An Inconvenient Truth...

[Galahad]

Well there's a lot of research to go around.This is from the American Institute of Physics for example. The organization (founded in 1931) and the research are no known to be supported by oil companies, BTW (not that it should make much difference....). BTW, the Ben Stein listed is a Physicist. It's not the Ben Stein that was on TV and/or was a Nixon speech writer.

Number 642 #2, June 19, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein
Solar Flares and Global Warming

A recent study by researchers at Duke University and the Army Research Office has found new evidence of a link between solar flare activity and the earth's temperature. The work is another contribution to the ongoing debate over global warming and its causes. A strong link between solar flares and our climate, if it exists, could override the influence humans have on the temperature of our environment. One of the challenges of determining the connection between solar flare activity and the atmosphere stems from the fact that the motion of the air that blankets our planet is turbulent and complex. A sudden burst of solar activity would, in effect, be smeared out by moving air and its interaction with the earth's surface. Any temperature increase caused by a given period of solar flare activity would be difficult to determine, at best. Rather than focus on such challenging one-to-one correlations, the new study compares the form of the statistical fluctuations in solar flare activity with the form of the statistical fluctuations of the earth's temperature. The researchers (contact: Bruce J. West, 919-549-4257) explain that solar flare activity can be characterized by a type of statistics described by a Levy distribution, which is generated by a "Levy-walk." (Many natural phenomena, from foraging patterns of spider monkeys to complex hydrodynamic flows, are well described by Levy walks, although the coefficients in the relevant equations typically vary from one phenomenon to another. See Update 510-3 for one example.) Analyses of global and local temperature fluctuations are also well described by a Levy-walk. In fact, a comparison of the mathematical coefficients that describe the fluctuations suggest to the researchers that the atmosphere directly inherits its temperature fluctuations from the variation in solar flare activity. Unless some other underlying cause is responsible for the unlikely correspondence between solar flares and the earth's temperature, the research suggests that for the large part variations in global temperatures are beyond our control and are instead at the mercy of the sun's activity. (Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West, Physical Review Letters, 20 June 2003)

 

[Charade]

I was listening to a guy on the radio who listed the top ten causes (I don't think anyone believes global warming isn't happening, it's the cause that's disputed) for global warming. Solar activity was number 1, man was number 9.

 

[ButchJohnson]

I don't understand those who criticize people who's only want is just to conserve the resources of this planet so that our great grandkids can still have an earth to call home. Anyone who doesn't want to squeeze every enviornment to the breaking point, usually for the benefit of some industry profit, is called a tree hugging kook. No one can work together to find a compromise if one group refuses to even acknowledge there is a problem.

Dont get me wrong I'm all for developing Hydrogen cars or any other non oil based automobiles and/or for energy in general. I think that there is no doubt the oil and car companies have gone to great extremes to prevent this technology from developing. My only point is I don't think that man is causing any major warming with pollutants and what not. If there is warming its due to the natural cycle the earth is involved in on its own, irrespective of what man does. Barring a major nuclear war, I don't mans current habits with factories, power plants or cars are doing anything much to the warming of the earth.

For one example of the war on coal power plants, for one thing, these plants are cleaner than ever and are far and few between. Where my area is located, there have been more new power plants built in this area than just about any other part of the US. All but one project was non-coal. Coal plants are far a few between, I will never believe that the hand full of coal plants around the country are causing global warming. That is the same non-sense that took California into a energy crises (that among other things) with the fear that "power plants are going to cause global warming or harm the environment" please, that is extremist, environmentalist whacko alarmist crazy talk.

For the other poster that had a question about my post, negligible means inconsequential.

 

[ButchJohnson]

I was listening to a guy on the radio who listed the top ten causes (I don't think anyone believes global warming isn't happening, it's the cause that's disputed) for global warming. Solar activity was number 1, man was number 9.

Exactly, and I dare say that if the real truth was ever discovered, Man would be further down the list, and to what ever warming man is causing, it is the equivalent of pouring a glass of water into the ocean and claiming that is affecting the tides.

Man made global warming

 

[Laura]

Exactly, and I dare say that if the real truth was ever discovered, Man would be further down the list, and to what ever warming man is causing, it is the equivalent of pouring a glass of water into the ocean and claiming that is affecting the tides.

Man made global warming

What proof do you have of this? Because believe me, I would like to be able to agree with you, but I can't.

 

[ButchJohnson]

What proof do you have of this? Because believe me, I would like to be able to agree with you, but I can't.

I'm not disputing that there may be warming, although I do not know, I know scientists differ on this point and I am not a scientist. And I'm not saying that man's activities don't technically contribute, but only in a small infintesimal way. In other words, what ever man contributes, will not add or take away from whatever the Sun, climate change, volcanic activity and all the other factors that effect the earth will do on their own. The earth has heated up and cooled down in cycles for billions of years, from documented times of ice ages, to when more of the earth was more tropical, before man, what effected it then? It wasn't the car or power plant, those have only been around for about 100 years.

Trust me, this area is just an area to serve this large political lobby group's own interest (the radical environmentalists). And don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting the environment. I do not want to see oil spills, and I particularly advocate for the development of the hydrogen car, primarily because of economics, some for the environment, but in this day and age with all our technology, I'm convinced we can have more sophisticated approaches to powering our cars than oil. The oil based combustion engine is the horse and buggy. Its just been cultivated by the oil and car companies who naturally resist change.

 

[eclectics]

My only point is I don't think that man is causing any major warming with pollutants and what not.

Just as you want proof, and dispute what some scientisits say that we are causing it, I would also like to see some undisputable proof that your statement is true.

 

[ButchJohnson]

Just as you want proof, and dispute what some scientisits say that we are causing it, I would also like to see some undisputable proof that your statement is true.

Isn't that the point? I don't think either side can scientifically (with the scientific method) prove either view. Ok so you document certain power plants and automobile usage and what not, and analyze any warming trends, does that data mean that any warming trends were directly caused by those effects? Or was it actually caused by what the Sun happened to do simultaneously with the other factors. You see my point? Same can be said with the other view. I'm not going to say here I have indisputable proof of my view, because it does not exist, but anyone who esposes that they do have indisputable proof, is not giving accurate facts. There is no way to give indisputable proof of one view of the other, because you cannot eliminate the other contributing factors from the equation.

Do you dispute that the Earth has warmed and cooled over billions of years in cycles????

 

[rie'smom]

This is so pointless. The believers that man causes global warming will never change their opinion and the people who believe that man either doesn't contribute or contributes a small % won't change their opinion either.
Those who want to make changes in their lifestyles-go for it.
Those who don't want to make changes in their lifestyles- go for it.

 

[eclectics]

Isn't that the point? I don't think either side can scientifically (with the scientific method) prove either view. Ok so you document certain power plants and automobile usage and what not, and analyze any warming trends, does that data mean that any warming trends were directly caused by those effects? Or was it actually caused by what the Sun happened to do simultaneously with the other factors. You see my point? Same can be said with the other view. I'm not going to say here I have indisputable proof of my view, because it does not exist, but anyone who esposes that they do have indisputable proof, is not giving accurate facts. There is no way to give indisputable proof of one view of the other, because you cannot eliminate the other contributing factors from the equation.

Do you dispute that the Earth has warmed and cooled over billions of years in cycles????

My point being that both sides should be able to sit down and discuss this issue and perhaps opening some sort of dialogue. This administration is reluctant to have any meaningful discussion about this and seems to dismiss what a lot of the rest of the world has to say. Global warming or not, pollution is not something to be embraced either way. Every effort to clean up our planet should be made by all countries of the world, irregardless of global warming.

 

[ButchJohnson]

This is so pointless. The believers that man causes global warming will never change their opinion and the people who believe that man either doesn't contribute or contributes a small % won't change their opinion either.
Those who want to make changes in their lifestyles-go for it.
Those who don't want to make changes in their lifestyles- go for it.

I was almost going to make this exact same post.

And I agree you should be able to talk about it. And I don't know anyone who advocates pollution. I just think that America is one of the most non-polluting countries in the world with all of our regulations on power plants, factory emmissions, regulations on cars, and other industries. I think America has gone a long way to do its part, its getting the third world countries to play ball is the problem where there is little to no regulation of their industries that are causing pollution. And I absolutely will never believe that America is a bigger polluter per capita than ANY other country with the same level of industrialization.

I think the single biggest thing that could be done is mass development of either the hydrogen car or some other non-oil based method of transportation. My frustration is this. Howard Hughes back in the 20s/30s developed a steam car ran off water. It worked but was never mass produced. If they can do something like that almost 100 years ago I firmly believe that it could be easily accomplished in this day and age, but yet the internal combustion engine continues to dominate due to the huge oil and car lobby.

 

[eclectics]

I was almost going to make this exact same post.

And I agree you should be able to talk about it. And I don't know anyone who advocates pollution. I just think that America is one of the most non-polluting countries in the world with all of our regulations on power plants, factory emmissions, regulations on cars, and other industries. I think America has gone a long way to do its part, its getting the third world countries to play ball is the problem where there is little to no regulation of their industries that are causing pollution. And I absolutely will never believe that America is a bigger polluter per capita than ANY other country with the same level of industrialization.

I think the single biggest thing that could be done is mass development of either the hydrogen car or some other non-oil based method of transportation. My frustration is this. Howard Hughes back in the 20s/30s developed a steam car ran off water. It worked but was never mass produced. If they can do something like that almost 100 years ago I firmly believe that it could be easily accomplished in this day and age, but yet the internal combustion engine continues to dominate due to the huge oil and car lobby.

Then why are we so against the Kyoto Protocol?

 

[Galahad]

Then why are we so against the Kyoto Protocol?

1) It is not the only, or perhaps even the best way to address the problems

2) as an example of other objections, this from The Harvard Magazine:

The Kyoto protocol is to date the only international agreement that calls for action to reduce emissions of CO2. Yet the Harvard scientists and economists who study climate change express almost universal criticism of the accord, which they fault as economically inefficient, unobjective, inequitable, and—worst of all—ineffective. And they point out that the protocol fails to include the largest future sources of CO2 emissions. China, for example, will pass the U.S. in annual emissions of CO2 by 2013, according to Boas professor of international economics Richard N. Cooper. Another projection suggests that, by 2050, China's cumulative contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere will exceed those of the United States.

 

[ButchJohnson]

Then why are we so against the Kyoto Protocol?

I'm by no means an expert on that treaty, but from what I've heard it has a lot of anti-american type aspects to it that are not in our interests. I think Americans and American industries are already "regulated" enough. I don't think more regulations, standards and what not is the answer "for America." It may be for third world countries who do not regulate factories and things.

I think the main issue is getting rid of, or at least devloping viable alternatives to the internal combustion car engine. I don't think factories, power plants etc., are numerous enough, and/or are already regulated enough to prevent major amounts of pollution.

 

[eclectics]

1) It is not the only, or perhaps even the best way to address the problems

2) as an example of other objections, this from The Harvard Magazine:

Even if it is flawed, it's at least a start. I see it as a stepping stone to something bigger and better. Our dismissal is just a justification to ignore the problem exists, or to sweep it under the rug imho.

 

[eclectics]

I'm by no means an expert on that treaty, but from what I've heard it has a lot of anti-american type aspects to it that are not in our interests. I think Americans and American industries are already "regulated" enough. I don't think more regulations, standards and what not is the answer "for America." It may be for third world countries who do not regulate factories and things.

I think the main issue is getting rid of, or at least devloping viable alternatives to the internal combustion car engine. I don't think factories, power plants etc., are numerous enough, and/or are already regulated enough to prevent major amounts of pollution.

I could be glib and say the way things are going there won't be much manufacturing done in the country soon and it will be a moot point, but that's another debate. I agree with you about auto emissions, but I believe tighter factory emissions also can't be ignored. And yes, to make this a global success, China and India etc. MUST start to regulate their industry and autos.

 

[TheDoctor]

We really did not need the polar ice caps or all of those species. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-01-11-hansen-warming_x.htm?csp=34

MAMMOTH LAKES, Calif. — The effects of global warming are being felt around the world and unless international efforts are launched within the next 10 years, species will disappear and the Earth will be a vastly less habitable planet by the end of the century, according to NASA scientist James E. Hansen.

"Global warming is already starting, and there's going to be more of it. I think there is still time to deal with global warming, but we need to act soon. Humans now control global climate, for better or worse," Hansen said Tuesday at an annual gathering of meteorologists.

Hansen, who came under fire from the White House after a December 2005 lecture in which he called for prompt reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming, delivered his keynote speech by satellite at the 14th annual Operation Sierra Storm meeting at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. Global warming is the theme of the conference.

Hansen, who said he was not speaking for NASA, said that after the warming of the past three decades, the world is within 1°C of its warmest period in the past 400,000 years. He predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the same rate, the warming this century will approach 3°C, or about 5°F.

He forecast that such a change would eliminate up to half the species on Earth and would melt polar ice caps. Subsequently rising ocean levels would inundate Florida, most of Louisiana and much of the East Coast, Hansen said.

 

[Charade]

Those who want to make changes in their lifestyles-go for it.
Those who don't want to make changes in their lifestyles- go for it.

Exactly! Because none of this will matter when that big asteroid hits.




(or the aliens invade and use us for food...)

 

[Galahad]

I'm not a Vegetarian, but I am more persuaded by this than many of the other gasps of horror:

http://www.vegsoc.org/press/2006/methane.html

Press Releases


November 2006
Go vegetarian NOW! And help cut
greenhouse gases

“Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars”, UN report warns - UN's own headline

In response to the shocking UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s report released today The Vegetarian Society is urging the public to go vegetarian and help ease the catastrophic impact of livestock farming.

According to the report, widespread cattle rearing exacts an even higher price on the earth’s ecology than driving cars.

“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” the report warns.

The Society suggests a far simpler solution, go vegetarian.

Dr Annette Pinner, Chief Executive of The Vegetarian Society said: “The scale of this problem is of such importance to the future of the planet that adopting a vegetarian diet is not only desirable but essential. We welcome the FAO’s strong stance on the findings of this report and the clear message that, if we don’t mend our ways, the damage will be irreparable.”

Of course, won't us all going veggie just shift the methane production from cows to us?

 

[Charade]

Of course, won't us all going veggie just shift the methane production from cows to us?

Skip the broccoli!!!