Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Subdude

Global Warming Impact on Houston

Recommended Posts

Oct. 6, 2007, 11:17PM

Houston forecast murky

Experts say global warming checked or unchecked threatens city and region

By ERIC BERGER

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

If governments leave greenhouse gas emissions unchecked, scientists say, increasing concentrations would continue to push temperatures higher, raise the seas and possibly intensify hurricanes and other severe weather events that cause flooding.

"Houston clearly has some unique vulnerabilities," said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University.

..scientists generally agree, global temperatures will increase by 4 degrees to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Temperatures in Southeast Texas would probably rise a similar amount, maybe a bit more, said John Nielsen-Gammon, the state's climatologist and a Texas A&M climate professor.

"Texans are adapted to the heat, so there may not be much increase in morbidity except for those who can't afford air conditioning," Nielsen-Gammon said.

During warmer winters, tropical vegetation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

complete hooey.

as i've suspected for some time, the earth's atmosphere regulates heat. energy from the sun supplies a system that regulates itself within our atmosphere. the power of this system far outweighs the negative aspects of human pollution.

this is not simply my opinion, i've confirmed this ideology with scientists in geology and astrophysics.

note: shorelines have historically receded, the planet has cooled and warmed, the atmosphere ebbs and flows as do oceans and other "controlled" systems. to think that man can influence the massive system that is the earth's atmosphere is as naive as thinking the earth is the center of the universe! we could blow up ten nuclear bombs, a hundred nuclear bombs, and not permanently change the atmospheric system we need to survive. the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo (sp?) released more "greenhouse" gases than the entire industrial revolution.

nature will survive humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
complete hooey.

as i've suspected for some time, the earth's atmosphere regulates heat. energy from the sun supplies a system that regulates itself within our atmosphere. the power of this system far outweighs the negative aspects of human pollution.

this is not simply my opinion, i've confirmed this ideology with scientists in geology and astrophysics. al gore is a dumbass.

consider this, why would a politician get on the "global warming" party train? it's a reason to stay in the news.

note: shorelines have historically receded, the planet has cooled and warmed, the atmosphere ebbs and flows as do oceans and other "controlled" systems. to think that man can influence the massive system that is the earth's atmosphere is as naive as thinking the earth is the center of the universe! we could blow up ten nuclear bombs, a hundred nuclear bombs, and not permanently change the atmospheric system we need to survive. the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo (sp?) released more "greenhouse" gases than the entire industrial revolution.

nature will survive humanity.

I am impressed with your ability to answer the question of global warming from the comfort of your own home, without conducting a bit of your own research. I look forward to your solving terrorism, world hunger and the Iraq War soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am impressed with your ability to answer the question of global warming from the comfort of your own home, without conducting a bit of your own research. I look forward to your solving terrorism, world hunger and the Iraq War soon.

the scientists i've spoken to consider that the convection of heat and energy supplied by the sun is regulated by the atmosphere. anything mankind does to the atmos is balanced by bigger systems than we could effect. global warming is "small scale science" that does not consider the science of astrophysics or geology.

seeing as mankind has always suffered wars, evil and hunger, i cannot see how those things compare to the "new" science of global warming. the same wackos claiming the planet is warming because of mankind were saying we would be in an ice age for the same reasons forty years ago. global warming is the new incarnation of this group of thinkers. think chicken little. they're cut from the same cloth as g. w. bush.

oh, you see global warming on the same level as wars, evil and hunger. guess you've had the kool-aid. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo (sp?) released more "greenhouse" gases than the entire industrial revolution.

I've heard that statement in just about every global warming discussion I've been in, but its absolutely 100% FALSE!!! That statement totally discredits all of your comments about global warming because it shows that you are just repeating what somebody told you and not even doing research on your own.

Mt. Pinatubo didn't release a significant amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, it released a significant amount of ASH though which blocked the sun and actually cooled global temperatures.

If you believe the US geological survey, volcanoes release 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

And what about Humans? Well from what I've read, humans produce approximately 6 billion tonnes (from the department of energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). Do some simple math and you can see that the amount of greenhouse gas produced by volcanoes is only a few percent of what humans produce.

Can you provide any facts to back up your statement that a single volcanic eruption could possibly produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution, please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my post very closely, you will see that, unlike your ideological kool-aid, buoyed by a couple of "scientists", I have made no statement on either side of the debate. It is frankly impossible for the average person to digest the literally thousands of studies and articles surrounding the climate change debate and come to the conclusion that either side is "complete hooey".

There is virtually no debate that the climate is growing warmer. The debate is only as to the cause. While I may chuckle at those that claim man caused all of it, those that arrogantly mock the thousands of career scientists studying the issue, merely because their favorite TV pundit scoffs at them on their right wing show...or, as in your case, a few fellow conservatives with science degrees let their politics cloud their lack of knowledge on the issue...make me laugh, too.

The fact is, for all of the study and debate, we do not know with certainty the cause of global climate change. If you choose to confidently cry "Hooey!", surely you would not fault me for laughing derisively at you...for it would be as well deserved as you laughing at me for claiming the debate has ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

effects of pinatubo

the mount pinatubo eruption enlarged the ozone hole over antarctica, but it (the ozone layer) recovered.

your link to the eia does not attach to any documentation.

a survey that records average annual volcanic eruptions does not specify the largess of the pinatubo event. it was ASH that cooled the planet, it was greenhouse gases that caused the increase in the ozone hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am impressed with your ability to answer the question of global warming from the comfort of your own home, without conducting a bit of your own research. I look forward to your solving terrorism, world hunger and the Iraq War soon.

i'm equally impressed with your ability to believe the hyperbole that is "global warming hysteria" from the comfort of your own home, without conducting a bit of your own research. :) do you need an assistant? i'd love to win some cases for you. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bach,

Read my posts. I have come to no conclusions on climate change. Not only is it an extraordinarily complex phenomenon, but it has been wildly politicized, making any firm conclusions difficult, if not impossible.

If you are having this much trouble discerning my neutral position on this debate from reading my simple posts, I doubt your ability to reliably conclude it is "complete hooey".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that if global volcanism only produces a small percent of the greenhouse gasses that humans produce then it's unlikely that one large eruption can produce more than the entire industrial revolution

The articles I posted only had stats on global greenhouse gas levels, not specific to Pinatubo. I am assuming Pinatubo didn't produce hundreds of times more CO2 than the yearly average. If anybody has some proof that Pinatubo produced more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution, I'd like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here's some data from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.

If Mt. Pinatubo produced more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution, then there should probably be a spike in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately after June 1991, right?

If we look at the stats for 1991, we see the following.

MLO 1991 01 354.85

MLO 1991 02 355.66

MLO 1991 03 357.04

MLO 1991 04 358.40

MLO 1991 05 359.00

MLO 1991 06 357.99

MLO 1991 07 356.00

MLO 1991 08 353.78

MLO 1991 09 352.20

MLO 1991 10 352.22

MLO 1991 11 353.70

MLO 1991 12 354.98

At this link, you can see a plot of this data. I thought it would be better to look at the actual numbers for the time period of the Pinatubo eruption though.

So in June 1991 the CO2 leve is 357.99 and at the end of 1991 they are at 354.98, actually a bit lower. Therefore the Mt. Pinatubo eruption did not produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution.

I should point out that I am not trying to come to any conclusions on climate change here (although some of you may already know how I feel on that issue). I am merely trying to debunk the "Mt. Pinatubo" claim.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bach,Read my posts. I have come to no conclusions on climate change. Not only is it an extraordinarily complex phenomenon, but it has been wildly politicized, making any firm conclusions difficult, if not impossible.If you are having this much trouble discerning my neutral position on this debate from reading my simple posts, I doubt your ability to reliably conclude it is "complete hooey".
my bad, you were posting at the same time i was. i posted without regard to your second statement. you are correct to state that my emotional disregard for global warming science is illogical. after all, science requires opposition. my opinion is that global warming hysteria has reached an alarming level, when much of the science is inconclusive.i should learn to be more thoughtful before i post. especially with you around. ;)
Ok here's some data from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.If Mt. Pinatubo produced more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution, then there should probably be a spike in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately after June 1991, right?If we look at the stats for 1991, we see the following.MLO 1991 01 354.85MLO 1991 02 355.66MLO 1991 03 357.04MLO 1991 04 358.40MLO 1991 05 359.00MLO 1991 06 357.99MLO 1991 07 356.00MLO 1991 08 353.78MLO 1991 09 352.20MLO 1991 10 352.22MLO 1991 11 353.70MLO 1991 12 354.98So in June 1991 the CO2 leve is 357.99 and at the end of 1991 they are at 354.98, actually a bit lower. Therefore the Mt. Pinatubo eruption did not produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution.I should point out that I am not trying to come to any conclusions on climate change here (although some of you may already know how I feel on that issue). I am merely trying to debunk the "Mt. Pinatubo" claim.
good facts jax. perhaps the atmosphere is capable of handling ANY amount of greenhouse gases. debunking the mt. pinatubo claim could actually confirm the efficiency of the atmos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
al gore is a dumbass.

Did you see An Inconvenient Truth?

Yes; I thought not. Perhaps you should actually hear what the man has to say before judging his intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait, hasn't this current administration been telling us for the past 7 years that global warming wasn't a real threat? That scientists were in major disagreement about the theory? Didn't they also fail to sign the Kyoto Treaty to curb greenouse emissions?

The sudden turn around actually makes me a little nervous. Some big piece of $%*@ must have just hit the fan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't they also fail to sign the Kyoto Treaty to curb greenouse emissions?

Who is "they?"

If by "they," you mean the Clinton administration, then yes, you are correct.

The Bush administration has merely continued the Clinton admininstration policy re: Kyoto, which is to not endorse the treaty until developing nations such as India and China were no longer exempt.

You were also aware that Kyoto is already "signed" (by the Clinton administration) and merely needs to be ratified by the Senate in order for the United States to join? Were you aware that Kyoto received a 99-0 ass-kicking when it went before the Senate during the Clinton administration? Why is it all of a sudden Bush's responsibility that the United States is not part of this farce?

If there is this much misinformation out there about simple U.S. Constitutional processes, is it really that hard to believe that there is also a lot of misinformation out there about complex climatalogical processes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you should actually hear what the man has to say before judging his intellect.

I'd have to agree with bigtex. Al Gore is most certainly not a dumbass. He's a politician. Far worse.

EDIT: CDeb beat me to my next punch.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is "they?"

If by "they," you mean the Clinton administration, then yes, you are correct.

The Bush administration has merely continued the Clinton admininstration policy re: Kyoto, which is to not endorse the treaty until developing nations such as India and China were no longer exempt.

You were also aware that Kyoto is already "signed" (by the Clinton administration) and merely needs to be ratified by the Senate in order for the United States to join? Were you aware that Kyoto received a 99-0 ass-kicking when it went before the Senate during the Clinton administration? Why is it all of a sudden Bush's responsibility that the United States is not part of this farce?

If there is this much misinformation out there about simple U.S. Constitutional processes, is it really that hard to believe that there is also a lot of misinformation out there about complex climatalogical processes?

I think his main point was that the Bush administration had been telling people for the past 7 years that global warming wasn't a real threat, and now they are saying it IS a threat .

Mr Bush last week acknowledged climate change as one of the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Houston Texas. There will always be some folks here that even if floods reach over their heads, they still wouldn't be concerned with global warming. It will be attributed to act of god or terrorism.

But who knows, if even someone like bush and friends can finally realize it is a threat, maybe there is hope for some texans.

And it shouldn't take global warming to justify taking care of the environment, how about just for reducing some pollution and getting some cleaner air.

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think his main point was that the Bush administration had been telling people for the past 7 years that global warming wasn't a real threat, and now they are saying it IS a threat .
I've heard that statement in just about every global warming discussion I've been in, but its absolutely 100% FALSE!!! That statement totally discredits all of your comments about global warming because it shows that you are just repeating what somebody told you and not even doing research on your own.

^^^Sound familiar?

Might the same line of logic apply then to Kinkaid's comment? ...if one is to accept your line of logic, that is. But I find it hard to believe that just because a supporting argument is shot down means that none of the others go down with it.

And I'm not very pleased with the attitude that the only people that can discuss GW science are GW scientists. While it is true that the layperson must suppliment their argumentation with hearsay, the logical justification of hearsay as a fallacy is when somebody argues upon an underlying premise that "Person 1 says A, therefore A is true." In logic, truth or falsehood is absolute, and is actually highly uncommon. But the pitfalls of hearsay can be avoided by modifying the above premise to read: "Person 1 says A, therefore A is subject to a probability of being true." The probability should be assigned based upon somewhat more subjective interpretation of Person 1's data, argumentation, or virtue. In any case, direct personal experience need not be a prerequisite for meaningful argumentation. This is especially true once any scientific conclusions begin to be translated to public policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just because a supporting argument is shot down means that none of the others go down with it.

I guess I was just trying to say that when somebody spouts off hearsay as fact, it makes it hard to take them seriously from that point on. It shows that the person has most likely not done a lot of research on the issue at hand.

If I claimed to be an expert on astrophysics, but told you that it is an undisputed fact that the earth is flat, you would probably be less likely to believe what I say about astrophysics, even though my flat earth theory might not affect what I say I know about other planets.

In any case, direct personal experience need not be a prerequisite for meaningful argumentation. This is especially true once any scientific conclusions begin to be translated to public policy

I agree with you there. I'm not a GW scientist, and yet I think I can discuss the issue meaningfully, but only because I try to look at data and not just base my arguments on what I hear on TV or in the news, or from politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Climate Change Primer: Solar and Orbital Variation

Part two of a three-part series

Written By: Jay Lehr and Richard S. Bennett

Published In: Environment & Climate News

Publication Date: June 1, 2003

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

In Part One of this three-part series, Lehr and Bennett defined and described the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sourcewatch is a cool link. thanks. however, it is a wiki. anyone can write whatever they want.

the article i linked to simply confirmed information that i'd been given by a geology professor, a geological scientist and an astrophysicist. The references for the article include Science and the Astrophysical Journal, not exactly opinion periodicals. What many of these learned people conclude is that the natural systems in place are far more powerful than humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I was just trying to say that when somebody spouts off hearsay as fact, it makes it hard to take them seriously from that point on. It shows that the person has most likely not done a lot of research on the issue at hand.

In casual speaking, many otherwise intelligent people make statements in absolute terms, rather than include modifiers that would more fully describe various circumstances. I'm inclined to try and read in between the lines and extend the benefit of the doubt.

As for Pinatubo, you haven't yet shown bachanon to be technically incorrect. You have presented data that measured CO2 at one measuring station in Hawaii. We don't know the circumstances of that measuring station as they relate to elevation, climate, exposure to sunlight, the time of day of measurement, wind patterns around Hawaii, or proximity to local volcanism. The data does seem to indicate seasonality, which would indicate that changing climactic conditions either worldwide or locally would suppress or elevate the amount of CO2, and that would at least lend credence to bachanon's argument of earth as a self-regulating system. In either case, it is technically impossible to prove bachanon incorrect--and to do it so fervently--with data from one measuring station.

I've also variously heard that Pinatubo put off as much "CO2" or "greenhouse gases" as have ever been released by humans "since the start of the industrial age" or "in the whole of their history". In fact, you concluded from the data that "Therefore the Mt. Pinatubo eruption did not produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution." But greenhouse gases are comprised of well over a dozen different gases. And in addition to that, unique gases have unique properties. Water vapor, for instance, is largely self-regulating, and it is a greenhouse gas. It or other greenhouse gases that tend to be reabsorbed from the atmosphere may not have made it all the way to the Hawaii measuring station, even if that measuring station was equipped to measure them.

I suspect that there is a seed of truth to the Pinatubo talking point, but I'd agree that it has become mythic and that its value as a scientific data point for GW argumentation is effectively nil. Nevertheless, Jax, if you are going to say that bachanon loses all credibility in everything he is saying because he brought up Pinatubo, then shouldn't you lose all credibility for concluding something about global warming gasses from measurements of one component gas that were taken from one measuring station about which little is known? I don't think so. I still respect you and am willing to consider all of your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What many of these learned people conclude is that the natural systems in place are far more powerful than humanity

That may be the conclusion of the people writing the article on heartland.org, but not necessarily the scientists who wrote the papers cited. Did you actually read the Science article? As I understand it, these cycles are indeed a factor driving climate change, but that hasn't led anybody (except maybe heartland.org) to rule out the manmade factors driving climate change.

Where is your data backing up the statement that the natural systems (Milankovicch cyclles) are far more powerful than the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses? I've heard people bring up the same argument using solar radiation and sunspots. Yes, solar radiation is changing (very minimally), but that doesn't mean it's the only factor driving climate change, and it's not enough reason to rule out the other factors such as greenhouse gasses.

What is more interesting (in this debate anyways) than Milankovitch cycles and solar radiation is how much the manmade factors will influence the climate compared to the natural processes. The article doesn't touch on this at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Niche: I don't really have enough time to write a book on volcanism for you, but we know that ejecta from volcanoes spreads fairly quickly into the atmosphere. If heavier particle such as aerosols spread into the stratosphere and created a global temperature decrease, I think we can safely say that CO2 would also spread out fairly uniformly after a few months. We know that there are other gasses released by volcanoes, but CO2 is a significant enough portion that we should at least see a small blip in the level of atmospheric CO2 due to this event (if it was equivalent to all of the carbon dioxide produced since the industrial revolution)

We know all of the data on the observatory (it's all in the link I posted), and there is years more data incase you want to look into it. Here is some more info about Mauna Loa and how they measure CO2 and why it is a good place to make CO2 measurements.

Keep in mind I was writing a forum post and not an article in Science and therefore you can't expect me to be as rigorous as I would be otherwise. I should actually stop spending time in here and actually work on something that could possibly be rigorous enough to be published in a journal like Science. :)

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That may be the conclusion of the people writing the article on heartland.org, but not necessarily the scientists who wrote the papers cited. Did you actually read the Science article? As I understand it, these cycles are indeed a factor driving climate change, but that hasn't led anybody (except maybe heartland.org) to rule out the manmade factors driving climate change.

Where is your data backing up the statement that the natural systems (Milankovicch cyclles) are far more powerful than the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses? I've heard people bring up the same argument using solar radiation and sunspots. Yes, solar radiation is changing (very minimally), but that doesn't mean it's the only factor driving climate change, and it's not enough reason to rule out the other factors such as greenhouse gasses.

What is more interesting (in this debate anyways) than Milankovitch cycles and solar radiation is how much the manmade factors will influence the climate compared to the natural processes. The article doesn't touch on this at all.

my opinion is that geologists and astrophysicists have great understanding of the magnitude of these large systems. because of their knowledge of space, time and historic cataclysmic events, they have better understanding than most about man's place in the grand scheme of things. the people i've spoken to are not politically motivated, they do not have an axe to grind. they believe in good stewardship of the earth, they do not believe that the sky is falling.

also, since we cannot effectively measure anthropogenic greenhouse gases, we will never be able to rule it out as a factor. ergo, bad science. it's like trying to prove or disprove god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niche: I don't really have enough time to write a book on volcanism for you, but we know that ejecta from volcanoes spreads fairly quickly into the atmosphere. If heavier particle such as aerosols spread into the stratosphere and created a global temperature decrease, I think we can safely say that CO2 would also spread out fairly uniformly after a few months. We know that there are other gasses released by volcanoes, but CO2 is a significant enough portion that we should at least see a small blip in the level of atmospheric CO2 due to this event (if it was equivalent to all of the carbon dioxide produced since the industrial revolution)

We know all of the data on the observatory (it's all in the link I posted), and there is years more data incase you want to look into it. Here is some more info about Mauna Loa and how they measure CO2 and why it is a good place to make CO2 measurements.

Keep in mind I was writing a forum post and not an article in Science and therefore you can't expect me to be as rigorous as I would be otherwise. I should actually stop spending time in here and actually work on something that could possibly be rigorous enough to be published in a journal like Science. :)

Hey, you don't have to defend your assertions for my sake. I'm already dubious of the Pinatubo anti-GW argument.

I just don't like it when someone claims that all of a poster's comments should be discredited on account of a technicality in the way they presented it, and then have the very same person draw conclusions based upon inadequate data, expecting everyone else to take him seriously and take time to fill in the blanks on their own to have it make any sort of sense, rather than discrediting him any everything he says because he articulated a single argument poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorta' on Bach's camp on this one with a bit of a twist.

While I'm not disagreeig that the earth is warming, I'm not convinced that Man is playing a significant part in this, but that doesn't give it a free pass on the things it SHOULD do to be more environmentally friendly.

The Orbital shift is an interesting theory, but I would imagine scientists would be all over that if new measurements were made and compared to those that were done centuries ago (Via ancient sundials). I wouldn't doubt that a few degrees variance of our orbit might be enough to have some influence on our weather.

While I'm not a scientist and have absolutely no formal education on this, I theorize that it could be as something something as simple as the sun heating up a bit more than usual. My reasoning for this is that there are few true absolutes in nature, from the weather to the stars. As everyone knows (Or at least science has taught us), the stars goes through various phases during it's lifetime. What makes our sun any different? How much of an increase in the energy of the sun would it be possible to alter the climate and would our instrumentation be sensitive enough to notice it?

Could it be that our sun is simply running a fever? Maybe we're simply drifting a few degrees (no pun intended) towards the sun. How much of a slight deviation of orbit is possible to negatively influence our weather?

I'll let the guys with the PhD's hash it out, I'm just a working schmuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm certainly not a scientist either. in fact, based on this discussion, i'll not throw pinatubo around without more information. i think theniche's characterization (of the pinatubo eruption evidence) as "dubious" is wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at this point all anyone can do is theorize. No one person can prove without a reasonable scientific doubt one way or another.

FWIW: Like or hate Al Gore, I have to agree he's not an idiot, but he can be mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time that a very knowledgeable person makes a mistake on a major item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is "they?"

If by "they," you mean the Clinton administration, then yes, you are correct.

The Bush administration has merely continued the Clinton admininstration policy re: Kyoto, which is to not endorse the treaty until developing nations such as India and China were no longer exempt.

You were also aware that Kyoto is already "signed" (by the Clinton administration) and merely needs to be ratified by the Senate in order for the United States to join? Were you aware that Kyoto received a 99-0 ass-kicking when it went before the Senate during the Clinton administration? Why is it all of a sudden Bush's responsibility that the United States is not part of this farce?

If there is this much misinformation out there about simple U.S. Constitutional processes, is it really that hard to believe that there is also a lot of misinformation out there about complex climatalogical processes?

Um, nope. I meant the current administration. The Clinton administration actually helped shape the 1997 original although the Republican dominated Senate at the time rejected it in advance.

In 2001, one of the first things Bush did when he took office was to officially renounce the Kyoto Protocol and state that the U.S. would never join it.

And, last time I checked, the Kyoto Protocol didn't take effect until Feb 16, 2005 after Russia finally joined in with 140 other countries in November of 2004. Who was the sitting president then? I do believe it was Bush. As of right now, only the USA and Australia are left on the other side saying they will not ratify the agreement.

Since Russia joined in on November 18th, 2004, countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Belarus, Iran, Singapore, Croatia, and Lebanon have signed on.

Bush had ample opportunity to join in if he pushed the issue.

Now, who is full of misinformation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, nope. I meant the current administration. The Clinton administration actually helped shape the 1997 original although the Republican dominated Senate at the time rejected it in advance.

In 2001, one of the first things Bush did when he took office was to officially renounce the Kyoto Protocol and state that the U.S. would never join it.

And, last time I checked, the Kyoto Protocol didn't take effect until Feb 16, 2005 after Russia finally joined in with 140 other countries in November of 2004. Who was the sitting president then? I do believe it was Bush. As of right now, only the USA and Australia are left on the other side saying they will not ratify the agreement.

Since Russia joined in on November 18th, 2004, countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Belarus, Iran, Singapore, Croatia, and Lebanon have signed on.

Bush had ample opportunity to join in if he pushed the issue.

Now, who is full of misinformation?

You.

Still.

Kyoto is a treaty.

The Senate ratifies treaties.

Not the President.

If our Democrat-controlled Senate wants the U.S. into Kyoto, all it has to do is vote on it.

And again, the Clinton administration stated that the U.S. would never join Kyoto as long as India and China were not a part of it.

And they still aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, nope. I meant the current administration. The Clinton administration actually helped shape the 1997 original although the Republican dominated Senate at the time rejected it in advance.

In 2001, one of the first things Bush did when he took office was to officially renounce the Kyoto Protocol and state that the U.S. would never join it.

And, last time I checked, the Kyoto Protocol didn't take effect until Feb 16, 2005 after Russia finally joined in with 140 other countries in November of 2004. Who was the sitting president then? I do believe it was Bush. As of right now, only the USA and Australia are left on the other side saying they will not ratify the agreement.

Since Russia joined in on November 18th, 2004, countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Belarus, Iran, Singapore, Croatia, and Lebanon have signed on.

Bush had ample opportunity to join in if he pushed the issue.

Now, who is full of misinformation?

Actually, you don't have quite a bit of the facts behind the decision.

Initially, I was all about the Kyoto Protocol. Then a friend of mine brought up a few points on it that made me actually want to READ the bloody thing (took freakin' forever and went through several highlighters, fell asleep on it a number of times, and I brought out my gun to shoot myself because my eyes took over my brain briefly and wanted to be put out of its suffering), and it's a big jumble of BS.

The biggest problems with the protocol is that the largest (current) polluters, China and India, are *NOT* required to reduce their carbon emissions the way it is written. One of the other things that drove me to the edge of insanity was the fact that you can "purchase" green points from other areas that aren't as polluting.

That's like the wetlands deal here in the states in which you can pave pave over all of Florida's wetlands, but still be okay because you "purchased" an equal amount wetlands spots in Virginia, Idaho, and Washington state. So in other words, clean air will will be a commodity.

Let me repeat that for some of our slower audience members:

If a polluter in say, Bangladesh (remember, China and India are EXEMPT from this, so they can kill all the birds and people with their pollution if they want), but want to be "green", they can say, "hey! I purchased clean air from Norway! I'm good! Pay no attention to the dying flock of birds in that field over there...or that three eye fish in the market. we're green!"

After I read the bloody thing, I had to flush out my eyes profusely and was forced to go on two night binge give my brain a break.

Well, the binge was my idea, the brain went along for the ride, but I did flush out my eyes.

Edited by ricco67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also, since we cannot effectively measure anthropogenic greenhouse gases, we will never be able to rule it out as a factor. ergo, bad science. it's like trying to prove or disprove god.

I suppose the bugaboo is the word 'effectively'.

Surely we have some rough idea as to how much coal has been mined, barrels of oil pumped and cubic feet of natural gas tapped.

There has been a dramatic rise in CO2 levels since humans started using wholesale quantities of fossil fuels. This strikes me as being more than coincidental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stated earlier that this is far too complex an issue for any of us peons to really wrap our arms around, given that career scientific geniuses grapple with the issue as well. My apparent position stems from the approaches some big players take to discredit either side, thereby ensuring that the public will never have a chance to know the truth. A few examples...

Exxon paying bounties to science prostitutes to gin up anti-global warming papers (disclaimer: I own Exxon stock).

Researchers claiming that the 2005 hurricane season was a result of global warming before anyone had even studied the data. Some did it before the season was even over. Global warming may in fact have caused it, but some having called it so soon casts doubt on any future conclusions.

I could go on, but the point is that those with an agenda tend to oversell their position, making it harder to ascertain what is really going on.

I also have a problem with the disingenuous nature of some of the anti-global warming arguments. One of the biggest is that it is not man-made. Well, so what? If the earth is warming, and if warming is bad for humanity, it makes sense to combat all causes of warming. If natural causes account for 75% of the warming, we could still control the 25% that is man-made. A 25% reduction is better than none.

Another disingenuous argument is that anti-warming or anti-pollution efforts hurt the economy. This is the worst argument. It goes that since anti-pollution controls and solar panels, etc. are expensive, so the economy will be harmed. Excuse me? Spending money is bad for the economy? Since when? The CORRECT way to phrase the objection is that massive polluters will lose some profits by purchasing and installing pollution control equipment. That means some of those profits go to another part of the economy. It produces jobs, not the other way around. Anyone that has priced alternative energy knows that there is lots of money in it.

The same argument applies to energy efficiency. Detroit claims they are incapable of meeting fuel efficiency standards that Japan already meets. I take little comfort in knowing that the US produces such poor quality engineers that they cannot do what other countries' engineers already do.

There are so many reasons to address these issues already, that global warming is the least of them. With 80% of the world oil supply controlled by foreign governments, it is an absolute certainty that our military will be fighting wars forever to secure a stable supply. War is the most inefficient means of obtaining oil, as Iraq has shown. Global Warming is an interesting phenomenon, but as far as US policy goes, inefficiency, health and national security are more immediate threats. Many of the same solutions to these threats can help with respect to global warming. Our resistance to addressing these issues will doom the republic before global warming will.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
largest (current) polluters, China and India

The level of emissions in India and China may be increasing faster than us, but I'm not so sure they are the largest greenhouse gas emitters right now - at least per capita. Remember these are still developing countries, but they are developing quickly.

Here is a link with some stats. I know everybody is going to hate me because it's Wikipedia but you can verify the numbers from the UN statistics division if you really want to. I'm surprised Canada is higher than the US. I am guessing it's because of the fact that the emissions are high for such a small population. Maybe it has something to do with all of the energy we spend on heating in the winter, or the fact that our economy is pretty decent but we only have a population similar to the state of Texas.

I'd be interested to see the rankings in terms of absolute numbers (not per capita). Anybody have any stats to share or want to factor out the populations? I am guessing China and India will be up there (since their populations are so huge), but I'm not sure if they would be higher than the US and EU.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You.

Still.

Kyoto is a treaty.

The Senate ratifies treaties.

Not the President.

If our Democrat-controlled Senate wants the U.S. into Kyoto, all it has to do is vote on it.

And again, the Clinton administration stated that the U.S. would never join Kyoto as long as India and China were not a part of it.

And they still aren't.

I know full well that a Senate vote is needed to ratify a treaty. I know it takes 67 votes to pass.

I also know that a Senate that contains 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent is hardly Democrat-controlled. I also know full well that until Bush's second term, the party with a Senate majority was the Republican.

And, please direct me to a link which shows that it was the Clinton Administration that stated the U.S. would never join Kyoto as long as India and China were not a part of it. The only thing I can find is that Clinton's Admin didn't send the treaty to the Senate to be ratified. But, why would you when the Senate had taken a vote (it was 95-0, not 99-0 as you posted incorrectly earlier in the thread) stating the U.S. wouldn't ratify the Protocol until rapidly developing nations such as China were forced to limit emissions?

Frankly, trying to blame the Clinton Administration for the failure of the U.S.A. to ratify the Kyoto Protocol makes as much sense as blaming Kucinich for the War in Iraq.

Edited by KinkaidAlum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also know that a Senate that contains 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent is hardly Democrat-controlled.

That is certainly enough to bring the issue to a vote. And we've all seen numerous times that neither party is above bringing useless causes to vote in order to grandstand on an issue.

I also know full well that until Bush's second term, the party with a Senate majority was the Republican.

Gosh, there were NINETY-FIVE Republicans in the Senate in 1997?? (Please forgive my earlier error, as 95-0 is much less legitimate than 99-0)

And, please direct me to a link which shows that it was the Clinton Administration that stated the U.S. would never join Kyoto as long as India and China were not a part of it. The only thing I can find is that Clinton's Admin didn't send the treaty to the Senate to be ratified.

With pleasure:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/

Specifically:

Gore, who often serves as the administration's point person on environmental issues, said the U.S. intends to press for "meaningful participation by key developing nations." Until that happens, the administration will not seek a ratification vote in the Senate, Gore said.

"As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort," Gore declared. "This is a global problem that will require a global solution."

................

In another development, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) says he doubts that the agreement will go to the Senate for ratification in 1998.

"We have until 2012 to meet Kyoto ... and it doesn't make sense" to take it to the Senate until there is "participation of developing nations," Lieberman said.

While not mentioning India and China by name, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which "key developing nations" are being referred to.

Frankly, trying to blame the Clinton Administration for the failure of the U.S.A. to ratify the Kyoto Protocol makes as much sense as blaming Kucinich for the War in Iraq.

I'm not trying to blame anything on anyone. Just merely pointing out that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration have the same policy in regards to the ratification of Kyoto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stated earlier that this is far too complex an issue for any of us peons to really wrap our arms around, given that career scientific geniuses grapple with the issue as well. My apparent position stems from the approaches some big players take to discredit either side, thereby ensuring that the public will never have a chance to know the truth. A few examples...

Exxon paying bounties to science prostitutes to gin up anti-global warming papers (disclaimer: I own Exxon stock).

Researchers claiming that the 2005 hurricane season was a result of global warming before anyone had even studied the data. Some did it before the season was even over. Global warming may in fact have caused it, but some having called it so soon casts doubt on any future conclusions.

I could go on, but the point is that those with an agenda tend to oversell their position, making it harder to ascertain what is really going on.

I also have a problem with the disingenuous nature of some of the anti-global warming arguments. One of the biggest is that it is not man-made. Well, so what? If the earth is warming, and if warming is bad for humanity, it makes sense to combat all causes of warming. If natural causes account for 75% of the warming, we could still control the 25% that is man-made. A 25% reduction is better than none.

Another disingenuous argument is that anti-warming or anti-pollution efforts hurt the economy. This is the worst argument. It goes that since anti-pollution controls and solar panels, etc. are expensive, so the economy will be harmed. Excuse me? Spending money is bad for the economy? Since when? The CORRECT way to phrase the objection is that massive polluters will lose some profits by purchasing and installing pollution control equipment. That means some of those profits go to another part of the economy. It produces jobs, not the other way around. Anyone that has priced alternative energy knows that there is lots of money in it.

The same argument applies to energy efficiency. Detroit claims they are incapable of meeting fuel efficiency standards that Japan already meets. I take little comfort in knowing that the US produces such poor quality engineers that they cannot do what other countries' engineers already do.

There are so many reasons to address these issues already, that global warming is the least of them. With 80% of the world oil supply controlled by foreign governments, it is an absolute certainty that our military will be fighting wars forever to secure a stable supply. War is the most inefficient means of obtaining oil, as Iraq has shown. Global Warming is an interesting phenomenon, but as far as US policy goes, inefficiency, health and national security are more immediate threats. Many of the same solutions to these threats can help with respect to global warming. Our resistance to addressing these issues will doom the republic before global warming will.

I agree in principle with Red's comments, but would take issue with the notion that converting over from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources would not harm the economy. At its most basic, a combination of factors of production (land, labor, and capital) are utilized to produce goods for which there is effectively no limit to demands. Factors of production are finite, and a decision to use them to produce output of one good/service results in less production of some other output good/service (i.e. opportunity cost). In perfectly or monopolistically competitive markets, the economic cost to produce goods is equal to their price, yeilding at or near zero economic profit.

Although the price of alternative energies have come down in the past couple decades, they are still more expensive than are traditional fossil fuels. The expense reflects that it takes greater amounts of the factors of production to go green than it does to stay traditional. When society opts to use more alternative fuels at a higher cost, that higher cost is reflective of an opportunity cost to society because society is using the same amount and the same kind of electricity but is sacrificing more productive factors to acquire it that could've been allocated towards producing something else. Perhaps the large opportunity cost is offset by environmental benefits, but to say that there aren't adverse consequences to the economy from having society switch to higher-cost green energy is perposterous.

------------

If the above is too theoretical for you, think about the impact of a law that requires that Exxon invest in more 'green' technologies. If it were profitable to do so, and they were managed well, they'd already have done it. If a law is passed that wasn't duplicative, then, Exxon will be forced to make a poor investment in order to continue its otherwise-profitable business operations. You are a stockholder in Exxon. If they aren't as profitable as they would've been otherwise, then you are poorer for it...at least temporarily. Ultimately, as the whole industry adjusts, the costs just get passed along to the consumer.

Certainly, whatever industry is producing the 'green' widgets is going to be making more money, but green industries are only producing because the government told Exxon that Exxon had to buy it, not because it was going to be a profitable investment. But that means that green industries expand, employ more productive factors for themselves than they otherwise would have, and thus take those productive factors away from every other kind of industry that could otherwise have used them. So rather than manufacturing workers building computers and machinery, they're building 'green' widgets. That causes the prices of factors of production to be bid up, which does mean higher wages, but since the extra costs are just passed back to consumers in the form of higher prices, the effect of higher wages is wiped out. What we're left with is more costly gasoline...or whatever product it was that put Exxon in the category that was affected by the regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The level of emissions in India and China may be increasing faster than us, but I'm not so sure they are the largest greenhouse gas emitters right now - at least per capita. Remember these are still developing countries, but they are developing quickly.

I'd seen in a Time magazine about a year ago a chart that compared the aggregate CO2 emissions divided by dollar-equivalent of GDP for these countries, and China was outrageously high compared to most first-world countries. I wasn't surprised about the rankings, but I was surprised at the sheer differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is certainly enough to bring the issue to a vote. And we've all seen numerous times that neither party is above bringing useless causes to vote in order to grandstand on an issue.

Gosh, there were NINETY-FIVE Republicans in the Senate in 1997?? (Please forgive my earlier error, as 95-0 is much less legitimate than 99-0)

With pleasure:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/

Did you even bother to read the link? Clinton didn't even come close to saying what you claim. In fact, he hailed the creation of the Kyoto as a great starting point. I can find you plenty of links from 2001 where Bush is quoted saying the exact things you are claiming Clinton did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you even bother to read the link? Clinton didn't even come close to saying what you claim. In fact, he hailed the creation of the Kyoto as a great starting point. I can find you plenty of links from 2001 where Bush is quoted saying the exact things you are claiming Clinton did...

Did you even bother to read my posts?

I never said he did.

I said it was his administration's policy, and Gore's comments bear that out. Did you even bother to read the entire article??

In addition to the Clinton administration, every Democrat in the Senate who bothered to vote also agreed with this position on Kyoto.

This is well-established fact outside the "blame Bush for everything crowd."

So why are we still blaming Bush?

Bush's administration deserves criticism in many areas. This isn't one of them.

Edited by CDeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sure sign of a Junk Science is when politics get injected into the conversation. It only took a couple of posts before it showed up in this discussion.

Global Warming going on without a doubt. The question is, Is it natural or induced by Man? I vote for the natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that anybody is going to believe me or care, but you're comparing one "Time Magazine" article to decades worth of research on Global Warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that anybody is going to believe me or care, but you're comparing one "Time Magazine" article to decades worth of research on Global Warming.

I guess it must not be more than three decades of research. The scientific "consensus" 3 decades ago was the exact opposite of the "consensus" of global warming zealots today. The point is that just because you read a few articles on the internet and a politician tells you the world is ending doesn't mean it's true. The scientific community has been wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future. I have a feeling that people will be studying this 100 years from now in history class and Al Gore will be mentioned in the same vein with the witch hunts in Salem. People are no different today than they were back then. It's amazing how entire communities can still sucumb to mass hysteria.

I would be much more inclined to beleive global warming "experts" if they didn't always come up with solutions that require handing over money and control to giant government bureaucracies, or solving technical problems with social engineering. Build me a $50 billion dollar solar array in space and I'll be on-board with you. Tell me to stop driving my sports car or SUV and you start sounding like a communist to me. I'd rather live with global warming than communism.

Edited by jgriff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean consensus? There was no consensus about global cooling in the 70s, only a few articles in the popular press and a one scientific papers published (that I know of) on the issue. That doesn't mean there was a consensus.

How about you go search some journals and tell me how many articles you can find on global cooling, then do the same thing for global warming, and tell me which subject has more of a scientific consensus, which has more papers published? I seriously doubt you'll actually do that though because most people who post on this forum fail to do their own research on these issues.

I'd rather see you attack modern climatology than cite an old article (which is not even in a scientific journal) as evidence of a scientific consensus, which is supposed to invalidate the current scientific consensus. That's like saying that because the scientific consensus in the 1800s was that light behaved like a wave, that the current wave particle duality theory of light must be wrong.

just because you read a few articles on the internet and a politician tells you the world is ending doesn't mean it's true

What do you mean I've just read a few articles on the internet? I am a regular reader of multiple scientific journals (I'm a Rice grad student). That doesn't make me an expert climatologist, but I am insulted that you assume I've only read a few articles on the internet. How many articles on this issue have you read outside of the popular press and media? Which journals do you subscribe to?

P.S. I'm not a Communist.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...