Jump to content

Dn - Keep A Balanced View


Recommended Posts

Global Warming and Hot AirBy Robert J. SamuelsonWednesday, February 7, 2007; A17You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior.Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009.Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth -- lowering poverty, fostering political stability -- to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity.Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IEA studied an "alternative scenario" that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from "renewables" (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise.Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost 1 degree Celsius. Sea level has risen about seven inches, though the connection is unclear. So far, global warming has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for the next century: temperature increases from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises from seven inches to almost two feet. People might easily adapt; or there might be costly disruptions (say, frequent flooding of coastal cities resulting from melting polar ice caps).I do not say we should do nothing, but we should not delude ourselves. In the United States, the favored remedy is "cap and trade." It's environmental grandstanding -- politicians pretending they're doing something.Companies would receive or buy quotas ("caps") to emit carbon dioxide. To exceed the limits, they'd acquire some other company's unused quotas ("trade"). How simple. Just order companies to cut emissions. Businesses absorb all the costs.But in practice, no plausible "cap and trade" program would significantly curb global warming. To do that, quotas would have to be set so low as to shut down the economy. Or the cost of scarce quotas would skyrocket and be passed along to consumers through much higher energy prices. Neither outcome seems likely. Quotas would be lax. The program would be a regulatory burden with little benefit. It would also be a bonanza for lobbyists, lawyers and consultants, as industries and localities besieged Washington for exceptions and special treatment. Hello, influence-peddling and sleaze.What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries -- rich and poor -- to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change.Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes.It's a debate we ought to have -- but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel should be proud of the fact that he is one of the few Americans who hasn't fallen for the current administration's propagandist nonsense with respect to global warming. Over 90% of the world's most distinguished scientists can't be wrong. The lack of knowledge regarding this issue in America is ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel should be proud of the fact that he is one of the few Americans who hasn't fallen for the current administration's propagandist nonsense with respect to global warming. Over 90% of the world's most distinguished scientists can't be wrong. The lack of knowledge regarding this issue in America is ridiculous.
You're just jealous because only America can make a difference. If we choose to ignore the global warming cry, then all the efforts by you guys will not mean squat.Once again only America mattersI bet you picked 90% as a random number that you have no backing for what so ever.But making up facts isn't new for you guys.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're just jealous because only America can make a difference. If we choose to ignore the global warming cry, then all the efforts by you guys will not mean squat.Once again only America matters
I think that was a joke. Let's hope so.
I bet you picked 90% as a random number that you have no backing for what so ever.But making up facts isn't new for you guys.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/news/climate.phpLeading scientists conservatively estimate that the likelihood of human actions being responsible for the sudden global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution to be over 90% certain. Excuse my mistake.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again only America matters
For what? Where do that majority of our rescources that we need/use to sustain ourselves come from? Not America.Global interdependence. Welcome to the 2000s.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel should be proud of the fact that he is one of the few Americans who hasn't fallen for the current administration's propagandist nonsense with respect to global warming. Over 90% of the world's most distinguished scientists can't be wrong. The lack of knowledge regarding this issue in America is ridiculous.
I like DN- I do. He is a genuine human being,but a little uneven at times and easily excited. That doesn't make him bad, it makes him human. Is it just me but wasn't there a journal out of england recently that stated that the sun was the main reason for Global Warming? Did I just dream that? Nope- it actually happened. The thing I enjoy the most in these debates when people like you get involved,you are so obviously completely and utterly powerless it induces pity from me. If the U.S. doesn't play along, you are screwed,and that makes me sad for you because I put myself in your shoes and I think,"What if I was completely reliant on somebody else to take action? That would suck." The good thing is, in the U.S. we don't let it get that far- we make things happen, while you wish you could,which is a travesty for your people,it really is. You should try power on sometime- it feels great,and fits like a glove. Happy wishful thinking. Cheerio.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets all realize that there is no significant proof that global warming is of anthropogenic origin. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that makes up a VERY VERY SMALL percent of the total greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Before we start listening to people going crazy about the issue, research the chemistry behind it. I have research at the collegiate level on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
100% of the world's scientists used to think that the world was flat.
Sorry, but this is just wrong. Most educated people since the 3rd century B.C. knew that the world is spherical.The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it was clear the point of my post. I could think of other examples where scientists were all agreed on a theory and it turned out to be false.
Let's hear some...bonus points for one in which the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont have much time, but how about the atom, used to be the smallest particle.
Right...how can we trust scientists after this fiasco? They improved on our knowledge of the universe! Sorry for the sarcasm, but this sort of this is what's expected in science. Atomic theory is not exactly obsolete after the discovery of quantum mechanics. Similarly, the laws of Newtonian physics still apply in all but the most extreme situations despite Einstein's theory of relativity. It's hardly reason to stop believing in gravity. The atom certainly still exists and is still pretty fracking small.2000 respected climatologists met in Paris recently and unanimously stated that there is over a 90% chance that human activity is a significant contributor to climate change and that the results will be devastating. Yet many people on this forum think we should give equal credence to 3 donkey scientists lining their pockets with oil industry money. It's complete madness.I really was curious to see if you could come up with an example in which 100% of scientist agreed on something which turned out to be 100% wrong. It's definitely an improvement on the first though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The atom certainly still exists and is still pretty fracking small.
I think somebody's been watching too much Battlestar.Also, the point about the atom was pretty fracking stupid.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think somebody's been watching too much Battlestar.
That's because I'm a huge nerd. :club:
Also, the point about the atom was pretty fracking stupid.
My point about the atom? How so?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets all realize that there is no significant proof that global warming is of anthropogenic origin. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that makes up a VERY VERY SMALL percent of the total greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Before we start listening to people going crazy about the issue, research the chemistry behind it. I have research at the collegiate level on the subject.
Water Vapor (H2O) due to it's higher average concentration, has more impact on the greenhouse effect than any other greenhouse gas. However, CO2, largely due to it's linear shape, reacts very strongly with several bands of IR that are emitted from the Earth's surface. So despite its lower concentrations, it is a very potent greenhouse gas and easily number 2 on the greenhouse effect list. Ozone (O3), is third on the list, followed by several more minor absorbers/emitters... All of this is hard science; there is a greenhouse effect, no one argues that, and the relative contributions of individual gases are pretty much known. Here's just one link, although many studies have been done trying to decipher specific contributions from individual greenhouse gases... http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_i...butions-GHG.htm
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Water Vapor (H2O) due to it's higher average concentration, has more impact on the greenhouse effect than any other greenhouse gas. However, CO2, largely due to it's linear shape, reacts very strongly with several bands of IR that are emitted from the Earth's surface. So despite its lower concentrations, it is a very potent greenhouse gas and easily number 2 on the greenhouse effect list. Ozone (O3), is third on the list, followed by several more minor absorbers/emitters... All of this is hard science; there is a greenhouse effect, no one argues that, and the relative contributions of individual gases are pretty much known. Here's just one link, although many studies have been done trying to decipher specific contributions from individual greenhouse gases... http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_i...butions-GHG.htm
You are correct, the reason that H2O and CO2 are greenhouse gases is because of the linear shape and their ability to stretch asymetrically and to bend. This is what keeps the energy inside the earth and warms the planet. However, even though CO2 is number two on the list, it is pretty far behind. I would compare it to Rafael Nadal playing Roger Federer at Wimbledon, even though he is number two, he doesn't have much of a chance. Until it is a proven fact I do not believe that it is my duty to go out and by a hybrid car and do everything I can to downgrade the amount of CO2 being produced. I compare that to someone like Daniel who is a vegan. They choose that course because it is something that they believe in deeply (I know it is also sometimes for health purposes, I don't know which one is DN's view) and they feel that they are making a small difference that might lead in the future to a larger one; however, I highly doubt that if Daniel is at dinner with Doyle he is going to yell at him for eating a steak. This is just my view until I see more proof that global warming is not only man caused, but also that it is the CO2 that is the major problem. One last thing, I do not understand why everyone has to be so sarcastic on the issue. Believe me, I am not an up tight person, and I love shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report even though I do not agree with their politics all the time, but when you are responding directly to a comment by someone and you use a sarcastic tone instead of reinforcing your point it comes across as a method of trying to cheaply amplify your point by taking cheap shots. That last point about sarcasm wasn't meant for the quote above, btw, it was meant for previous posts in the thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are correct, the reason that H2O and CO2 are greenhouse gases is because of the linear shape and their ability to stretch asymetrically and to bend. This is what keeps the energy inside the earth and warms the planet. However, even though CO2 is number two on the list, it is pretty far behind. I would compare it to Rafael Nadal playing Roger Federer at Wimbledon, even though he is number two, he doesn't have much of a chance. Until it is a proven fact I do not believe that it is my duty to go out and by a hybrid car and do everything I can to downgrade the amount of CO2 being produced. I compare that to someone like Daniel who is a vegan. They choose that course because it is something that they believe in deeply (I know it is also sometimes for health purposes, I don't know which one is DN's view) and they feel that they are making a small difference that might lead in the future to a larger one; however, I highly doubt that if Daniel is at dinner with Doyle he is going to yell at him for eating a steak. This is just my view until I see more proof that global warming is not only man caused, but also that it is the CO2 that is the major problem. One last thing, I do not understand why everyone has to be so sarcastic on the issue. Believe me, I am not an up tight person, and I love shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report even though I do not agree with their politics all the time, but when you are responding directly to a comment by someone and you use a sarcastic tone instead of reinforcing your point it comes across as a method of trying to cheaply amplify your point by taking cheap shots. That last point about sarcasm wasn't meant for the quote above, btw, it was meant for previous posts in the thread.
Now I'm in no way an expert on the subject but my basic knowledge tells me this. More CO2 would mean that more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. Now CO2 may be "pretty far behind" but it still has an effect and this effect might or might not be enough to cause noticeble changes. The simple (yet very complex) simulations that has been done show a measurable increase in temperature will be likely over the next decades. I have faith in science, if millions of people can believe in a beeing they have no proof of, believing in empirical knowledge shouldn't be that far fetched.
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Now I'm in no way an expert on the subject but my basic knowledge tells me this. More CO2 would mean that more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. Now CO2 may be "pretty far behind" but it still has an effect and this effect might or might not be enough to cause noticeble changes. The simple (yet very complex) simulations that has been done show a measurable increase in temperature will be likely over the next decades. I have faith in science, if millions of people can believe in a beeing they have no proof of, believing in empirical knowledge shouldn't be that far fetched. "Blah, blah, blah...and lets face facts DN may be an honest and genuine person but he is not balanced. He is an extremist by nature. I am not making any judgment on if that is good or bad just that it is a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Now I'm in no way an expert on the subject but my basic knowledge tells me this. More CO2 would mean that more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. Now CO2 may be "pretty far behind" but it still has an effect and this effect might or might not be enough to cause noticeble changes. The simple (yet very complex) simulations that has been done show a measurable increase in temperature will be likely over the next decades. I have faith in science, if millions of people can believe in a beeing they have no proof of, believing in empirical knowledge shouldn't be that far fetched. "Blah, blah, blah...and lets face facts DN may be an honest and genuine person but he is not balanced. He is an extremist by nature. I am not making any judgment on if that is good or bad just that it is a fact.
Is the bolded part the only value you can add to a discussion?
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Is the bolded part the only value you can add to a discussion?"It is kind of my way of expressing my opinion of your thoughts. You like to ramble, quote sources and show the entire forum how brilliant you are…if that works for you enjoy but all I hear is background noise.Go write your thesis and impress yourself with never ending posts about the end of the world from gas emissions that will raise the temp in Peru .003 degrees per year…blah blah blah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go write your thesis and impress yourself with never ending posts about the end of the world from gas emissions that will raise the temp in Peru .003 degrees per year…blah blah blah.
teehee!DN - I saw you at the bellagio saturday...but i opted not to come into bobby's and give you the biggest bear hug! :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Is the bolded part the only value you can add to a discussion?"It is kind of my way of expressing my opinion of your thoughts. You like to ramble, quote sources and show the entire forum how brilliant you are…if that works for you enjoy but all I hear is background noise.Go write your thesis and impress yourself with never ending posts about the end of the world from gas emissions that will raise the temp in Peru .003 degrees per year…blah blah blah.
At least I bring something to the discussion, you are just going here, reading this and then making utterly pointless responses. And yeah, I post here so a random bunch of poker players think I'm brilliant, that must be it...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...