S
SamH
Guest
Because the history of measuring ocean temps is nearly nonexestant you can make estimates of previous decades temperatures to match your current conclusion.
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Surprised to see this thread is still ongoing, as it’s one of those political advocacy threads we often see on CAF when the administration is about to go on an aggressive campaign to do something people ordinarily would not want.
We’re getting close to administration moves to make energy use much more expensive. People viewing the thread need to keep that in mind. Viewers also need to keep in mind that making energy more expensive will have a disproportionately negative impact on the poor and the elderly. Since, on CAF, supporters of Obama tend to couch the secular argument in religious terms, it is important to remember that.
It is also important to realize that many of the Obama arguments in favor of global warming are refuted in previous posts to the thread. Therefore, do not accept any pro-administration assertion without going back to the posts in which they are questioned.
Now, to touch on one of the issues raised:
As to ocean/atmosphere exchanges, some scientists maintain it is the other way around; i.e. the ocean’s discharge of long-stored heat into the atmosphere is much more significant than atmosphere-to-ocean temperature exchanges. Deep-ocean-to-atmosphere exchanges are very long-term, measurable in thousands of years for a complete exchange, whereas atmosphere-to-ocean exchanges take only days and do not change ocean temperatures very much. Further, the amount of heat stored in the oceans is massively greater than that stored in the atmosphere and has a much greater effect on air temperatures than air temperatures have on ocean temperatures.
Long ago in this thread I cited that information, but it was, of course, summarily ignored.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Now for the pause while Lynnvinc contacts her sources for a blizzard of articles soon to be posted in response. It always happens this way.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
It has always been about the heat imbalance in our earth system – no matter whether that extra heat is being mostly stored in the air, the land, or the oceans. That’s how scientists have always spoken about it, an energy imbalance.
see: climatesciences.jpl.nasa.gov/research/energy-balance
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html
epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
An important parameter is the warming of lower atmospheric temperatures (which BTW have not gone down anywhere near pre-AGW temps, but simply have not warmed as much over the past decade or so as earlier). But it is not the only place heat is stored.
Also note that it took 1000s of years in the earlier great warmings that killed off most of life on earth – the PETM 55 mya & end-Permian 251 mya. We’re warming orders of magnitude faster than in the past.
You need the patience of God or a geologist…
Or, you could start turning out lights not in use, just in case the scientists are right, rather than waiting to see if and when it gets to 6C warmer and much of life dies out in a couple of centuries.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Quite frankly I would not have been studying the issue in depth so much, except that to my undying great shock and surprise people ignored this issue or even worse have totally rejected it out of hand, and are working vigorously overtime to dissuade people from mitigating it.Now for the pause while Lynnvinc contacts her sources for a blizzard of articles soon to be posted in response. It always happens this way.
The meager info I had back in 1990 was quite enough to set me on the road to mitigation.
I guess I just the weirdest person in the world. Me and JPII (who also started on this issue in 1990).
L
lynnvinc
Guest
scientists have always used proxies. it’s not a big deal. except for people who want to convince others there is nothing to worry about – just going on pollutiong as usual, nevermind that you’re also wasting money in the process.Because the history of measuring ocean temps is nearly nonexestant you can make estimates of previous decades temperatures to match your current conclusion.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Are you a climate scientist?
L
lcburgundy
Guest
“You don’t want to spend a huge amount of other people’s money on a billionaire’s investment schemes?! You must be an evil polluter!”
The waste of money comment is ironic coming from someone who thinks we should be paying $20 for a gallon of gasoline and tripling our monthly energy bills.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
When did Pope John Paul II say it was a good idea to make utilities, food, transportation and just about everything more costly for the poor and the elderly? I, for one, have never seen him endorse making utility bills “skyrocket”.
S
SamH
Guest
It’s written in bible - right next to where it told Jim Bakker to build a water park.
K
Kevin_B
Guest
This thread makes me sad. People are discussing whether or not global warming, caused by man, does exist. If it does, it will very likely cause the deaths of thousands, if not millions, due to increased numbers of natural disasters and decreased access to fresh water.
Maybe you accept the scientific findings for this Theory. Maybe you think they are flawed. Both are understandable. What is completely inexcusable, however, is that people are honestly suggesting that we do nothing about it because…
IT COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY???
People are really willing to risk the lives of other humans, just because the steps that could possibly save them are expensive?
Pope Francis was right. We do worship money. I’m just sad to see so many Catholics who are in the money cult as well. To think they are putting a price on even a remote POSSIBILITY that human life may be lost is abhorrent. I will pray for them all to learn the value of human life, and I hope Pope Francis never sees this forum, as it would break his heart.
Maybe you accept the scientific findings for this Theory. Maybe you think they are flawed. Both are understandable. What is completely inexcusable, however, is that people are honestly suggesting that we do nothing about it because…
IT COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY???
People are really willing to risk the lives of other humans, just because the steps that could possibly save them are expensive?
Pope Francis was right. We do worship money. I’m just sad to see so many Catholics who are in the money cult as well. To think they are putting a price on even a remote POSSIBILITY that human life may be lost is abhorrent. I will pray for them all to learn the value of human life, and I hope Pope Francis never sees this forum, as it would break his heart.
L
lcburgundy
Guest
Sure, everything has a cost, and there is nothing noble about taking other people’s means and money away from them, especially with ultra-regressive energy taxation. And to realistically even approach having a token or minor effect in climate, people will need to pay $20 for a gallon of gas and $1000 for their power bills. Even that’s not enough. This “pay an extra 5% for renewables” and “get a 50 MPG hybrid” are silly little nothing-measures that have no effect other than to make people feel warm and fuzzy. And the sorts of amping up of energy expenses that I’m talking about really just a starting point of the kind of de-modernization that will be necessary to really tamp down CO2 emissions in the computer models.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Personally, I just don’t see the point in throwing good money after bad. Wind farms take far more energy (and create far more pollution and other problems) to build than they ever produce, and they tend to close almost instantly because of non-profitability once subsidies are removed. Solar power is still an absolute pipe dream. Geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectric are all very limited in where they can be used.
If we really want to get serious about reducing emissions, build more nuclear power plants. We know they work, we know how to deal with the waste in a productive manner (Thorium and breeder reactors), and coal plants release more radioactive material (in the form of ash) per kWh generated than even the most antiquated nuclear plants. We even know how to build a reactor small and safe enough to place in individual homes! (Look up pebble-bed reactors - they are very cool) The only problem is that as soon as the public hears the word “nuclear” all they can think of is either a mushroom cloud or Chernobyl. The public needs to be educated in the facts of modern nuclear power generation, and these plants need to be built. We’ve got enough uranium and thorium available to generate several times our current power needs for a few thousand years. All that we’re lacking is the will to use it.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I didn’t come up with that figure, someone else did.“You don’t want to spend a huge amount of other people’s money on a billionaire’s investment schemes?! You must be an evil polluter!”
The waste of money comment is ironic coming from someone who thinks we should be paying $20 for a gallon of gasoline and tripling our monthly energy bills.
But I suppose if all the harmful externalities of burning petrol were to be internalized – local pollution, acid rain, global warming, ozone hole, etc. over the 100,000 years that a portion of our CO2 emissions could remain in the atmosphere – the appropriate cost may be more like $200 per gallon, depending on whether one values human lives at 2 cents or $2. But I hate to bring this up – money cannot bring a person back to life.
I simply do not buy the argument that mitigating ACC down to a 75% reduction in GHGs will involve huge net costs. Rather it will saving huge amounts of money without lowering productivity or living standards I know that from experience; it’s a carved-in-stone fact for me.
But, of course, if people prefer instead to swelter in the dark while pouring money into boondoggles that don’t have any impact promoted by some slick con-artist billionnaire, that’s their perogative.
The Bible, however, teaches us to be as gentle as doves, but as shrewd as serpents.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Never claimed I was. I’m a pro-life person concerned about threats to life on earth. In fact I have beefs with science, which is way too reticient in making claims, striving to avoid the false positive.
I do, however, have a good basic background in science and read about the natural greenhouse effect back in HS in the 60s, so it has not been difficult for me to understand climate science.
The only reason I’ve done a lot of reading into climate science, even contacting climate scientists for clarification on points, is not for my benefit. As I mentioned I had enough info back in 1990, meager tho it was, to start mitigate ACC. It is for the sake of the life of the world, to try and make sense to those who reject ACC and refuse to mitigate, who even work overtime striving to dissuade others from mitigating.
It is very shocking to me that people are so eager and willing to risk grave harms to others well into the future, grasping at any flimsy denialist industry point to absolve them of any responsibility. And even refusing to look into the fact that they could be saving money by mitigating ACC; not even taking one tiny baby step to turn out a light not in use. Totally befuddles me.
There are other important life issues out there, like abortion, but since most Catholics are on the abortion issue and no one I know of is on the ACC issue (except JPII, BXVI, & the US Bishops – which no one listens to re the ACC issue anyway), I feel it has fallen to me.
I feel like Cassandra, doomed to total faillure in getting the message across, but I cannot stop doing my duty.
Sorry if it bother you all.
L
lcburgundy
Guest
Individual energy conservation efforts in the U.S. will not impact global climate. It just won’t. I say this as someone who drives minimally and whose combined power and gas bill last month was $80.
No computer model I’ve seen claims any climate impact with baby steps. If the baby steps save individuals money - that’s great. If it makes those people feel good - that’s great. But where I get off the bus is where people come in and casually claim that others could save the planet if just would be stop being lazy and turn off a light and drive a little less. That’s just total horse hockey. Those are token gestures that will have no effect on climate. None. You can save ton of CO2 here or there, but it just doesn’t amount to anything even with the most CO2-sensitive models.
To even approach having a theoretical effect and to also make renewables more competitive, energy prices need at least a 10X increase globally to start. And I emphasize to START. Such efforts would basically be an ultra-regressive tax that would impoverish millions and millions. We would revert to a much more third world experience for many people. I don’t think the potential payoff (saving some unknown number of people from unknown events some unknown time in the future, the combination of said events that will supposedly occur varies from day to day and from model to model) is worth definitely imposing involuntary impoverishment on so many people NOW.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No, I think the main complaint is that it will cause severe hardship on the poor, the elderly and the jobless. There’s really no question about that. And that’s for the sake of a theory that is much disputed (particularly by meteorologists) and presently appears contrary to the experience of most people. The theory also has tremendous political consequences, and a lot to gain on the part of some very wealthy and powerful people if it’s followed; people who, in no way, act as if they believe it themselves.
Theories come and go. Overpopulation, “peak oil”, global cooling, the benefits of communism being some of them, and each and every one had its contingent of people who purported to “prove” their point by ginning up facts and figures to “support” their theories.
And yet, there has not been warming for years, there have been warmer periods in history than this, higher concentrations of CO2 than this. Nobody knows for sure what caused any of that, any more than they know for sure what caused catastrophic cooling as in the Younger Dryas period. All kinds of people “prove” their point of view, pro and con.
There are people who “prove” that if any space probe lands on Mars and comes back, it will bring with it bacteria that will wipe out human life on earth. Others say not, and yet we still send probes there, and few are in a panic to prevent probes to Mars.
Unfortunately, this debate has become so tainted with fraud at its roots that no one can truthfully say massively cutting the energy available for human life is somehow the only way mankind can save itself from catastrophe.
K
Kevin_B
Guest
So you think letting people keep their money is more important than saving lives? I mean, assuming you knew AGW was correct, and assuming you knew that making people pay $20 for a gallon of gas and $1000 for their energy bill would save many thousands if not millions of lives by reducing desertification and the number of natural disasters, would you still oppose it?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m very fiscally conservative. I think we should be much more responsible with our finances. I think we should have a balanced budget amendment, even. But I don’t think we should save even one dollar at the expense of human lives.
Also, I’m sure you’re aware that petroleum is a non-renewable resource. We will run out. Probably not any time in the near future, but I think it’s sage to say that our grandchildren will probably have to deal with severely declining supply sometime in their lifetime. So why delay a problem until tomorrow when we can solve it today?
I already commented on the benefits of nuclear energy. You are right, it has a bad rap. The solution? Just like everyone thinks “Chernobyl” whenever they hear about nuclear power, we need to get them to think “global warming” whenever they hear about petroleum. A few accidents through history is much, much less deadly than stronger hurricanes, higher water tables, and less fresh water. Whenever someone hears about petroleum, they need to instantly remember in their mind how many millions of people all over the world are suffering for their energy. Nuclear power isn’t ideal, but it’s certainly better than our current situation. It’s not even a comparison.
However, you are forgetting, petroleum is a finite resource. Some day, in the next 50-75 years, our supply of oil will begin to decline rapidly. When that happens, the only solution will be the energy price increases you mentioned. So what benefit are you expecting to reap by simply passing the problem off to another generation?
L
lcburgundy
Guest
Because paying that much would in fact cost lives. Energy prices that high will depress food production as well. This would not be a land of plenty anymore. This is not a matter of getting people into hybrids or electric vehicles or a little inconvenience added to their day. Many jobs would evaporate into thin air. People would be largely stuck where they are.
The kind of extreme risk aversion you’re talking about does not exist in the real world. All societal choices have human costs and there are tradeoffs to every choice. If everybody stopped driving, we would save 30,000+ lives a year. So, we should all stop driving, right?
Marketplaces, if allowed to function (and frequently they are not!), will find solutions. It’s like people in the 19th century worrying about the whale oil shortages that we would surely now be suffering as we would have run out of whales by now in a static analysis. Market forces found the solution there too. Maybe renewables will be where they need to be in 50-75 years. They clearly aren’t now, and forcing the issue with a top-down command-and-control viewpoint is counterproductive.
U.S. CO2 emissions have declined in recent years because of the market- and technology-driven rise of natural gas. I think we’re getting close to Kyoto compliance even. Who would have guessed that would have happened? My natural gas rates now are quite a bit lower than 6 years ago. My point is, if there’s a market that’s allowed to function, solutions will be found.
I have not posted about nuclear, but I agree it should be much more aggressively pursued as an energy source. Unfortunately we are going the opposite direction.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
But we know nothing of the kind. One can assume all sorts of things and project remedies for them. Catastrophic overpopulation was one, for sure. Running out of oil worldwide was one in the 1980s. Neither came to pass. And there is a great deal of tainted information out there. There are always unforeseen consequences to political manipulation of what people would otherwise do if given the opportunity to do so, and they’re usually not favorable.
As an aside, there are those who believe desertification is a primary cause of GW, not an effect of it. Of interest, perhaps www.savoryinstitute.com. I believe this because I have seen it happen personally, and this man appears to have confirmed it experimentally; something the MMGW-due-to-CO2 people have NOT done.
- Status