Global Warming - What do you think (and tell kids)?

[DanKroh 11]

"By man not ruining the earth, I mean that man can't destroy Earth. Sure, man can pollute, man can do many things, but not destroy the planet."

 

Semantics. How about if "ruin the earth" means "destroy to ability of the environment of the earth to sustain human life". Does that clear up your semantics problem?

 

"There are many things we can do, but man can't cause the temperature to go up."

 

Sure we can. It's whether we have that's seems to be up for argument.

 

But whether you believe that human activities are at the root of global warming or not to me seems a moot point. The important part, IMO, is that for the first time in the history of earth, we actually have the ability to prevent a catastrophic climate change that could make large parts of the earth deadly to live in. Or, we could, if we could stop arguing about it and decide to actually do something.

 

Now, if you (a generic "you", not aimed at Gonzo) think that we should not exercise that ability, that's a perfectly valid viewpoint; but I find the arguments that we shouldn't because we didn't cause it, or because Al Gore is a hypocrit, or because "science is about facts" or because "it's happening on Mars" to be intellectual sophistry.

 

The reason so many people (including scientists) believe that extreme environmentalism is necessary is because they think we have passed the point where we can do it without extreme action. If we had scored a couple more field goals in the 3rd quarter, we wouldn't need to make a "Hail Mary" now.

 

We have always been notoriously short-sighted that way, as a species. But I try to see the silver lining; none of our descendants (at least, the ones who survive) well ever doubt evolution again.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>The important part, IMO,

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

If tomorrow some Scientist has the eureka moment and ALL scientists agreed on the fact the Earth was warming due to water vapor I would still want to be energy independent. I would still want the cleanest air possible to breath. I would still say Kyoto was a farce without #2 and #3 (soon to be #1 and #2 ) being regulated in the same fashion.

I'd still use the flourescent bulb because I'm cheap. Same with the air conditioning. I would still drive a hybrid if the ROE was 4 years instead of 10. Bring it on !!! I'll take it when it becomes available. Look at Walmart, all of America travels on the cheap. Get it to be cheaper you won't be able to make it fast enough. Till then John Kerry will have a suburban and Al will have air in his hot Tenn. house in August.

 

I wouldn't say SEEEEEE!!!! and then go pollute my butt off.

 

 

The level of the Ocean may go up 5". We have a tidal shift of 4 feet in my town, I think we can handle another 5 inches. They are scaring people into thinking the statue of liberty will be chin deep.

 

If the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs didn't foul the whole planet up permanently then I don't see how we can. All the humans might die but according to you evolution people, we'll be back in 400 million years anyways. Polar bears and penguins too!!!!

[Beavah 205]

I'll agree with "we can't ruin the earth". Things are always likely to eventually recover, in geological time. Does't help our grandkids any, though.

 

Yah, but I'm curious there, Gonzo. Why do yeh think that man can't raise temperatures?

 

I've seen forest clear-cuttin' that resulted in mud slides which ruined the lives of a mess of people. Dams that destroyed fisheries. Nearby, da city of Chicago reversed the flow of the Chicago river because their pollution had fouled the southern end of Lake Michigan enough to contaminate their water supply. Now that threatens the fisheries of the whole Mississippi, as big Asian catfish that got imported into our lakes by international shipping are let loose (or vice versa, I can't remember). I know lakes in New England that were killed off fish because of acid rain from smokestacks in Ohio.

 

Why not temperature? We're not talkin' big changes, eh? Just a few degrees. Well, that's a lot, with some big effects, fer sure. But it seems like we've demonstrated a pretty good ability to mess up the local and regional environments pretty quick. Is it really that much of a stretch that 6 billion of us can mess up da global environment over a couple of centuries?

 

I agree, we humans ain't the biggest player. The big guys may well be meteor impacts, volcanoes, solar cycles and continental drift. But don't yeh think that we could be a (smaller) player?

 

Too much borrow-and-spend-and-deny-and-spin out there for this old conservative anyway. I'll stick with the scientists and own up as honestly as I can to the problem, and the responsibility. Even if that means I find myself in partial agreement with an self-servin' dingbat like Al Gore. After all, a busted clock gets things right twice a day .

 

Beavah

[Gonzo1 10]

Beavah,

go ahead, raise the temperature, I dare you!

See, you can't do it.

The eco-politics of the radical left in this country have been scaring people for decades. Americans as a rule have short memories. I do remember hearing some of the same hogwash 30 years ago.

 

Mt. St. Helen's eruption did more damage than man can ever do.

 

Like Brent, I heard on Atlanta radio earlier today, "scientists estimate that temperatures will be 10 deg higher by 2080", What? 2080?? scientists can't tell you what the temp will be in 7.3 days and they expect us to believe what the weather will be in 73 years? You know Beav, the temps COULD be 10 deg cooler too, (wink). Nutty environmentalsim, another way to scare people into thinking that higher taxes are good for us.

 

Again, let's be good stewards, let's ot be nuts.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Like Brent, I heard on Atlanta radio earlier today, "scientists estimate that temperatures will be 10 deg higher by 2080", What? 2080?? scientists can't tell you what the temp will be in 7.3 days and they expect us to believe what the weather will be in 73 years?

 

Yah, Gonzo, I own a car. I can't tell in any reliable way at all what my expenses on that car are going to be for next week. I figure they might just be gas, but then I might lose the fuel pump or hit a nail and puncture a tire.

 

But just because I can't tell yeh what my actual expenses next week are going to be, I can be fairly accurate at telling you the cost of ownership over the expected life of the car. Even more accurate estimatin' the average costs of ownership of all the cars of that make/model. Not perfectly accurate, but much more accurate than I can tell you what the expenses are for next week. There's a difference between weather and climate, between whether it's goin' to rain on Tuesday and what the long-term average temperature is goin' to be for the year. All business plannin' and investments relies on that difference - bein' able to make reasonable long-term estimates, even though short term fluctuations are hard to predict.

 

I agree with you and Brent, I don't like the politics around the issue. I think it gets in the way. Makes Dems crow and Republicans obfuscate. Same with lots of issues, once they enter the realm of politics and get politicized, people on both sides become stupid chest-thumpin' dolts.

 

I like to tell kids that our job as regular citizens is not to become stupid. Ignore the politics, look at the data. And have the courage to tell even your own tribe of politicians when they're bein' dumb.

 

Beavah

 

[Oak Tree 15]

I think that we as people are taking enormous quantities of carbon from underground and putting it into the air. We mine coal, oil, and gas in vast amounts. We burn them. The carbon dioxide goes into the air. There is no cyclical method for the earth to remove the CO2 from the air and put it back underground - at least not anything short of geologic time.

 

I haven't looked into this too much before, just because my experience with peer-reviewed science leads me to believe that the scientists are working pretty hard to get things right, and by and large are pretty smart people. But for kicks I did a quick google search on volcanoes and found this -

"Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions." from the Seattle Times website quoting a U.S. Geological Survey scientist(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html)

 

I follow Leave No Trace principles. I do what I can to make things better.

 

But as a whole, even the environmentalists don't have any real solution here that has any chance of being adopted. Slightly reducing our carbon output isn't going to change the big picture. People will continue to extract large quantities of carbon from the ground - the only question is just precisely how large. What I predict will happen is that everyone and everything will adapt as best they can. Some will do better than others. Most will be just fine.

 

It'll be interesting to watch.

 

Oak Tree

[fgoodwin 23]

Reposted from SCOUTS-L:

 

Go to

 

http://www.scouts.ca/inside.asp?cmPageID=477

 

for program ideas for Tigers (Beavers), Cubs, Scouts, Venturers, etc.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Back from a really nice, somewhat drier, backpacking trip. Gonzo1, weather makes a lot of difference. But the route we took is one you should consider for the next time out.

While I'm there, I need to note that I think I agree with Gonzo1 regarding planetary destruction. Evolutionary history is filled with events that affect the entire planet and I could make an argument that the proliferation of our species already has affected the entire planet...in numbers of people if nothing else.

 

But as for destruction, even total nuclear holocaust - and I mean every warhead on the planet strategically placed in order to do the maximum harm - would not destroy the planet or even the biosphere. We might not recognize it but it would still be there.

My opinion, given the way so many of us survive under wretched conditions, is that even our species would survive in some form (although certainly not under conditions that any of us would choose).

Brent, I think, is correct with respect to the nature of the arguments and impacts. We are mostly concerned with effects on people, and mostly in terms of money and politics. Brent, if you have seen enough evidence to firm up your opinion, that is your choice. I hope you are susceptible to reason if further evidence comes to light that might cause you to reconsider.

 

Trevorum, it was Rooster7.

 

Fscouter, the CO2 does go into carbohydrates. This eventually is metabolized (or burned, oxidized) forming CO2 and H2O. Some of that H2O may be later split during photosynthesis to release O2. There is a cycle but it isn't as tightly coupled as many might think.

 

Dan Kroh, I think you're partially right. It's going to be interesting and we eventually ARE going to see the results. I suspect, however, that some of us will continue to engage in self-deceptions and believe a wide variety of things, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

Oak Tree, I agree. The only thing that will ultimately limit our extraction and combustion of carbon is its price. The proposed measures to limit the expected impact are going to be minimal in comparison. It will be interesting.

[Eagledad 2779]

New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual

 

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm

 

 

Hi all, I found this quite by accident while scanning todays news. It is from the Canadian Free Press. At the very least the article is one more contradiction to confuse folks about the new Global Warming crisis. I gave the source so anyone can read it, but one quote goes like this:

 

Clearly, the federal government must immediately convene open, unbiased hearings into the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. If the science driving CO2 reduction plans is as 'solid' as environmental lobbyists would have us believe, then they have nothing to fear.

But, if it is wrong, as increasingly it appears to be, then we stand on the verge of the largest, and most costly, science scandal in Canadian history.

 

As I said, it is just another source among the many articles that contradict many articles, but it kind leads to the real problem. I was reading Packsaddles post, which I thought was pretty good. One part of his post hits this whole thread on the head:

 

>> Brent, if you have seen enough evidence to firm up your opinion, that is your choice. I hope you are susceptible to reason if further evidence comes to light that might cause you to reconsider.

[Beavah 205]

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm

 

Yah, this is what is called a "Political Advocacy" or "Lobbying Piece" that has nothin' to do with science, eh?

 

Yeh can tell this because both authors are currently employed by the same company, which exists only as a public policy advocacy firm (i.e. "lobbying organization"), funded by certain special interests. And, as is often the case in such things, the lead author may have "overstated" his academic credentials.

 

Articles like this are nothin' more than policy "spin" by people who stand to benefit personally or professionally from a particular public policy position. Confusin' it with real science is far from using reason based on evidence. Fact is, it's just plain silly.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>Articles like this are nothin' more than policy "spin" by people who stand to benefit personally or professionally from a particular public policy position.

[BrentAllen 10]

"Yah, this is what is called a "Political Advocacy" or "Lobbying Piece" that has nothin' to do with science, eh?"

 

Funny, that is exactly what I think of Al Gore's movie. What credentials does he have, other than inventing the internet? Why is everyone so quick to believe Al Gore, but no one else?

 

Before you turn that question back on me, I will again point to the fact that Al Gore has not reduced his energy usage from 10 times the average family. If he honestly believed our lifestyles were so dangerous to the planet, he would change.

 

I can't wait for the Live Earth concerts, which are going to save the planet! Is anyone else mystified by this event? Is this just more brainwashing from Al Gore? More "jump on the bandwagon" hype? More self promotion? What exactly are these concerts supposed to do? Educate? Is there anyone out there who hasn't heard about GW? The proceeds are going to some foundation, which isn't even formed yet?

 

We hope the energy created by Live Earth will jump start a massive public education effort, Live Earth Co-Chair Vice President Al Gore said. Live Earth will help us reach a tipping point thats needed to move corporations and governments to take decisive action to solve the climate crisis.

Hmmmmm - I wonder how that is going to happen. Through scientific fact, or just more "consensus science?"

[Beavah 205]

Yah, exactly EagleDad and BrentAllen.

 

It isn't about Al Gore, or some dingbat like Tim Ball on the other side who is employed by a neo-conservative lobbying firm. Nobody should believe either of 'em. I certainly wouldn't encourage kids to take either at face value.

 

So who should we believe, eh? I suggest the scientists who actually do this work professionally, with relatively neutral funding sources, who don't have a political axe to grind and who are respected by their colleagues. And those folks are pretty clear that human-driven global warming is a real deal, and a part of the current climate change. Problem is real, say the real folks.

 

The fake folks don't really matter, 'cept as another example of polarized, chest-thumpin' tribalism in politics. Just so happens that in this case, Al Gore might be 80% right, once yeh look past the spin. Tim Ball has it 85% wrong, by the same measure. Not likin' the politics of the messengers doesn't mean we shouldn't stay mentally awake about da issues, eh?

 

I remember when all da neo-con Republican types were poo-pooing the ozone depletion hole and the risk of CFC's, and cried about job losses and economic doom. Then someone came up with a CFC replacement, and that meant new business and a healthy dollop of corporate welfare. All of a sudden da neo-cons joined the scientific consensus when it meant money in their pocket, eh?

 

Plenty of foolishness to go around, even in the political persuasion I tend to agree with.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Beavah, I think you're correct about the way to view these things. My concern is that the ability of the public to make such an objective assessment is diminished by scientific illiteracy. I enjoy these occasional threads because they give me a snapshot into this status for the public.

Scientific literacy doesn't have to mean that everyone understands the technical details of all these issues. What it does require is that the public understands the importance of honestly questioning the ideas that are presented to them, including those they already hold. This, I have observed, is rare and it seems even rarer now than it has been. Case in point:

 

"The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere's average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times. Fortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957. However, in what appears to be a case of 'cherry-picking' data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated (see below graph where data used in the averaging is highlighted). This is the average that was used to supposedly 'validate' the long term ice core records on which Al Gore and others depend."

 

This quote from the previously cited article is so loaded with problems that I may use it in an exercise for one of my classes. For example, the method of measuring the average CO2 content is not really described in enough detail to know whether or not it is a good method. Where do you take the measurements? When? Which direct chemical methods? Were they all the same? If not what bias do the differences introduce? I could go on with this but you get the idea.

 

I question if the respondents in this thread can even name one of the several methods of analysis without resorting to a web search, much less understand how it works.

 

The statement about 'cherry-picking' the data is so completely unprofessional that it defies explanation. No evidence is given for even a single example of 'cherry-picking' except that the results do not fit the views of the authors. The reader can conclude nothing from what they say but a person whose scientific literacy is limited might be tempted to nod knowingly and agree.

The ability to ask penetrating questions and understand how to pick these problems apart requires a discipline in which the person is willing to apply that critical view to their own ideas as well. I think you would agree this is exceedingly rare.

 

My concern about scientific literacy is really a concern for the future of our country and our children. I see highly qualified students in college science classes who can barely perform calculations using algebra. At the same time I learn that in China, the goal is for all high school students to learn calculus.

My institution, with a strong engineering school, is concerned that a certain subset of incoming students, having graduated with high school degrees, are nevertheless woefully unprepared for college-level science and engineering. These students are almost exclusively home-schooled. At the same time I read that Reverend Page is hoping that the Southern Baptists can establish a separate Christian public school system in order to, "to expand greatly opportunities for all children to receive a Christian education". Exodus Mandate, a smaller subset of Baptists, goes even further in its promotion of home schooling "to encourage and assist Christian families to leave government schools for the Promised Land of Christian schools or home schooling."

 

While I recognize that there is no reason these children cannot become scientifically literate in these settings, I wonder how likely these settings will be to provide that kind of instruction. I have some doubts that the young person who graduates from these programs will have the skills to criticize, for example, the statement that spitting is somehow equivalent to burning coal. I could be wrong and I hope that I am, but if my doubts are correct, compared to global competition for intellectual, economic, and natural resources, future global climate change will hardly be the top concern for many of us in this country. But I guess that goes without saying already.