[whmurray]

isn't everyone who uses any type of energy source besides solar power responsible for Global Warming? In your every day life, you drive to work/school (Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars). Even if you use a bike, the production of that bike contributed to the Green House gasses.

It is not even that simple. You will emit more CO2 from your lungs riding your bicycle than your car or bus will will emit covering the same distance.

You and the cows polute by your mere existence.

[whmurray]

Why isn't the global warming crowd demanding for nuclear energy?......

Because they find themselves on the horns of a nasty dilemma. They were afraid of nuclear power before they became afraid of global warming.

[Advance The Man]

I can imagine. However, it is not personal; he does not even know you.

True. And it's not personal that I feel he is a monotone speaker.

[BARYE]

It is not even that simple. You will emit more CO2 from your lungs riding your bicycle than your car or bus will will emit covering the same distance. .

are you joking ??

(if its true, can you give a reference)

[BARYE]

Because they find themselves on the horns of a nasty dilemma. They were afraid of nuclear power before they became afraid of global warming.

more complicated than that --

two bads don't become a good

there exists already more than enough centralized mega power generation as a base from which our country can draw.

Conservation together with decentralized smaller renewal sources can be affordably brought online to provide peak time power (and for any incrementally needed power)

[Advance The Man]

Your post is convoluted. Are you saying all power is bad? When is nuclear power bad? (i.e. always, or when there is an accident) And what do you mean by mega power generation?

more complicated than that --

two bads don't become a good

there exists already more than enough centralized mega power generation as a base from which our country can draw.

Conservation together with decentralized smaller renewal sources can be affordably brought online to provide peak time power (and for any incrementally needed power)

is not an absolute requirement for modern

[whmurray]

are you joking ??

(if its true, can you give a reference)

Not joking, is true, cannot give you the reference. Will think on it.

[samkim]

It is not even that simple. You will emit more CO2 from your lungs riding your bicycle than your car or bus will will emit covering the same distance.

You and the cows polute by your mere existence.

I'd love to see a source on that as well.

And are you counting the breathing you're doing while in the car?

[BARYE]

Your post is convoluted. Are you saying all power is bad? When is nuclear power bad? (i.e. always, or when there is an accident) And what do you mean by mega power generation?

(father, long time ...)

radiated waste disposal is an hugely expensive and infinite problem.

I cannot see how making that problem even bigger can make anything better.

Mega power generation is big centralized production of power.

For the foreseeable future this is a requirement of our society -- we must have it as a baseline foundation. I believe that there is already enough of this generation capacity available.

What I am saying is that demand for power should be controled through agressive conservsation, and any additional power required should be generated from smaller renewable energy sources such as:

solar voltaic on roofs that send power into the grid

geothermal from deep earth heat exchange

ocean/air heat exchange

wind farming etc.

[clulup]

It is not even that simple. You will emit more CO2 from your lungs riding your bicycle than your car or bus will will emit covering the same distance.

You and the cows polute by your mere existence.

This is misleading at best. The CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the lungs is part of the carbon cycle: plants take up CO2 from the air and (with the help of sunlight) use the carbon to create carbohydrates. Animals and humans then eat the plant carbohydrates, use the energy stored in them and release CO2 again. Later, that CO2 is again taken up by a plant, and the cycle continues. Since the biomass of the crop plants stays roughly the same on avergage in this process, no new CO2/greenhouse gas is added to the atmosphere.

The car or bus situation is totally different: there, the CO2 emitted is from fossil fuels, not living plants. The CO2 resulting from burning the fossil fuels increases the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. The additional CO2 absorbs more energy from sunlight and converts it into heat.

More CO2 means more absorbed infrared sunlight, hence more heat, hence higher temperatures. That's a very basic fact btw., something that has been known for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...l_Warming.html

[clulup]

isn't everyone who uses any type of energy source besides solar power responsible for Global Warming?

No. In engergy production, man-made greenhouse gases result mainly from burning fossil fuels (gas, natural gas, etc. which are converted into water H2O and carbon dioxide CO2). Burning wood does not contribute to more CO2 as long as the wood comes from renewable sources, and not from deforestation.

Nuclear power, hydro-power, geothermal power, solar power and lots of other sorts of power generation also do not lead to significant greenhouse gas emissions.

[Advance The Man]

(father, long time ...)

radiated waste disposal is an hugely expensive and infinite problem.

I cannot see how making that problem even bigger can make anything better.

Say ten hail mary's.

Do we know how expensive and how much waste product it produces? I don't know, but sense it simply isn't considered b/c of the stigma of accidents from the past.

[chillig35]

chillig35 - I'm surprised at how reasonable your answers are.

ummmmm.... if you go back to all my previous posts - this is exactly what I've been saying all along! An example of one of my previous posts:

The gloom & doom scenarios such as continually increasing hurricane/storm activity, flooding and destruction of vast swaths of populated land areas due to rising ocean levels, continually rising global temperatures (and the possibility that the temperate climates become tropical!) have not been supported by scientific data or models - these are just speculations by a handful of scientists.

That does not mean that we continue to blithely ignore this issue and act as if did not matter - but act in the interest of self-preservation. There is always the possibility that our scientific models could actually underestimate the negative consequences of global warming and things could get far worse than we imagined. I, for one, would rather err on the side of caution - the worst that could happen is that we have cleaner air to breathe a 100 years from now.

Whether the trends continue in the long-term is the trillion dollar question. You're convinced. I'm not. Yet.

what most people don't seem to appreciate is that the global climatic system is an enormous juggernaut that once set into motion will not easily slow down or even reverse itself. The current data and trends indicate that what is currently happening is out of the ordinary (i.e. not part of a "natural cycle") - so it is difficult to believe that the global system will somehow revert back to a homeostatic pattern.

[chillig35]

And one who evaluates the evidence that way will..................? A society that accepted that evaluation would....................?

ummmm- what exactly is your question?

[chillig35]

It is not even that simple. You will emit more CO2 from your lungs riding your bicycle than your car or bus will will emit covering the same distance.

You and the cows polute by your mere existence.

I'll bet you anything that you cannot back this statement with any scientific data or citations!!!

Without even looking it up, I estimate that an average human emits approximately 30 to 50 grams of carbon dioxide per hour - whereas an automobile emits something like 200 to 500 grams of carbon dioxide per mile.

[chillig35]

isn't everyone who uses any type of energy source besides solar power responsible for Global Warming? In your every day life, you drive to work/school (Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars). Even if you use a bike, the production of that bike contributed to the Green House gasses. Electricity, the wood used in the production of your house (Deforestation). EVERYTHING can contribute to global warming. Even the production of the solar pannels leads to global warming. I can't see any argument. And just as a note, i am coming into this whole 34 page conversation blind so again, try not to kill me.

Did anyone have a response to articles like this, sounds like one problem solved ....not global warming ofcourse....
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...054763580.html
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,55482,00.html
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2...h/scsayozo.htm

Again, i apologize for coming into this conversation so blindly but i don't have the time to read 34 pages. Thanks

The problem is not so much as the mere production of greenhouse gases - it is true, as someone else has pointed out, that our mere existence results in production of carbon dioxide. But there also exist natural "sinks" (i.e. the oceans and the biosphere) that absorb these gases and provide a homeostatic balance. The real problem lies in the fact that the continually increasing industrial output of greenhouse gases is overwhelming the capacity of these natural sinks and we are seeing a a rapid increase of unabsorbed greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.

And the truly major problem is that the biggest producers (i.e. the industrial emitters) of these gases are vehemently rejecting this notion and trying to drown the message using political means.
The fact that the industrial stakeholders do not want to change status quo is not surprising - historically we have always chosen the path of least resistance - i.e. inefficient and wasteful methods that produce larger near-term returns. It has always been difficult to rein in inefficient and wasteful (and not to mention environmentally destructive) practices such as strip-mining, slash-and-burn agriculture, over-fishing, dumping of toxic wastes and so on. When the government initially proposed emissions controls for automobiles - the auto industry screamed bloody murder and predicted the demise of the auto industry and the American way of life. That was 35 years ago and if anything the auto industry is thriving more than ever before (except Detroit - they're getting their **** kicked by the Asians because they could not innovate fast enough in the free-market economy).
So there is no reason to believe the current industry stakeholders when they rant and rave about how the economy is going to collapse if they have to cut down on greenhouse gases - I strongly believe in American ingenuity and that there will be a whole slew of industries that will find creative and innovative solutions to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases - and these companies will thrive in the marketplace while the dinosaurs will go extinct.
The other major problem is that some of the asian giants - India and China - are going to overtake the US as the major polluters and producers of greenhouse gases. And instead of whining about that and using that as an excuse to do nothing, perhaps the US should show true leadership and lead the way by example - by proactively tackling the issues related to global warming and by developing innovative solutions to these problems.

[samkim]

ummmmm.... if you go back to all my previous posts - this is exactly what I've been saying all along! An example of one of my previous posts:

The gloom & doom scenarios such as continually increasing hurricane/storm activity, flooding and destruction of vast swaths of populated land areas due to rising ocean levels, continually rising global temperatures (and the possibility that the temperate climates become tropical!) have not been supported by scientific data or models - these are just speculations by a handful of scientists.

That does not mean that we continue to blithely ignore this issue and act as if did not matter - but act in the interest of self-preservation. There is always the possibility that our scientific models could actually underestimate the negative consequences of global warming and things could get far worse than we imagined. I, for one, would rather err on the side of caution - the worst that could happen is that we have cleaner air to breathe a 100 years from now.

Sorry, I missed that. Must've been before I joined the party.

I'm glad you distance yourself from the gloom & doom scenarios. The hype really annoys me.

As for the worst that could happen, don't forget the economic consequences of restricting emissions. They would be big. They would really have a negative impact on people's lives, especially in high emissions nations such as the US and China.

what most people don't seem to appreciate is that the global climatic system is an enormous juggernaut that once set into motion will not easily slow down or even reverse itself. The current data and trends indicate that what is currently happening is out of the ordinary (i.e. not part of a "natural cycle") - so it is difficult to believe that the global system will somehow revert back to a homeostatic pattern.

If the CO2 level is the primary driver of climate change, then the trend will continue since it's likely the CO2 levels will continue rising indefinitely. The rising CO2 level is the juggernaut. But if we're missing something in our models, if something else is causing the warming trend (eg, the sun) and the CO2 level is a dependent variable, then it might be possible for the climate to change direction more quickly.

[chillig35]

I'm glad you distance yourself from the gloom & doom scenarios. The hype really annoys me.

agreed - and the lack of scientific rationale makes it all the more annoying...

As for the worst that could happen, don't forget the economic consequences of restricting emissions. They would be big. They would really have a negative impact on people's lives, especially in high emissions nations such as the US and China.

disagree there - that sounds like a gloom & doom scenario to me! in fact history shows the opposite - see my post #681 immediately below

If the CO2 level is the primary driver of climate change, then the trend will continue since it's likely the CO2 levels will continue rising indefinitely.

does not have to rise indefinitely if we at least attempt to try do something about it!

But if we're missing something in our models, if something else is causing the warming trend (eg, the sun) and the CO2 level is a dependent variable, then it might be possible for the climate to change direction more quickly.

so you're questioning the causative model - that buildup of greenhouse gases leads to global warming? And you're proposing an outlandish hypothesis that solar variations lead to build up of greenhouse gases instead? And of course you conveniently point out that there is no "accurate" data on solar output from the past million years - so nobody can really disprove your hypothesis.

I don't mean to sound harsh - but quite honestly, it is this kind of amateurish attempt to discredit/discount the real scientific approach that makes me doubt that you really want to keep an open mind about the global warming issues - after all, any layman can propose an alternative hypothesis that is not testable or where it is impossible to collect data to support it. It takes enormous scientific talent and effort to come up with a truly novel or alternative scientific hypothesis (or model) that uses and explains the currently available data (and usually such scientists are awarded the Nobel prize or equivalent!).

But I can at least try and attempt to answer some of the questions that you think "cannot be answered properly today". Solar radiation output has been directly measured only in the last 40 years with the advent of satellite technologies - however indirect measurements (and historical data) is possible using the knowledge that solar radiation leads to ionization of the atmospheric gases, including formation of ozone - which are trapped in the polar caps or other mineral or organic deposits. Scientists can then measure the levels of ionized gases from ice core samples (and corroborate with data from mineral/organic samples) and estimate the range of variations that must have occured in the past 650,000 years. As for your questions regarding the earth's thermal output - again these variations can measured from the melting/refreezing and crystal boundary layers within the icecore samples and other data from mineral/organic deposits. The general scientific consensus is that there have not been any significant variations in either the solar output or the earth's thermal output in the recent past - most of the past global climate shifts have either been gradual events (over several dozens or even hundreds of millenia) or cataclysmic events (extreme volcanic activity or large meteorite impacts). The current data related to build up of greenhouse gases and rapid increase in global temperatures more closely resembles cataclysmic shift rather than the gradual shift.

If you want to be informed about climate change issues from a scientific perspective then you may want to read the IPCC report on Climate Change. And I would be glad to discuss any new information that you may have obtained from your citations (obviously I will not bother reading opinionated blogs or non-peer-reviewed or non-scientific partisan or industry-funded thinktank reports)

[samkim]

disagree there - that sounds like a gloom & doom scenario to me! in fact history shows the opposite - see my post #681 immediately below

The cost of meeting Kyoto requirements would be hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Do you think that kind of ongoing burden would have no negative effect on people's lives? And if the US went along, the burden on US businesses would be higher than many of their competitors overseas.

The argument about the auto industry is silly. Because there are companies in existence today that still make cars, you conclude the industry wasn't hurt and there was no cost to our economy? What evidence of harm are you looking for? Perhaps some bankruptcies, plant closings, layoffs, consolidations, and federal bailouts over the last few decades?

does not have to rise indefinitely if we at least attempt to try do something about it!

ok

so you're questioning the causative model - that buildup of greenhouse gases leads to global warming? And you're proposing an outlandish hypothesis that solar variations lead to build up of greenhouse gases instead?

You're way over-reacting, IMO. I'm saying that if we're wrong about causation, then the climate can change more rapidly. I proposed nothing new.

But then perhaps you believe causation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

But I can at least try and attempt to answer some of the questions that you think "cannot be answered properly today". Solar radiation output has been directly measured only in the last 40 years with the advent of satellite technologies - however indirect measurements (and historical data) is possible using the knowledge that solar radiation leads to ionization of the atmospheric gases, including formation of ozone - which are trapped in the polar caps or other mineral or organic deposits. Scientists can then measure the levels of ionized gases from ice core samples (and corroborate with data from mineral/organic samples) and estimate the range of variations that must have occured in the past 650,000 years.

If you mean that they came up with some broad range within which they assume the sun's radiation varied, then sure.

If you're implying that they used the ice cores to estimate the actual fluxuation of solar radiation over time from 650,000 years ago to the present, then it sounds like BS.

The problem with this type of proxy is the imprecision of the data on multiple measures. The obvious ones are time and scale. But more important in this context is the volatility. We're talking about variations on the order of magnitude of 0.5%; ozone isn't tied tightly enough to solar radiation to allow you to derive that kind of variation of one from the other.

Cite a source please.

As for your questions regarding the earth's thermal output - again these variations can measured from the melting/refreezing and crystal boundary layers within the icecore samples and other data from mineral/organic deposits.

I don't know what you think you can do with that. We barely have a grasp on the Earth's thermal output today. We're not going to be able to say anything meaningful about historical thermal shifts from such a proxy.

As I said before, the data is spotty, and there is no consensus model.

The general scientific consensus is that there have not been any significant variations in either the solar output or the earth's thermal output in the recent past

That depends on how you define "recent."

[chillig35]

The cost of meeting Kyoto requirements would be hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Do you think that kind of ongoing burden would have no negative effect on people's lives? And if the US went along, the burden on US businesses would be higher than many of their competitors overseas.

so who's painting a gloom and doom scenario now?? What models do you have to support that? How accurate is the data in those models?

The argument about the auto industry is silly. Because there are companies in existence today that still make cars, you conclude the industry wasn't hurt and there was no cost to our economy? What evidence of harm are you looking for? Perhaps some bankruptcies, plant closings, layoffs, consolidations, and federal bailouts over the last few decades?

so now you're saying emission controls was a bad idea? That we should have continued unabated pollution to save a few union auto worker jobs? What about the economic impact of the health care costs if we had not controlled pollution?

And what makes you say that the auto industry on the whole has suffered? What about the fact there has been robust growth in productivity - there are five times as many automobiles on the road today than 35 years ago. That the price of a new automobile is lower than before, when adjusted for inflation? Have you considered that pehaps the real reason the US auto industry is suffering is because they were not competetive enough in the global free-market economy - that they continued making inferior over-priced products and did not innovate fast enough and so American consumers chose other manufacturers instead?

You're way over-reacting, IMO. I'm saying that if we're wrong about causation, then the climate can change more rapidly. I proposed nothing new.

But then perhaps you believe causation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

yes there is scientific consensus that buildup of greenhouse gases causes global warming. The only argument you have is based on unreasonable doubt. You do not have single scientific cite that disputes this consensus.

If you mean that they came up with some broad range within which they assume the sun's radiation varied, then sure.

If you're implying that they used the ice cores to estimate the actual fluxuation of solar radiation over time from 650,000 years ago to the present, then it sounds like BS.

The problem with this type of proxy is the imprecision of the data on multiple measures. The obvious ones are time and scale. But more important in this context is the volatility. We're talking about variations on the order of magnitude of 0.5%; ozone isn't tied tightly enough to solar radiation to allow you to derive that kind of variation of one from the other.

Cite a source please.

you seem like an expert on solar radiative forcing of climate change - perhaps you could cite some sources to back up your arguments, instead of just throwing out unreasonable doubts?

A couple of my sources:

• Gerrit Lohmann et al. (2004). Climate signature of solar irradiance variations: analysis of long-term instrumental, historical, and proxy data. International Journal of Climatology 24(8), 1045-1056
• S.K. Solanki, M. Fligge (2000) Reconstruction of past solar irradiance Space Science Review 94, 127-138

I don't know what you think you can do with that. We barely have a grasp on the Earth's thermal output today. We're not going to be able to say anything meaningful about historical thermal shifts from such a proxy.

As I said before, the data is spotty, and there is no consensus model.

Again - cite before you say things like "there is no consensus model".
And you're being quite tiresome - all you can do is to point out the lack of data or question the validity of proxies - but you have yet to offer a single scientific cite that seriously undermines these data or to come up with a viable alternative scientific hyopthesis that explains the currently available data.
All you can do is sit back and say that all the data is not available or is not accurate enough so any hypothesis or model must be wrong or can't be taken seriously. Good thing most intelligent people do not think that way, otherwise we'd still be living in the stone age!