human-caused get their funding? I think you'll find that quite a bit of it comes from organizations, governmental agencies, or corporations that have a lot to gain should that be the case. The vested interest door swings both ways.

[Great Idea]

BUT not this fast without a direct cause. No one is disputing that is changes .... just as to the RATE at which it changes. Only drastic influences cause such dramatic changes in such a short period of time..... ie huge volcanic eruptions, meteors OR IN THIS CASE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2 EMMISSIONS THAT ARE MAN MADE...... As for who funds these so called "liberal" studies? You can look at all the different scientific groups that support these claims and there is a VAST array of sources and governments funding the data. Much of it comes from our own government. Many of these climate studies are continuously funded NO MATTER what the conclusions and unfortunately the funding hasn't increased with these findings at all. Many of the universities and NASA which is measuring this data is doing so much the way they always have. Are they now making it up to get .... what? Unlike the "science" you quote that gets paid directly fees to "testify" and contradict the facts for a fee. Most of the world's science supporting these conclusions don't have any agenda or benefit from such findings, unfortunely they just have environmental problems that need solutions.

Unlike your quoted sources that have a huge agenda called MONEY.

Heres some food for thought Weekend Pundit...... if your I am wrong and you are correct and we follow the majority of the available scientific data now available supporting global warming/CO2 we just end up with a cleaner environment and some much needed new industry...... IF you are wrong and I am right yet we continue to do little and nothing, keep the status quo of fossil fuel waste (your way) and the results are catastrophic environmental damage and possibly worse......... which side of that equation do you really want to be on??? Lets play it safe and clean up our act so that our children and future generations will look back and be proud of what we accomplished.

[SIKSUKR]

I love all this talk about CO2 emmisions causing global warming.Now tell us how you would change this short of going back to the stone age.Any ideas that help help reduce emmisions are worth exploring and we have already made great strides since the 70's,but to think we can switch away from fossil fuels with the snap of a finger is very niave.The developing countries would almost certainly not go along with these drastic changes and we have to be competitive in the world market.The one good thing about high oil prices is it makes other energy sources more competitive and in turn can spurn the growth towards alternative energy.There is nothing wrong about exploring other energy sources that will be clean burning or zero emmisions but were not prepared to switch over.I would love to see the US have zero dependence on oil if for nothing else,not being under the thumb of the big oil producing middle east.We are heading in the right direction,just don't let the chicken little scare tactics shape our society.

[ApS]

Slowly and imperceptably: There will be more algae and milfoil growth, more exotic plants and creatures, water temperatures will creep upwards and more boaters, tourists, and swimmers will cavort in its warmer waters. Residents will add air conditioners to their homes, camps, and trucks.

It also appears that those who reject Global Warming are "invested" in the belief that it's not happening; for example, I've never owned a car, boat, or anything with more than an economical four cylinder engine. I have no trouble realizing that the world is a warmer place.

On the other hand, a respondant with one or more road vehicles with V-8s (or greater) and/or with boats with 1 (2, or even 3) V-8 engines are heavily invested in the belief that Global Warming must not affect their chosen life style pursuit, and therefore a carefully-considered response to the concept will be clouded.

More Reading:
Here's a piece on Greenland's icecap: While it's written sensationally for this particular newspaper's subscribers (i.e., sea levels to rise 21 feet, but doesn't state that ALL of Greenland's ice must melt for that to happen), it does give incite into the personal effort that scientists must go through to make such Global Warming determinations .

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,6561998.story?page=4&track=rss

[Great Idea]

The REAL "HYPE" that exists comes from the oil industry saying there is a
" lack" of options/technology or it will be "too expensive" or painful to covert to other fuel sources......although challenging the options are numerous.

http://autos.msn.com/as/minishow/article.aspx?contentID=4024035&s=bibendum2006

[Airwaves]

There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution!

The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos.

Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught.

The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means.

This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly.

How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?

[ITD]

There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution!

The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos.

Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught.

The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means.

This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly.

How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?


If hydrogen were readily available for use as a fuel, a distribution system would quickly be developed.

Hydrogen is not readily available in nature, it is always combined with something else. The processes that currently produce hydrogen use more energy than the collected hydrogen will produce. Those processes use mostly energy derived from fossil fuels. There is a professor from U Lowell who feels hydrogen can be economically produced using nuclear energy, he is probably right but nuclear power has its own political problems.

Hydrogen is also very unstable (Hindenberg) and very difficult to store due to high pressure required and small molecule size. Gasoline is much more stable and exists as a liquid at room temperature.

If an economically viable source for hydrogen becomes available, you will see it take over oil as an energy source. There is nothing the "scary and omnipotent" oil companies will be able to do about it. Developing a distribution system before that source is available is like putting the cart before the horse, it doesn't make sense.