The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[Kerostasis]

Right, who needs evidence when you can just say "its obvious" and skip right to the step where we tax people? Cause afterall, everybody loves taxes!

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Wait, you agree that human impact on the climate may be immeasurable, but you still think that if everyone stops driving SUVs and starts using solar power that it will change something? It will, for sure, but it might be an immeasurable change!

And that's where I have a problem. There's been nothing definitive to come out that says that SUVs and air conditioners are causing the climate change, and yet, some people want to make laws that will drastically change my lifestyle anyway. I'm not down with that...

I think I've said before that I agree with your opinion on this. I don't think I ever said that there should be laws to prevent people from driving SUV's, or really any law that applies to individual consumption. Nor do I think that this is a tax issue (though if these droughts continue, you can expect a federal water tax). I'd like to see people thinking about fuel consumption and emissions when they choose to buy a car, make unecessary car trips, or even when buying light bulbs and appliances. When I talk about changes, though, I am thinking more along the lines of the heavy hitters - coal burning, deforestation, and manufacturers of internal combustion engines. In a capitalist market these industries will not voluntarily make changes that hurt their bottom line. These businesses simply don't stand to gain anything from making a more efficient product. Green marketing will never be enough. In my opinion, this is where governmental regulation is required.

Speaking to the drought issue (this could lead to nationwide taxes if the American West falls into a severe drought) - in-depth article in the Times' magazine yesterday : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/ma...21water-t.html

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by AMosely

In a capitalist market these industries will not voluntarily make changes that hurt their bottom line.

And they haven't had to... Between the green movement and the cost of gasoline jumping considerably the last few years, people have been more than willing to pay a premium to own a more efficient car.

Heck, I'm looking at the Escape Hybrid, even thought I would have to drive it for around 19 years to recoup the premium price via fuel cost savings at current gasoline price increases.

And Switch, you're right. Climate change is only one aspect of our environmental problems. There are definitely some simple changes that could be made that would certainly help keep our environment cleaner. I grew up in California and along with our trash can, we were given three tubs by the city to put glass, plastic and paper in for recycling. Everyone did it. The company that contracted with the city kept the profits, so the recycling program was completely free to taxpayers and profitable for a company. Now, here I am in Texas and I have to drive a half hour from my house just to turn in aluminum, glass and newspaper (no mixed paper!). I don't know where I can recycle PET or other plastics. Why doesn't every large city in America have a recycling program? When it costs nothing and a company profits, I don't understand why it's not everywhere. But this has little to do with global warming...

[xTYBALTx]

Recycling is not good for the environment, so no harm done there.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Recycling is not good for the environment, so no harm done there.

Recylcing is an efficiency equation of which the consumer is only one part. Truly efficient recycling involves the manufacturers, producers, consumers and the systems (municipal or otherwise) that tie them together. It is a net gain if waste minimization and reusability are built in to more of our consumer systems - that gain can be minimized or even reversed if too many elements in the system are failing. The Economist ran an article covering this very issue earlier this summer, referencing a study that showed that recycling has a positive effect on the environment 83% of the time.
http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=9249262

Originally Posted by The Economist

It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.

In response to Cing's comment about PET containers, when you add it up on a global scale it begins to have an impact on atmospheric gasses - not to mention the fact that all that plastic we are burying is not going anywhere, and will probably still be littering the planet when it finally does explode due to manmade or natural causes. It has occured to me many times over the years that humankind's only lasting legacy will be microscopic bits of unnatural compounds floating among our galaxy.

[xTYBALTx]

Over an infinite amount of time, mankind will have a legacy so insignificantly small as to be indistinguishable from zero.

Assuming correct inputs and outputs, recycling will be economically beneficial when it is beneficial for the environment. You are precisely correct that much of recyclings value stems from commercial entities - companies recycling their own waste and unused materials, etc. In those circumstances, material is collected and transported en masse with minimal effort. Consumer recycling is neither collected en masse nor done with minimal effort.

[Requital]

My only thought on the whole Global Warming and Climate Change issue is... I live in Denver more than 5,280 feet above sea level. It's not my problem. I don't see why I should cause less polution at all. Sea elevation rise doesn't really affect me that much other than the beach will be closer, which would be kinda nice.

To add some seriousness to this comment at the OP I have a couple points.

1. I would think Population would be a much bigger factor in GlobalWarmin. More people, more trash, more heat. Basically more biomass = more heat just by itself.

2. Man will get himself deeply into global warming. When the Nukes fly there will be tons of heat and 1/3 of the world will get scorched at least, but I am not sure I will really care alot about Globalwarmin at that point since most of my time (if anyone is still alive) will be spent on just trying to not die of Radiation poisoning or starvation/dehidration. On the plus side the catostophic winds and change in weather pattern due to new deserts formation will most likely kill off the majority of biomass and thus reduce Globalwarmin. I forsee this happening before I see 800 years passing...just a guess.

3. However, if you are a Judaism believer you don't have to worry about GlobalWarmin all that much as the Bible says the world will be consumed by fire, so we kinda know it will happen already.

4. The earth satelites around the sun...eventually the sun will burn up the Earth thus Globalwarmin is inevitable.

[USN_Squid]

The debate is over!

[AMosely]

John Stossel kindof reminds me of Michael Moore. Not visually, obviously, but his 'style' is extremely Moore-ish. That was a good piece, but it is only telling us things we already know - that the media is a hype n' spin factory.

As for you Denver folks, I once lived in Boulder and then Nederland (~8000'). I know that the elevation gives you a feeling of invincibility and isolation from the rest of the country, but it's a false sense of security. Water is a major issue for most of the American west. Denver gets its water supply from snowmelt (check the article I cited above). Lose the snow, lose the water supply. Also, Denver is an eco-friendly city not because its residents are savvy (or transplanted californians) but because of the frequent air inversion caused by the prevailing winds over the wall-like mountains bordering the western edge of the city. In Denver, often times what goes up stays down for days or weeks. You don't really know how bad it is until you get into the foothills and look down on it, which I did every morning for about three years.

[Kerostasis]

In regards to water issues: It should be noted that the snowcover that may be lessening due to global warming is exclusively "permanent snowcover", or the stuff that sits there year round. By contrast, the snowmelt used to provide watersupplies is "seasonal snowcover", which falls on the mountains every winter and then melts again every spring/summer. The two have very little to do with each other, and reduced snowcap due to global warming won't actually have any impact at all on mountain snow water supplies.

I don't suppose its impossible that global warming might also change overall precipitation patterns, but its not at all obvious that such a change would be in favor of dryer seasons. Wetter seasons are just as likely if not more so. Current draught conditions out west are just the kind of thing that happens occasionally, and has been happening occasionally for millenia before humans ever even thought about burning coal.

[Lucky Shot]

Interestingly enough, the Antartic just isn't behaving to global warming beliefs.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NE...ICE_EXTENT.doc

Artic though is smaller this year. Nasa points to a 2 year sustained winds that led to lower perenial ice at the north pole.

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

When the wind abates, you will have more ice at the arctic.

Lucky Shot

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by AMosely

John Stossel kindof reminds me of Michael Moore. Not visually, obviously, but his 'style' is extremely Moore-ish. That was a good piece, but it is only telling us things we already know - that the media is a hype n' spin factory.

Moore is a much better propagandist. His stuff is slicker.

Funny thing about Stossel is he used to do the all "commie liberal" issues until it became apparent that the "heartless conservative" issues are getting the eye balls. He is at the same level of the guy he replaced, Geraldo Rivera.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Interestingly enough, the Antartic just isn't behaving to global warming beliefs.

That is definitely interesting, good post Lucky.

[Lucky Shot]

Florida State University is actively tracking this year's Hurricane/Cyclone cycle and is showing this year as one of startling low activity.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/



I don't think it's a coincidence, but we are currently inbetween solar cycles. Since the SIDC in Belgium released an "All Quiet Alert" on 10/5 we have seen 0 sunspots. In fact, the solar winds have been decreasing as well. Prolonged solar minimums in the past have been known to create cooling pressures on the earth including the Maunder Minimum which coincided with the Little ice Age.

10/26 picture of the sun from Spaceweather.com. Any sunspots would be very dark on this image.



It'll be a fun winter and certainly an interesting time to guess when the next solar cycle begins.

Lucky Shot

[leejo]

Never fear, Congress is on the case.

Select Committee to Examine Link Between Changing Climate, Frequency and Intensity of Wildfires on Thursday