90% Sure Global Warming is Man-made

Hi Guest. The US and Britain supposed to be on the same side? You must be joking, they have never forgotten the Boston tea party. But that aside we in the UK are at least signed up to the Kyoto agreement on decreasing the amout of CO2 we pump into the air. Spencer.

Hi thehanker. I also note that the Yanks have not got the answer to Iraq? Spencer.

What? Gobal warming is a myth?

Crikey. Why is it so bloody hot in Australia for?

Come over here for a summer then.

We are the driest continent on the Planet but this is getting crazy.

Our local water supply is down to 4%. It is against the law to water your plants (at any time) or fill a wading pool. My mother in law only flushes the toilet when doing Number 2's. Keeps a bucket in the shower so she can coollect the run off to use it in the clothes washer.The Ozone layer is getting bigger. Its a fact, just face it. If you've gone out in the sun lately without a long sleeved shirt and hat or without sun screen 30+ your concidered crazy. It took my wife 15 min to get sunburnt the other day. 15 minutes. That's First Degree Burns. Austalia has the highest degree of Skin Cancer in the world.

So if there are any chair potatoes that say "deary me there is no such thing as global warming, it all a conspearacy(sic), in my air- conditioned house with a plasma screen in every room, with a dish washer and clothes dryer with my spa, sauna and gas heated pool, No such thing!!!"

Get lost! The Planet does not need or want such a snivelling, servile, limp wristed, cave dwellers.

While we are at it, why don't we just rid of the biggest producer of the greenhouse gas methane?

Stop breeding cattle.

Go the sheep!

Yum, Lamb chops.

Yes, I am from Australia.

I'm not laughing but crying.

So what would happen if we concidered that global warming is man made and we can stop it.

We stop using so much fuel.

We expand research into renewable energy.

We turn off airconditioning when we are not there.

We don't need 6 cars in a house hold of 4.

Not all clothes need to be dried in a cloths dryer.

We save the planet and chiefly ourselves and we live happily ever after.

Just too easy.

Don't complain about "scientists" or "greenies". Become one or both and find a solution yourself. Start by the simple act of flicking off that light switch when you leave a room. It's not that much energy for you to lose but it will save you money over a year.

It is NOT a right to waste energy. Or is that in the constitution as well.

Hi geomech. This is an exert from one of our leading newspapers this morning 4-9-02. As part of the governments training program on global warming, the government is hiring a private cinema to show Al Gore's film, Inconvenient truth to 500 civil servents. They also anounced that all is going well with their policies on global warming and that through their green taxes they have managed to raise £29 billion so far for the tresurey. So this is at last the truth! It is an agenda, here in the UK at least to raise even more money from taxes, when will people wake up and realise that it is all a con. Spencer.

What?Sheep do not produce flatulence?Enough sheep to replace all the cattle would probably be just as bad.Not to mention humans.3 Billion humans produce how much flatulence and carbon dioxide from normal metabolism?

Perhaps we could outlaw beans and broccoli, or find a way to power our vehicles by injecting it into our engines on the way to work.

A bunch of guys with boiled eggs and beer could probably travel free for a short commute if they "pooled" their resources.

I think the report is wrong!!

Human activity does NOT cause global warming, just adds to it.

Evidence from millions of years in the past - from glacier cores - shows the make-up of the atmosphere has been in constant fluctuation, even before man existed in the most primative form.

This does not mean that we should be squandering the resources we have - fossil fuels WILL run out, but by reducing our total dependence on them, we will not only take longer to deplete supply but also reduce the effects of using them.

From a control engineer's point of view, human use of fossil fuels is a variable we can adjust to aid stabilisation of the system (but I'm not sure how to stop cattle ejecting methane without a massive, final BBQ)

"Evidence from millions of years in the past - from glacier cores - shows the make-up of the atmosphere has been in constant fluctuation, even before man existed in the most primative form."

This is true but Antarctic ice cores show that the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ is higher now than it has been in the last 800,000 years. Not only is it higher but it is rising at a rate almost 60 times faster than it ever has over the same period. That's pretty damming evidence that the cause is human activity.

Hi masu. If global warming has to do with the concentration of CO2, then please can you explain to me the causes of the other times the planet experienced global warming, and subsiquent cooling, all the way to an ice age?

We do know that when the coal and oil that we are now burning was laid down the earth was considerably warmer and atmospheric CO₂ was higher. The plants during this period flourished and over many million years managed to lock considerable amounts of carbon up in what is now fossil fuels. If we burn all the fossil fuels we will end up putting that back into the atmosphere.

As for the causes of ice ages nobody is absolutely sure but ice ages came and went over periods of thousands of years not a century or so. The problem is the rate of change the earth is currently going through is far greater than it appears has occurred in the past. One theory says that the earths magnetic field reversing had something to do with it but again this appears to have happened over millennia rather than centuries.

There could also have been catastrophic triggers like massive impacts with extraterrestrial objects and mega volcanic explosions but these are apparently not the cause of all ice ages.

As I said the really worrying thing is that CO₂ is currently increasing at a rate nearly 60 times faster than at any time in the last 800,00 years and that covers the end of the last ice age. This is way faster than nature has ever managed to do for a long time and probably ever has. If nature never did it before why would it happen now? Directly or indirectly it looks pretty much like we are part of the equation.

Hi masu. It is not that I don't believe that the planet is heating up, and that we will all go to hell in a hand cart one day if we do not cut down on using fossil fuels. It is just that since scientists discovered global warming our politicians have jumped on the bandwagon, but not one of them has cut down on jet travel, and other forms of transport using fossil fuels! I cannot get it out of my head that there is an agenda here that we are not privy to, eg, Gordon Brown our chancellor has slapped a large tax hike on jet travel that we mere mortals have to pay, this money collected, we are told, is to combat global warming? But, surprise, surprise, this money is not going towards combating global warming at all, it is merely going into the governments pockets. It seems strange to me that just before our government slapped this tax on us, that it was anounced that there was a huge black hole in the politicians retirement pension pot! I may be a cynical old fool, but I am not stupid. So, as I said, I do believe we have a problem with global warming, but surely our politicians must lead by example, otherwise nobody will believe them.

Human nature, being what it is, there will be those that will take advantage of the situation for their personal gain.

I saw an interesting program a short time ago about people lying. The majority of people find it quiet difficult to tell a lie but there is a small percentage, less than 5% if I remember correctly, that have the ability to lie blatantly. The problem is that it is these people that can advance in politics and business easily because they see nothing wrong with telling a lie. The them the end justifies the means and the ultimate goal is all that matters.

I had a manager once that told me that I should not tell somebody that a particular thing was true. I asked of what I should I do if I was specifically asked the question and he sad just don't tell them the truth. I responded by say that he was instructing me to lie to which he responded no, don't lie just don't tell them the truth. To him deceiving somebody about the true state of affairs was not lying.

The problem is that people like these get away with it and it is our fault for letting them. If in a western democracy a political leader lies to gain office and is reelected for a second term then are we not to blame for allowing them to get away with it?

If we tolerate and reward those that deceive then we will ultimately be the ones that suffer.

Maybe you can help. I was wondering who the scientists were 800,000 yrs ago that did the testing?

"Maybe you can help. I was wondering who the scientists were 800,000 yrs ago that did the testing?"

I gather you didn't read the article in the link. When snow falls it traps air amongst the flakes. As a result there are small pockets of air that are samples of the atmosphere at the time the snow fell. By taking core samples of the ice in Antarctica you can extract these tiny samples of air and analyze them. So far they have managed to get samples of the air from 800,000 years back. They also believe that they may be able to extend it back a further 200,00 years in the not too distant future.

This chart shows the atmospheric CO₂, atmospheric dust and temperature over the last 400,000 years and the current rate of increase is nearly 60 times faster than at any time over the period that the samples have been taken. Put that together with the chart and it reveals we are in uncharted territory and the cause isn't natural.

So my friend you see these are not mathematical extrapolations of what people thought the atmosphere was they are actual readings taken from small samples of the atmosphere as it was over the last 800,000.

So, in "800,000 years" it's not possible that the composition of those tiny atmospheric samples would have changed at all and that the analysis is at least (let's be conservative) 50% accurate? .........Yeah.

Obviously I havn't done the tests myself but from what I have read these tiny samples are a very accurate sample of the atmosphere from the time. They can also analyse the gases dissolved in the ice as these are also representative of the atmosphere at the time the snow was laid down.

Keep in mind we are not talking of somewhere where the temperature gets any where near being hot enough to melt the ice. Taking this into account how would pockets of gas trapped in the ice several thousand meters below the surface change in composition. There may be a certain amount of smudging but if you can see consistent variations over large sections of the core then I would have to think that this would be a limited effect.

At any rate any contamination would have forced the trapped samples to be similar to the current day and that just makes every thing worse as it means the atmosphere is changing faster than calculated.

Here is what we know for sure. Over the last thousands of years there have been massive changes to the climate of this planet. We have had no summer due to volcanic activity. We had an ice age long before man had any influence on the planet. The planet warmed back up after the ice age. In the big picture we have only be collecting data for a very short time. How do we know that global warming is not a natural occurring event? If it is, what make us think we have the power to stop it or create it.

Sorry, but your post and the one prior don't belong here!!!!!!!!!!!!...................................................................................................................it makes too much sense!

A local talk show host in Nashville this week explained the report before it was ever released after speaking with one of the scientists involved with study.

It appears that the truth does not sell newspapers nor make it to the news shows. The Truth about the study was that there is NOT enough data to make a conclusion as to whether the alledged problem, if there is in fact a global warming problem, is caused by man.

The Summary was written by politicians [NOT SCIENTISTS] or people with political agendae. Thus the public has been exposed to a BIAS presentation of what is perceived as indisputable Facts.

Do not believe anything you hear, or half of what you see.

I have attempted to edit this posting for correct spelling and grammar, which is more than most of you professionals are doing.

Nimrod

"Truth about the study was that there is NOT enough data to make a conclusion as to whether the alledged problem, if there is in fact a global warming problem, is caused by man."

I think you will find that while the scientists said that they could not categorically say that man was causing the planet to warm but that there was at least a 90% chance that it was the case.

Open your eyes and look at what is happening world wide. Ten years ago I was skeptical about global warming but I am afraid that the evidence is now overwhelming.

Just look at the Australian situation, the majority of the continent is in the midst of the worst drought ever known and the Darling river, a river only slightly shorter than the Mississippi, has dried up completely. Meanwhile some are experiencing flooding the like of which has never been seen.

"the like of which has never been seen."

Qualify - during our lifetime/within our knowledge/.....?

The drought is the worst since actual records have been kept and according the deduced climate history from things like tree rings it is mare than likely the worst in the last 1,000 years.

The floods are a little harder to trace back but are the worst since records began and for Australia that means a maximum of 219 years.

Sydney has a serious water shortage problem and unless something happens, man made or natural, we will run out of water towards the end of next year. Melbourne is fairing a little better but can only hold out for a bout six months more. There are a host of plans being talked about like desalination, water recycling, new reservoirs, ground water, etc. but looking seriously like it will be too little too late.

Something like a major developed city running out of water is an extremely serious event and it maybe what the world need to wake up and take notice of what is happening all around them. I just wish it didn't have to be where I lived.

Looks like your wet stuff is landing in the west of Scotland!

I think that the main problems now are the national borders. Politics will decide who survives - in the past, people were mobile, and could move from place to place according to the level of food/water/protection they needed.

We are no longer nomads, and many would find it disturbing even to move to the next town, let alone abandon a country which is no longer able to support its population.

We are all guilty to some extent of expecting others to provide some of our services, and complaining when this doesn't happen. No government can stop the evolution of the planet any more that King Canute could stop the tide rising.

We already see the effects of nationality in Africa, where migration to the sustainable lands is halted, and others are left to survive on hand-outs from those with excess.

I think that speaks to one of the drawbacks to ones being too nationalistic when it comes to political ideology. I am very patriotic when it comes to my conviction that our system of government here in the US provides the best environment for free people to exercise their liberty. That liberty, however, carries with it a certain responsibility to our fellow citizens of the world to share the fruits of our prosperity while at the same time endeavoring to also educate those with whom we share the planet, on the very source of that prosperity, which is that ideology which has created the freedom we enjoy. The idea set forth in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, and if given the same opportunity will all achieve equal success, will only work if they will apply the same understanding to those opportunities. It's the old story of giving your friend a fish or teaching him how to fish. The only reason that the whole world isn't as prosperous as the US is not our location or our specific gathering of a certain kind of people, it's what we do and how we do it that has made this country great. If the rest of the world would learn and adopt the principles of the free society our founders gave to us, they would also enjoy the same prosperity we have. The principles of freedom with which we were founded are universal and will work regardless of the geographic circumstances in which people find themselves. They just need to be willing to change from how they have been thinking to how they need to think in order to change their results. Instead they cling to their way of doing things (which isn't working to their satisfaction) and rail with envy at the achievements of those who have adopted new ideas. It's the same principle which needs to be applied when doing scientific experiments or engineering testing. Let's see what works, and why, and do that.

Jesus, Water Buffalo! You are embarrassing your country. What a load of arrogant clap trap! Have you never traveled? Do you think that the US is the only democracy in the world?? Do you think people all over Europe are just pining to learn what it is that makes us so incredibly wonderful?? Do you think the people at Toyota and Honda are jumping at the chance to learn how to follow GM and Ford, despite the fact that they have grown by leaps and bounds while GM and Ford are going down the tubes. Read a little. Travel a little. If you would spend some time reading the bible instead of using it as a percussion instrument, you would find that Jesus had a lot to say about humility.

I've spent time in Finland, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, the UK, Austria, and New Zealand. I didn't meet anyone from any of those countries who said "Gosh, golly, Mr American, please tell me your secrets of the good life."

No, but many of them have been busy adopting them anyway - hence overcrowded autobahns, increasing feelings of insecurity, larger and fuller prisons, and willingness (amongst some at least) to involve themselves in legally dubious crusading wars.

If only they had America's population density (within habitable regions) and natural resources to build upon...

Take it easy, ken. I was speaking of the democratic principles that were the foundation of our government. I never meant to give the impression that the US was the sole posessor, let alone the originator of these principles. I was speaking mainly of the less developed nations of the world which could benefit from employing these principles and ideas as the other democratic nations you mentioned have already done. Where's the arrogance in that?

Hi Water Buffalo:

Perhaps you intended to write something other than what you wrote, but your words were thoroughly soaked in arrogance. If your point was only to suggest that democracy can lead to prosperity, then why mention it? I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of monarchies or dictatorships.

You are clearly trying to suggest that our ideology is better than that of others. I've put a few excerpts below:

• endeavoring to also educate those with whom we share the planet, on the very source of that prosperity, which is that ideology To assert that we in the US should educate those with whom we share the planet, in the context of this global forum, is on the face of it arrogant. Better we should look to the rest of the world to see how to cut our conspicuous consumption. And if we were not so arrogant, might we not consider that our "success" could be partly due to the fact that our country has some of the richest resources on the planet, rather than due entirely to our superior ideology? After all, even our own oil would be more than adequate if we were not consuming twice as much per capita vs the rest of the developed world, and 8 times as much per capita vs the developing world.
• will only work if they will apply the same understanding to those opportunities In other words, you are saying that they must apply our understanding to be successful. Might they not have their own ideas and understandings? Profoundly arrogant.
• The only reason that the whole world isn't as prosperous as the US is not our location Any statement beginning "The only reason" is fundamentally arrogant. There are a great many reasons for most things far less complex than the causes of prosperity. Frankly, our location has a lot to do with our prosperity.
• it's what we do and how we do it that has made this country great. There are great countries around the globe that have done things much differently than we do, including not having relied on slave labor for as long as we did, and not having taken the land from away from the indigenous people. The suggestion is that we are doing things that are somehow "better" than the things done elsewhere. To say so is simply arrogant. Until you lived immersed in another culture, you cannot judge our "greatness" vs their "greatness."
• If the rest of the world would learn Yes – if only they were as smart as us. Again, profoundly arrogant, but it also serves to drive a wedge between Them and Us
• they would also enjoy the same prosperity we have. Could it be that their (who is this they you keep referring to?) notion of "prosperity" might be different than ours? Could it be that they might be more concerned about sharing than taking? Might it be that they actually live Jesus's and other prophet's messages re the value of simplicity and giving more than taking? Perhaps, for others, prosperity has more to do with spirit than it does with SUV count.
• The principles of freedom with which we were founded are universal and will work regardless of the geographic circumstances in which people find themselves. How many years have you spent in the Sahara? Siberia? The Outback?
• They just need to be willing to change from how they have been thinking to how they need to think This is arrogance piled upon arrogance piled upon arrogance. Others (who now?) are 1. stubborn, 2. thinking old thoughts, and 3. Need to think what you think.
• Instead they cling to their way of doing things Perish the thought that they should try to maintain a culture other than the one we seek to impose upon them, in our infinite wisdom.
• rail with envy at the achievements of those who have adopted new ideas You'll have to supply some data re these railings. Who rails with envy? Where? When? If you can supply that data, then produce evidence that adopting our ideology will change their railings.

Fortunately, for the health of the US in the world, your views are not those of mainstream Americans. Unfortunately, perhaps half of the people who voted for Bush would say "Right On!! Show them ferners we're better 'n them."

Your litany of condescending statements is all too familiar. Throughout history, empires used such language to justify their taking over foreign lands (for greed) under the guise of helping the indigenous people, just as today competing religious cults send out missionaries to convert others to their way of thinking, trampling indigenous religions in the process… And all in the name of "righteousness." Ironic, hypocritical, and profoundly sad.

If we are going to combat terrorism in any meaningful way, then we must combat the root causes of widespread hatred of America. As you can see by Geomech's post, you've succeeded in offending someone from one of our strongest ally countries. Imagine how fundamentalist factions already predisposed against us might be using your post to fuel additional hatred. Unfortunately, by your own choosing, you speak for both the US and Christianity. We can only hope that people from other countries realize your views are representative of neither.

OMG. Well done Blink. For sticking up for the rest of the world. I truly hope that Water Buffalo is alone in his politics and beliefs.

Strictly to WB

Everybody is free in America as long as they think like you.

So everyone else is wrong and your beliefs are supreme.

So America is prosperous hey? Why is your health care system in shambles (no insurance, no help) unemployment pathetic (what is it 6 months out of work and no more welfare- criminal). Why is it that most of the police shows shown around the world come from America?

Guns, Guns, Guns, Owning a gun makes you free. Isn't that an American Right?

Why do you need guns in normal households?

If you outlaw all guns, guess what? The normal family man or woman probably won't need to "protect" their family from gun toting lunatics. But I heard a rumour you can shoot anyone else in America as long as you are "free".

Goooood philosophy.

Why is everyone in America in therapy? Oprah is your biggest star along with Dr Phil and letterman (the unfunniest man I've ever seen)

Human rights? You should be the last people to say all people are created equal because you don't treat them that way. Why don't you paint a big target on your forehead and wait, with those beliefs?

Rail with envy. I'd rather have a full frontal lobotomy than to live anywhere near nutcases like you.

Blink, where do you live? Sounds like a better place than the zoo that WB comes from.

Yeeehaahh!!! We jus' a bunch of cowpokes lookin' for a good time. Don't mean no harm. All the rest o' y'all jus' git outta the way, 'cause we aim to take over the world. We jus' waitin' for a time when we's able. Man if WWii had jus' lasted a coupla' more years. Too bad we didn't nuke Yerup' when we did those Japs.

How is that Geo? A little more "in character"?

Likewise, I hope Water Buffalo is alone in his beliefs. Sadly, he is not. It is people like him, who can pound on a bible but who cannot appreciate any of the wisdom within (beyond a literal interpretation) who got Bush elected. Without the support of the religious right, Bush would have lost.

Ironic, in a way, that you should ask where I live. I live in Georgia, a state where Water Buffalo would actually find more supporters than in his home state. Fortunately, I'm very near Atlanta, which is reasonably cosmopolitan, and I am fortunate to live in a neighborhood with people from around the world. I have neighbors from China, Korea, Iran, Brazil, etc. and they all make valuable contributions here. Although my neighborhood is fairly free of far-right whackos, my county (which measures about 15Km by 15Km) is not. For a while we had stickers on our textbooks, warning that evolution is just a theory... Fortunately the whacko fringe here was overruled by the federal government -- which is hardly liberal in itself. (I suspect there are those here who would favor bombing one of your cities, Darwin, because the very name should be eradicated.)

From his posts here, you can see that Water Buffalo longs for simple answers to complex questions. I gather that, for him, his brand of religion supplies that. Ditto for a too-large segment of our population, who follow this line of "reasoning": Bush thumps the bible. Therefore he is "religious." Therefore he is "good." Therefore everything he says and does is "good." People who do not agree with Bush are "Bad." Bad people say "Don't invade Iraq". Bad people say "Don't invade Iran." Bad people are unpatriotic.

Blink wrote:

Likewise, I hope Water Buffalo is alone in his beliefs. Sadly, he is not.

Comment. Sadly it's the bible thumpers who quote only those portions of the good book that justify their own ways, that have contributed most to the profligate wasting of the planet's resources. I often hear the phrase that "God gave man dominion over the earth and all that was in it" as the excuse for the wanton destruction of Earth's bounty. Trophy hunting for sport, the utter destruction of some animal species ( the buffalo) as one tool in the genocide of the indigenous population who stood in the way of greedy land speculators and mining entrepeneurs.

The list is endless. I see a close parallel between the old Roman republic become empire and the modern US of A republic that now seeks to become the new empire.

Sadly it is this blind pursuit to waste our planet's resources that has led to the energy crunch of today. Even if none of it has contributed to global warming, the profligate wastage of natural resources by America has set an example for the world and many seek to emulate it since they are told this is the "right way" to live.

When you scratch below the surface it turns out that many if not most of America's technological advances originated with non American persons. But let someone from another part of the world suggest a different way to live and just watch America pounce on them and eradicate such unAmerican thoughts that threaten the selfish conspicuous consumption.

Rome ruthlessly stamped out any and all dissent on general principles as a matter of policy to maintain Pax Romana. Now it is US forces invading Korea, Viet Nam, Afganistan, Iraq and so on to maintain the American idiology and spread Pax Americana.

The barbarians are at the gates. They just have to wait til America runs out of oil < grin> or swelter to death in a heat wave.

elnav

Well Ken, I am obviously not a Ronald Reagan( aka "the great communicator") since I was completely unsucessful in accurately conveying my thoughts. I will leave off here since I fear any attempt to clarify my comments would likely be met with the same lack of understanding. Based on your response, you completely missed what I was trying to say. I'm sorry for the offense. It was not intentional and I in no way meant to come off as arrogant. I do,however, think that there is a certain amount of arrogance displayed when one is so quick to respond so rudely to an honestly expressed opinion. If you disagree with me why not have a polite conversation in which we try to persuade one another, rather than immediately go on the offensive? You seem to have pigeon-holed me without really knowing all that much about me. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

You're right, and I appreciate your taking the time to make this reply, rather than simply throwing your hands up and saying, "Forget this guy -- he's just too whacko to deal with." Can I be the pot calling the kettle black? Yes, I sure can. In fact, the "flaws" we are quickest to see in others are those, if we take the time to reflect, we find in ourselves.

At very least, I might have sent my post via email, rather than making it a public lashing.

I, too, am sorry for the misunderstanding, and realize that I might better spend my time focusing on our agreements, rather than our disagreements. Thanks for your patience and also (I think) a sort of courage to make your reply: you could legitimately be thinking "What on earth is he going to say NEXT?".

Thanks,

Ken

Interesting.

Many commentators have focussed on apportioning and discounting blame rather than looking at a balance of social and engineering solutions to correct the perceived problem.

Thirty-two years ago, a very talented individual at the same school ran a series of albeit simplistic computer model simulations of the world, looking at making adjustments to the rate of population change, land use, atmospheric- and water-borne pollutants, rate of depletion of resources, etc., etc. (enviably this individual went on to achieve a 1st in mathematics at Cambridge). All the models showed a significant wobble in all the curves in 25-50 years' time, or uncomfortably, about now.

Incidentally, there are approaching twice as many humans on this spheroid as there were then...

I was surprised by Blink's sudden attack against Water Buffalo. I reread all his comments, and unless there are some missing, I don't see anything to support your strong response. I suspect that you were on a hair trigger and you read into Water Buffalo's comments a position you wanted to attack. The same goes for the other respondent, Geomech.

I felt is worthwhile to respond here because I fear that we are all (world wide) becoming tense from living with very significant challenges to our quality of life from such problems as: Global Warming, Depletion of Petroleum Reserves, Over Population, Spreading Terrorism, Destruction of Rainforests, Unchecked Bioengineering Development, Rapid Extinction of Species, Threat of Plagues ... This coming at a time when we are hampered the many catastrophic failures that child ruler in an adult world, King Bush.

The danger, illustrated here, is that as we become frustrated we start seeing the enemy everywhere. Our desire to confront him leads us to force others into a position they don't really fit, just so we can visualize our enemy and strike back. What starts as a difference of opinion may become rift. If allowed to fester, this will create a chasm of misunderstanding that can spawn wars.

It was good to see that Blink apologized later. He had the consideration to formally excuse his misinterpretation. The thing to worry about is the many that don't. How we all will react (myself included) as the numerous serious issues mentioned above worsen?

This is one of the reasons I really enjoy this site. It is frequented by mostly rational people. Rational people actually exchanging ideas are the ones who will solve problems. I almost hesitate to share this, but I trust that everyone will be able to see the application. "The Lord said,'If as one people, speaking the same language, they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.'" Genesis 11:6

Eloquently put.

Your post is a great case of why the American media is to blame for misconceptions regarding the U.S. around the world. Free health care isn't better believe me. I'd die in line waiting for life saving surgery. A small minority here are uninsured, compared to the entire population. Everyone here in the state of Massachusetts is covered. Mitt Romeny as governor made sure of it. He may even get elected to the whitehouse in 2008. Another republican is what we need, because there are people out there that want to kill you, me, and anyone else that doesn't share their beliefs. Give me a break. You must watch alot of TV.

Hmm, you really understand how to make the world really love the US don't you? It's nearly enough to make me pleased that China will almost certainly pull the plug on the US in a few years time when your markets are no longer essential to its development.

Either you are programmed to rant at random, or you have relpied to the wrong thread. The subject of this thread is comparative risks of heeding or ignoring the threat of Global Warming.

Water buffalo, What a load of crap, you should be ashamed to call youself an American, have you ever left the shores of the USA to find out what it is like out in the rest of the world? We here in the UK had a parliament hundreds of years before you did, we also have our Magna Carta, a set of laws governing our country written and signed nearly 900 years ago. If you said what you did over here in Europe you would be laughed at and sent home. I have been in America many times and you are the only person that I have ever met who could open your mouth and talk such bullshit. Americans buy Jaguar cars, BMWs, Mercedes, Rolls royce's, Toyota's, ferrari's and many other cars from countries who are also democratic. We here in the old countries did a lot more before you ever did, steam engines, jet engines, Tanks, and much more. So before you open your mouth next time, put your brain into gear first. Spencer.

Hi GM1964. If Scotland does break away from England in the future, and I run out of water here in Birmingham, can I have free passage to Wester Ross where all the water is?

Its only fiscal autonomy we're after, NOT to close the borders!

Of course trade will continue, in just the same way as with other member states of the EU.

This thread is about global warming, so don't get me started on the total botchup they made of devolution - if it had been done fairly, with each country getting equal powers (including England), then that would have worked.

Hi GM1964. Well said!

So, "Was Hadrian right?" - discuss...

There is evidence that trading went on across the wall, and the Romans - at that time - were happy enough to not feel the need to subvert the locals.

So, I think he was right - unfortunately, he was replaced by others who did not have the same sense!

Did you read even the 21-page summary of the report? If so, then pick it apart with substantiated data, on a point-by-point basis. Fluffy generalities don't make it in the world of science. Without scientific specifics, we are simply running on pure feelings with no logic.

The real scientists have asked all the questions you ask above, thousands of times over, and have asked hundreds more. What they have not done, is to simply stop there. They actually did (and continue to do) the research on answering those questions.

Doesn't it seem arrogant to criticise the scientists for working in their specialty, when we as laymen are clueless? Even if we read, at very least, the summary, and ideally the full report, in addition to boning up on climatology, we are still not trained climatologists -- so a little humility would seem to be in order. Suppose we act as if they know what they are talking about? What would be the harm?

I ONCE SPOKE WITH A GEOLOGIST WHO TOLD ME THAT VOLCANOES PRODUCE MORE CARBON DIOXIDE THAN ALL THE VEHICLES ON EARTH COULD MAKE IN A HUNDRED YEARS. SO THAT WOULD CONCLUDE THAT WE ARE JUST GOING THROUGH THE CYCLES OF THE EARTH.

WE MAY BE POLLUTING THE EARTH AND THE AIR WE BREATH AND THE WATER WE DRINK SO THESE WILL BE THE MORE PRESSING ISSUES RATHER THAN WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET ENERGY.

There are natural contributions, and anthorpogenic contributions.

Put simply: 1 + 1 > 1

I've been browsing around the USPTO (Patent and Trademark Office) for some insightful patents that may shine some light on some sort of impending solution to the global warming issue. There's always a solution somewhere and anyone looking to skirt the issue, stand on their opinion or run around like chicken little isn't going to look for any opportunities to solve the problem regardless of the evidence pro or con. I see it as a finical opportunity that no talented engineer should deny. There are plenty of folks with loads of cash eager to bet on a presentation that offers an opportunity to profit from the potential to quell this "disaster in the making". A little study of patents will help. There are lots of interesting patents providing clear incite into the processes and direction of our collective progress. Have fun, I find the USPTO the most interesting site on the net.

oops! the url above does supply a lot of info about Stanley Meyer's patents, such as 4,936,061 and many more regarding energy related inventions. However my presently preferred site is: http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/uspc204/defs204.htm

this is about electrical wave and chemical effects generally. ccl 210/222 deals with cyclotronic effects on chemistry, such as 6,585,891 B1. Also 7,074,370 B2 is about removing exhaust pollutants from cars,etc by electrically activating the catalysts in the exhaust system on most cars. These processes are in line with how the "problem of global warming" is likely to be dealt with because they are economically robust and thus appealing to the investors in the existing technology.

The original question was concerning the RISKs associated with ignoring the warnings of the scientists or the risks incurred if the scientists are wrong bu twe do act on their advice.

So ignoring all the emotional or illogivcal biases expressed by the majority of posters, lets look at the RISKS. Global warming may be caused by factors besides human activity but there is documented proof that our activity does contributein some smal measure.

Therefore the RISK is; we accelerate the trend and possibly push it beyond a point of no return. Note! its a probable risk not a guaranteed effect. With or without our connivance, contribution or ignoring the whole thing; global warming will make life extremely uncomfortabll if not impossible for a large part of the world population in some geographica areas.

The risk associated with attempting to implement amelioating measures is excessive financial expenditure without a return. But we also risk making the globe a better and more pleasant place to live. Our efforts at reducing our ecological foot print will probably upset the status quo and the majority of people hate change and having their lives changed, even if that change is an improvement. So we risk having a lot of upset and disgruntled people.

If we take conservative actions but the scientists are wrong, then we risk offending a lot of these "boffins" and making them the butt of jokes. We also risk having a reduced level of smog, cleaner air and reduced death tolls due to respiratory diseases. Since I'm asthmatic that is a risk I am willing to take.

We also risk leaving something nice behind for our children and grand children. How embarassing! Then I would have to remove my bumper sticker saying " I"m spending my children's inheritance" That would never do! That would be like admitting defeat. Who wants to create a better world? There is no profit in that! (NOT!!)

cheers from the global warming devastated Canadian northern forests.

Elnav

Elnav:

Congratulations to one of the few who actually took the time to answer the questions posed -- and with clarity and humor to boot!

Thanks, its a question I have been wrestling with for more than 30 years, ever since I first worked on energy conservation projects. I cannot even claim to be sucessful in having a small ecological footprint since I have been driving F150 trucks or larger for longer than that. Bought and sold my first Ford truck before I turned 16. Got two of them parked in farmyard right now.

Can't even claim to ride my bike to work, it's a bit difficult to ride a 140 mile round trip each day and stil have time to work and sleep. Not to mention the impracticality of carrying several hundred pounds of tools plus materials to the job site each day.

Also did my fair share of racing cars. However my old souped up Chevy small block got just as many miles to the gallon as my latest fuel injected, computerized Ford pickup. My street racer corvette could average 22 MPG cruising at 90 - 100 MPH between Toronto and Montreal in regular traffic. And my self designed and built house used half as much heating fuel as conventional homes did. I worked for a heating contractor at the time so had pretty good data for comparison. So I get a B- on effort and F on being "green"

My daughter "thanked me and my generation" for leaving such a mess in the world and wondered how her brand new baby girl will cope in life after I'm gone. That really struck home!

Elnav

Elnav,

You wrote: "My daughter "thanked me and my generation" for leaving such a mess in the world and wondered how her brand new baby girl will cope in life after I'm gone."

Thanks to this generation and a few before it, we(in the developed world) now live with luxuries and conveniences better than what Royalty had prior to the industrial revolution. We live longer and healthier as well. I think it would be hard to find many people who would give all of this up including your daugter's and granddaughter's generations. If anything, we(and they) will be motivated to find solutions so that we(and the rest of the undeveloped world) can live comfortably long into the future.

Indeed we have made mistakes and have been negligent on the environment, but to say that we are in a mess that the next generation will have trouble coping with is a huge exaggeration. We are FAR away from the bleak future portrayed in so many SciFi movies like Millennium and Bladerunner. If we do nothing, maybe we will be on that track but I don't think that the science is there to say it will get that bad yet. Read the IPCC report summary - it talks about rising temperatures, rising sea levels and increased tropical storms that will be a bummer for coastal areas in a 100 years or less. There will be consequences for everybody - some of them painful like increased desertification in some areas(and some of them beneficial - like an arctic shipping route), but we aren't looking at extinction of the human race or a horrilble ugly existence for our children and grandchildren. We will be forced to adapt to a changing climate as humanity has done in the past, we will not wiped out by it.

The climate models are only a "best guess" about the future. Updated climate models, new discoveries and new technologies could change everything(for better or for worse).

Hopefully we will figure out how to mimimize our impact on the environment before it is too late. Maybe we will figure out ways to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gasses or offset emissions with carbon sequestration technologies. Or maybe I'm too much of an optimist!

It is unwise to do nothing, but the doom and gloom pessimism is unfounded. Perhaps it is time to take our foot off the accelerator and start to apply the brakes, but the brakes haven't failed yet. We can't even be certain of what kind of slope we are dealing with!

skfarmer wrote: "to say that we are in a mess that the next generation will have trouble coping with is a huge exaggeration".

True but if that is what our children think or perceive as a result of the popular press, then that is what they will react to.

poverty and wealth is also a relative thing. I'm always reminded of a saying: "I complained of having no shoes until I met a man with no feet!" and so it goes. The people in Florida are not exactly exuberant about losing their homes to a tornado which by all accounts was unprecedented. They feel deprived and some experts suggest that the suddenness and ferocity of the storm was a result of global warming.

My daughter was commenting on being left in the dark as a result of an ice storm also attributed to global warming. When the norm is -20; a warm spell going up to the freezing point which results in an ice storm instead of dry snow is also something to consider bad. Snow usually do not cause extensive power outages. Ice storms do. So its relative. You can freeze to death at -1 if the power is out long enough and you do not have alternatives.

Cheers

Elnav

I think one of the risks you describe is non-existent - if the problem is not real, I expect the scientists you are concerned about offending would not be so much offended, as unemployed. In reality, however, this is unlikely, as the boffins currently predicting this would be well dead by the time mankind's non-responsibility for warming was proved - if indeed it ever becomes knowable once we have removed the risk.

And what about the other risks? Offending someone or making them unemployed is probably the least impact risk. Ignoring their warning and belatedly discovering that they are right has much greater damaging consequences.

I just pointed the detail of your (presumed humorous) risks of taking action to reduce global warming. Why-ever would that make you think this meant I disagreed with your drift?

<grin> I merely wanted to push the discussion onto the next point which is that global warming seems to be here to stay so what do we do about it? Never mind what the scientists theorize is the probable cause. And yes I was being humerous.

elnav

You've stirred up a hornet's nest. Of course most of the replies reflect political agendas rather than commenting on the issue at hand, "Risk". Cherry picking science is rather new, but to be expected with the upsurge of political action by those who have spent centuries Cherry picking the Bible for personal gain. What would Jesus say about this blurring of honesty?

Back to the question at hand. It amuses me that those who would chart their lives on "Faith" (read "Lack of evidence") because the size of the bet is so large, at the same time want to ignore the potential consequences of Global Warming, primarily because the size of the bet is so large. And in this case we have more than faith, there is ample evidence that the problem is real, with perhaps catastrophic consequences for our grandchildren. There are valid discussions about how to allocate the cause, but much less about the expected effects. It took many millions of years to capture the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to sequester it deep in the ground, permitting life as we know and enjoy it. It has taken a couple of centuries to dig a climatologically significant portion of it up and to return it to the atmosphere, perhaps at our peril. How certain do we have to be to stop being stupid? Do we worship Mammon more than our future? If you're driving down a mountain and the brakes fail, the least you can do is take your foot off of the accelerator. Think about it!

Elegantly stated!

fwes wrote: "What would Jesus say about this blurring of honesty?" <snip> "Do we worship Mammon more than our future? If you're driving down a mountain and the brakes fail, the least you can do is take your foot off of the accelerator. Think about it!"

REPLY: of course we worship Mammon more. After all you can count the money in the bank account. you can't count credits in Heaven. I wasn't going to bring faith and beliefs into the discussion since it cannot be quantified with numbers in statistics and trends. However, it does seem to me that much of the political posturing and rethoric, not to mention denial of anecdotal evidence that is not "statistically significant" is equally a question of faith. I can't recall the last time a politician actually delivered 100% on their election promises. But I can name countless instances of when their promises became just so much hot air. (yet another contributor to global warming)So support for any politicians must be an act of faith. < grin>

To many people, risk avoidance means "do nothing" since then they cannot be blamed for any consequences. After all, they didn't do anything and thus can not be held responsible. They forget that by definition, negligence means not doing something as a matter of choice. And courts have found many people guilty of negligence and meted out punishment in proportion to the degree of negligence.

Sadly too many people, especially in western society seem to operate on the principle of " I've got mine; so screw you Jack!"

I wonder how history will judge all of us in 100 years or 500 years?

regards

Elnav

Rather than debating whether or not the scientists are correct about the cause of global warming, we need to focus on how to cope with the trend in the near term future. Regardless of which factors cause it; we need to deal with the consequences.

How do we cope with increased tropical storms?

How do we cope with increased ice storms in colder latitudes?

What can be done in the case of desertification, changing territory of species in plant, animal, and insect kingdoms?

Do we need to accomodate huge population shifts driven by uninhabitable climate in some regions. Or do we just shoot those people that get in the way?

If average sea levels do rise, what if anything do we do about coastal areas being flooded? Since the majority of the worlds population live close to the seashore and thus low lying land; this is going to be crucial. We can't all flee to the mountains.

Elnav

Right on fwes!

Notice that as the theory and the data coalesce over the last decade or so that the basic theory does not change, but becomes more solidified. The data seem to converge. The more refined our information becomes, the clearer is the picture ...and it is the same picture.

Does anyone consider the "Precautionary Principal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle ) when evaluating the evidence and consequences of Global Warming? It seems we love to procrastinate, and will spend countless hours quibbling over the details, yet all the while doing practically nothing toward alleviating the problem.

I suspect the procrastinators will continue to nit pick and argue the details until the phenomenon is so obvious that it is in our face. Then their response will magically switch to something like: "Well, It's true after all, but there is not much we can do about it now, so we might as well continue to ignore it.

About ten thousand years ago much of the land was covered in ice. The ice retreated at an astonishing rate. Global warming was occurring on a massive scale. The ocean level was about 400 feet lower that it is today.

There was a massive change in animal life - some dying out and others thriving with an increase in the numbers. Plant life quickly followed the retreating ice along with associated animal life.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a worry that a new ice age was beginning. One of the leading articles in Popular Science was "Is this the beginning of a New Ice Age?"

Last month I read an article (sorry I don't remember where) that the cool down in the 1960/1970s was due to pollution and the heat up since is because we now have cleaner air due to the ongoing 'pollution reduction'!

Interesting - the same thing that caused the cool down is the same thing blamed on the heat up - and at the same time, the heat-up since the 1970s is caused because we have been cleaning up the air?

I am for clean air, clean water, and a good food supply.

I am for clean energy, which, means solar, water, wind, and nuclear (well designed, maintained and operated).

Everyone seems to be jumping on the ethanol and bio-oil band wagon. Sure use the used french fry oil, but as the population increases, there will be less and ever less ground area to grow food. Growing corn to produce ethanol, or plants to produce oil will not be a sustainable fuel supply.

jmart23 wrote:

as the population increases, there will be less and ever less ground area to grow food. Growing corn to produce ethanol, or plants to produce oil will not be a sustainable fuel supply.

Here is a revolutionary thought!

How about each of us reducing our energy consumption? < grin>

Elnav

Current world food production is limited largely by economics- ie the price of fertilizers, irrigation, etc. We have been overproducing for decades now - hence the struggle of famers to remain economically viable and the subsidy wars between the US and the EU. If the value of agricultural commodities were to double, so would world food production. There is a limit somehwere, but we are far from it.

If biofuels use up some of that overproduction, then we all may benefit. Yes, you might have to pay a little more to eat, but for example the value of the wheat in a loaf of bread is only a about a dime(yes really!), so if wheat doubles, bread should only increase by 10 cents.

That being said, we all should still be considering ways to reduce our energy consumption for the sake of the environment. One of these days I will get around to building that wind power generator for my home.

SKfarmer wrote:

That being said, we all should still be considering ways to reduce our energy consumption for the sake of the environment. One of these days I will get around to building that wind power generator for my home.

A question. You show a J-D tractor as your avatar pic. Is that what you actually use? A friend switched to Steyr and claimed a 5% improvement in fuel economy on the same acreage. He also started to use ground following radar and GPS to optimize fertilizer use and crop yield. According to his book keeper the yield on a 1000 acre plot was cost effective and payback was within a reasonable time frame. 5% improvement is significant on large acreages. Do you know of similar experiments and results in your own area?

How much of a wind generator would you need on your farm to make a noticable improvement?

Yes, my Avatar pic is my largest tractor. I am not familiar with Steyr tractors. I can only say that I believe that our JD8970 is more economical (both fuel savings and operator time savings) per acre than smaller tractors with smaller equipment. We see the trend to larger machinery in every industry. Unfortunately, these economic factors are driving the small family farms out of business as farms grow larger and larger. I don't know of any studies comparing efficiencies of different brands (except maybe the Nebraska tests), but JD is quite competitive I believe. We also have to consider service and parts availablity as downtime is very costly in seeding and harvest. This is where JD is really ahead of most other brands. There is also a savings in keeping similar machines where oil, filters, tires, and even some parts are interchangeable thus reducing parts stocking costs.

I know that the JD8970 produces significantly less pollution (mostly less smoke at cold start) than the previous model JD8960 (we also have one of these) because of electronic fuel injection. It would be nice to get newer, cleaner burning tractors, but economics don't justify it at this point since the cost of replacement is extremely high. Of cousre the old tractors would be bought and put into use somewhere else, so I don't know if there would be a reduction in pollution.

We invested in two GPS units two years ago and they REALLY help with cutting costs, mostly by reducing or nearly eliminating overlap of seed, fertilizer, and herbicide applications. They will pay for themselves shortly. We are considering upgrading one unit to Autosteer which will again improve efficiency and reduce operator fatigue. Eventually, it will be possible to vary fertilizer across different soil zones (hilltops versus slopes and valleys) as needed, but it is still quite expensive to switch equipment for that variable application rate capability, and the available controllers are not quite reliable enough yet. My neighbor went back to manual after troubles with his last controller.

I envision that in the future the trend to larger machines will reverse as agricultural robotics improve and we will see 10 very efficient 40hp robot tractors doing the same job as one 400hp tractor. But that's a long ways off yet.

As for a wind generator, I can buy my power much cheaper than it would cost to get any sizeable commercial wind generator. This is largely because Saskatchewan Power Corp. will not buy my excess production and doesn't encourage anyone to hook up to the grid. I've always wanted to experiment though and I would probably start with some small home built system. Maybe it will just add heat to my house in the winter and keep my beer cold in the summer.

SK farmer wrote: Yes, my Avatar pic is my largest tractor. I am not familiar with Steyr tractors. I can only say that I believe that our JD8970 is more economical (both fuel savings and operator time savings) per acre than smaller tractors with smaller equipment.

REPLY

After I posted previous msg I realized one factor was not mentioned. The Steyr tractor in question was air cooled and runs hotter cyl heads than the Case it replaced. This in turn led to greater combustion efficiencies but possibly at a cost of increased NoX emissions. In light of latest EPA requirements and low sulphur fuels with different additives this may be a conflict.

J-D is certainly in the forefront concerning engine design so I am not suggesting they are bad. I merely wanted to point out that incremental improvements are still possible.

GPS and crop yield mapping will certainly help help overall efficiencies and if it eliminates overlap will also improve fuel conservation. I know what it's like to maintain survey boats on parallel 50 foot tracks; so keeping a tractor on the same tight tracking must be equally tasking. <grin> I learnt to drive Ford Fergusons when I was six, but haven't worked on a farm since I was old enough to get a driver's licence.

Concerning the wind gen, if you contrive some means of energy storage you will get better overall yield for a given wind generator.

The whole idea behind grid-tie is to compensate for the lack of being able to store AC electrical power. Two options to consider is pumped storage and converting to DC and use battery storage.

If you have any sort of livestock operation included in your farm there is also a possible link to methane digesters. Cold winters are notorious for disrupting the bacterial break down used in the digesters. Wind power to power electrical heating elements would make a digester more efficient in cold Sask winters. The metane produced would then be used to drive the generators needed for other farm operations. You may have read about the mid west test sites in Illinois and Wisconsin.

Elnav

"I can buy my power much cheaper than it would cost to get any sizeable commercial wind generator. This is largely because Saskatchewan Power Corp. will not buy my excess production and doesn't encourage anyone to hook up to the grid."

This is precisely why we need the involvement of government. Others have said that it needs to be solved by everybody at an individual level but unless the government gets involved and allow people to use the grid to sell surplus generating capacity we as individuals have no chance.

What sort of government action are you proposing? Fiscal measures might be effective, but any sort of directive will possibly have unintended consequences. There may be good reasons that some electricity providers do not buy back electricity (e.g. already having relative overprovision of supply during the periods that wind-power is available, difficulty with system stability if the remote source is on the end of a long spur) - though I rather doubt that this is truly the case in Saskatchewan.

What sort of government action are you proposing?

There may be reasons that individual locations may not be able to use excess generating capacity to supply the grid but a blanket ban for financial reasons will never allow any system to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. This is where the government needs to step in and force whoever is supplying the power or controlling the grid to allow people to sell surplus capacity. I am not talking about buying back electricity at the same price as it was sold but the ability to be able to sell surplus capacity is important. Supply authorities have been reticent to allow this and this is where government need to step in. Keep in mind in some places it is illegal to generate you own power full stop let alone sell any surplus capacity.

"A blanket ban for financial reasons". If the finances work out, I would regard this as legitimate - it implies that the total costs don't make sense. The issue is "where are these costs?". Some will be administrative, others will be in the cost of the infrastructure. The weighting of administrative costs versus fossil energy can be adjusted by fiscal measures. Some of the infrastructure costs are also related to input energy, and, again, evenly-administered fiscal measures will make this situation clear. I could also envisage taxation arrangements that specifically encouraged a longer-term investment view on renewable energy sources. However, regulating to force energy suppliers to buy surplus energy on anything other than an economic basis would, I suspect, prove counterproductive (the effort and money might be more effectively spent on internal non-fossil energy production, for example).

"A blanket ban for financial reasons". If the finances work out, I would regard this as legitimate - it implies that the total costs don't make sense.

The problem is that we aren't paying the true total cost of generating power with fossil fuels. For example the cost of the greenhouse effect caused by the burning of these fuels is not factored into the current price. In reality what we are doing is subsidizing fossil fuels with damage to the environment.

We need to do something to nullify the damage and initially it may not appear to be economic but in the long run by reducing the ultimate damage it will be.

I think we may be getting somewhere here - as you are now writing about costs and subsidies as:
"For example the cost of the greenhouse effect caused by the burning of these fuels is not factored into the current price. In reality what we are doing is subsidizing fossil fuels with damage to the environment."

This is how fiscal measures can work - you make a best-guess at the environmental cost, load it onto the cost of the fossil fuels - that should fix it - whoops, not quite, the whole economy grinds to a halt. That reduces the CO2 production, but the side-effects are unacceptable. So you need to be a bit more clever - initially, you load the fossil fuel with a smaller tax, and use the proceeds to subsidise the fossil-free output. Over time, you move towards the original scheme, using the revenue raised to reduce other taxes. If you can announce the regime in advance, people can even plan for it - this is one area that you actually want to encourage (the right sort of) tax avoidance. You can fix the numbers in the first stage to be revenue neutral if you wish.
N.B. Long-term subsidy of non-fossil energy is probably not a good idea, as it encourages "creative" accounting - hence the need to move towards full taxation on the fossil-fuel input in the medium term.

It's not perfect - but I think it is less bad than central direction would be. (I'm afraid I take the view that control-freak government tends to destroy whatever it tries to control - and this applies whether they are nominally red, white, green, or sky-blue-pink).

I agree, what we need is a truly level playing field and once people are paying the true cost of fossil fuels they will pretty quickly switch to non-fossil fuels and renewable energy sources.

Doing it is going to be the tricky bit, tricky but not impossible.

I think I might just see the flicker of a light at the end of the tunnel, I just hope that it's not a train coming the other way.

The Portugese seem to have a reasonable attitude to the situation. See: http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/financial-director/features/2146579/cover-story-wave

But it could be a burning bush - very polluting, I'm told

Your post is full of good ideas , I think.

I'm afraid I take the view that control-freak government tends to destroy whatever it tries to control - and this applies whether they are nominally red, white, green, or sky-blue-pink.

In principle, I agree with you , to a large extent. While my impulse is to agree that big anything (government, business, or religion) works poorly, and can be self defeating, there are notable exceptions. The government control over automotive emissions has been extremely effective in reducing pollution (as compared to what it otherwise would be) with unburned HC emissions especially being 10-100 times lower than prior to emission controls. In pre-control days, a two stroke engine (such as used on Saab and DKW automobiles, many motorcycles, marine engines, etc.) poured about 30% of the fuel consumed right out the exhaust port and into the atmosphere. Thus, a two-stroke in a small car or large motorcycle would emit 30 grams HC per mile, whereas the limit is now 1/100 of that. The differences are not as great re four stroke engines, but even there, the improvements are at least an order of magnitude.

Emission controls have been a boon to the auto industry, adding content and profit, and of huge value to consumers, who can breathe easier and save money on fuel. All the things that have come about in the drive to meet emission standards have benefited consumers: virtual elimination of tune-ups, far better starting and cold running, better fuel economy (on cars of comparably size and weight) better acceleration, better handling from radial tires, etc. My 160 hp Honda Accord is a rocket compared to my first (76 hp) Accord, and is larger, quieter, smoother riding, emits far less, costs no more in adjusted dollars, and gets the same fuel mileage, to boot.

Many other interventions have worked well too, although perhaps not to the same degree: social security at least provides a safety net, civil rights laws have helped provide somewhat more equal opportunities, OSHA has helped improve worker safety, NHTSA regulations have made cars safer, etc. But each of these has some downsides, and costs.

But in any case, I'm nit-picking -- your idea re the economics is excellent.

"About ten thousand years ago much of the land was covered in ice. The ice retreated at an astonishing rate. Global warming was occurring on a massive scale. The ocean level was about 400 feet lower that it is today."

Look at the Δt in this chart. If you look at how long the temperature were rising to trigger the end of ice ages you will see that it took tens of thousands of years for the climate to warm enough. With global warming we are talking about a similar change taking place over a few decades not the millennia of gradual warming that marked the end of the ice ages. This is also born out by the fact that atmospheric CO₂ levels are rising nearly 60 times faster than they have in the previous 800,000 years.

We are talking about something that is happening many times faster than any previous natural events and that has to tell you that there must be something very different about the current events.

Hi masu,

I have to disagree with your conclusion that "This is also born out by the fact that atmospheric CO₂ levels are rising nearly 60 times faster than they have in the previous 800,000 years."

The current measurements are taken regularly, and compared with those of a week/year/decade before. The samples from ice cores cover periods many times larger (try finding the levels for 1852 - impossible!), so individual years/decades may have had larger changes which have been countered later.

"The current measurements are taken regularly, and compared with those of a week/year/decade before."

I think you will find that the Antarctic ice cores article shows that the levels they are talking about all come from the ice cores and that the recent sections of the cores are showing that the levels are increasing rather than the samples taken directly from the atmosphere. If you havn't already read the article have a look and see what you think.

Not being familiar with this type of research at all, I have difficulty in understanding how one could accurately test samples of air trapped in ice. Is the air dissolved in the ice? If so, how do you get it out without contaminating it? Also, testing samples as small as it seems these would have to be would be similar to taking a poll of 50 people and declaring it representative of an entire national population, wouldn't it? I'm sorry, but perhaps my own ignorance is the thing which prevents me from understanding this. I just don't get some of this. It's way outside my field.

I managed to find this paper "Determination of the Age and Age-Spread of Air in Ice Cores" that shows how they developed the model that was used to analyze the deep cores going back the 800,000 years I mentioned earlier.

It covers pretty much all the queries that have been asked in this thread about smudging and contamination and how they calibrated the model to existing levels. Basically the initial model was developed and tested over a 1000 year period where they had good existing physical measurements of atmospheric CO₂. An interesting point is it is the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960 that gave them the reference point for ¹⁴C levels.

Ultimately it means that the data from the ice cores shows that over the past 800,000 years we not only have the highest levels of atmospheric CO₂ but it is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Since this period includes the end of an ice age one can only conclude that the levels we are seeing can't be from some natural event.

This just came thru (well on Friday). ExxonMobil-funded thinktank offering scientists and economists $10,000 each to undermine a major climate change report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

Looks like they are getting desperate again (or at least doing it more blatantly). Still with only one source it cannot truly be relied upon. Anyone come across any other independent corroborating sources yet?

Arrggh, so much to read. Anyway here's my comment (I try and make at least one new point every global warming thread) - If mother nature is responsible (and not humans burning fossil fuels, etc), and it is all a natural ice age/weather change event/etc, what are the chances of it actually occurring right now? Further to this, what are the chances of its acceleration over the past decades, say, since the industrialised age and associated major world population growth? Quite low when you think about it. I am reminded of a quote from a movie (something regarding the JFK assassination trial and the magic bullet theory), put enough properly motivated scientists in a room and they will eventually be able to prove that you can lift an elephant by the tail using a daisy.

Where's seaplaneguy, he was always good for a laugh when discussing climate change?

I am alway$ terribly $uspicious of any "$cience" produced by any body which owes its existence and funding to any political "cau$e" They alway$ find what ever they have been comisioned to find. Could it be that the money out weigh$ the evidence?

You would need to talk with one of the writers - if any reference to their payment comes up in the conversation, then the payment was a bonus and you can believe the results.

On which side of the debate?

While your point is well taken that a great deal of money has been $pent by the oil companies to fund studies that attempt to refute scientific consensus, there must be some studies out there that are not paid for by big oil, but that nevertheless counter the scientific consensus. I keep digging, but haven't turned up anything of interest so far.

I suppose that you may also be arguing that all the countries in the UN stand to lose substantial short-term profits, if the studies funded by them clearly show human cause, and therefore, the possibility for costly human intervention. But the studies seem to be showing that there is human cause. Could it be the scientists have some integrity, and can't be bought off by those countries? Frightening.

This thread has now become unwieldy long. If people wish to continue then I suggest we start a new thread. For now I will close with the remark

When you are standing on the deck of the Titanic it doesn't matter who is arranging the deck chairs.

Masu,

I appreciate your well-thought comments. It is clear that you bring clear reasoning and a factual basis to the discussion, a refreshing departure from some who bring strong opinions, many posts, but meager factual contributions.

Your suggestion of a new thread has merit. However, Global Warming is a Hot topic that will be with us for quite a while. With the interest that has been shown, perhaps we should consider starting a Section on technological issues associated with Global Warming.

There is always my An Engineer's Look at the Future of Energy blog. Currently we are discussing all the possible technologies that may help to supply our future energy needs but there is no reason we cant start a further series of discussions.

Fwes:

I agree with both your points. Masu does a great job at maintaining and fostering a rational viewpoint. He has also put a tremendous amount of effort into his series on energy, and has been remarkably patient in sharing his knowledge in many engineering and physics areas.

Maybe there should be a main section title (at the same level as "General" or "Manufacturing") named "Energy Utilization and Global Warming."

Maybe there should be a main section title (at the same level as "General" or "Manufacturing") named "Energy Utilization and Global Warming."

I concur.

Many thanks for the complement, it's nice to know that ones work is appreciated.

If you ask the CR4 administrators nicely they may allow you to have your own blog. Having a blog gives you certain editorial privileges over posts to threads under that blog so they are cautious about starting them too frequently but it is always worth asking.

Here is an index of the blogs that are available and there are three that are sort of along the lines of energy and power generation.

For what it's worth, I welcome that suggestion. At least I would have what is a reasonably balanced source of information on the subject.