# Climate Alarm Bells Are Ringing



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Two senior climate experts rebut fallacious talking points of Republican Congressman Lamar Smith.

More...


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

"Man-made heat-trapping gases are warming our planet and leading to increases in extreme weather events. Droughts are becoming longer and deeper in many areas."

I call "Bullshit!" It's June in the south and it hasn't been hot. Last winter was in fact colder than years past. And global temps I believe have been declining the last 5 years. CO2 levels are lower now than they've been in years which is creating lush plant growth worldwide. The planet is starving for CO2 at this point compared to years and decades past.

Gloabal warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it is BS and is a means to CONTROL people if I had to place a reason on why for all the hoopla. A humongous effort to curtain pollution by scaring people maybe...


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Why do people react so strongly to efforts geared to improve our environment by reducing pollution and wasted energy, using alternative and renewable sources, and taking sensible measures that may lessen the destructive effects of global warming and climate change? What's the big deal with the likes of Jesse Ventura who claims that it is all a scam to make lots of money for some mysterious foreigner, or to promote some sort of scary global control mechanism, while ignoring the obvious incentives for oil and gas companies to continue making record profits while spreading misinformation? 

I agree that people should be free to do as they wish, but their right to swing their fists ends where my nose begins. So if anyone wants to drill into the earth or emit chemicals into the water or the atmosphere that we all share and need to survive, then we as the majority have the right to restrict the actions of the financially powerful and largely unethical minority. 

Be very careful where you get your information, especially when it differs from that agreed upon by 97% of climate scientists. The remaining 3% are probably funded handsomely by those who stand to make the most profit by presenting "alternative" data in high intensity advertising campaigns to persuade the mostly gullible public that "business as usual" is the right approach and their methods will be safe and good for the economy. 

So, where did you get the (mis)information you provided in your post? Fox News? Exxon-Mobil? Jesse Ventura? GWB? Sara Palin? The "Junk Science" website?


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> Why do people react so strongly to efforts geared to improve our environment by reducing pollution and wasted energy, using alternative and renewable sources, and taking sensible measures that may lessen the destructive effects of global warming and climate change? ...
> 
> Be very careful where you get your information, especially when it differs from that agreed upon by 97% of climate scientists...


Hey, I'm all for alternate clean energy. Want to do my home and office with solar but I'm not convinced. And I'm also not convinced that 97% of scientists agree. I would however agree that likely 100% of government paid scientists agree because their administration has a penchant for beheading dissenters.

If the earth has indeed been cooling over the last few years, is that still warming? If indeed CO2 levels were once 10X what they are now, as is reported to be the case in the dinosaur days, how is it possible for them to decline? Our emissions no doubt cause them to increase but those days will eventually be over. Already oil consumption in the US is dropping, partly to the economy being in the dumps, partly due to hybrids, better mileage vehicles and you and I driving electric conversions.

The earth is a magnificent thing, able to regulate it's temperature I believe in spite of our misdeeds. The polar ice is melting, yes that will raise the ocean levels which will then provide a cooling effect to the earth. And I remember in grade school the teachers told us the coast in Georgia and South Carolina came about half way up the states, covering half the states. I'd still be safe here in the upstate though.  Seriously though hurricanes dissipate a TON of heat into the atmosphere, they can cool entire seas! More of them means more cooling, unfortunate though as that is. 

I believe though that we as a nation (America) can't afford to reduce emissions enough to matter. We already are spending tons of money trying to reduce emissions. To do half again as much as we've done now would take exponentially more money to do and the rest of the world, developing nations often aren't going to comply as they're taking our jobs because we can't afford to run a factory here in the US. Yes there are a few factories left but try and find something American made now. You'll be hard pressed to do so. 

It's just something we simply can't afford, we don't have the money and if the government tries to force industry, like they're forcing Obamacare on us, America is headed for a huge fall, possibly without even the burden of increased emission control mandates actually. I do however think government rebates for EV's and solar will help tremendously as it brings costs down and eventually more will be purchased.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_Seriously though hurricanes dissipate a TON of heat into the atmosphere, they can cool entire seas! More of them means more cooling, unfortunate though as that is._

Yes they do - they transfer heat from the oceans into the atmosphere

This does NOT cool the earth

In order to cool the earth you need to dump heat into space - which means Infra-Red

What a shame that the extra CO2 is blocking it! (discovered in 1849)


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Darn those inconvenient truths! You just burst another AGW skeptic's bubble.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Here's something for you to gnaw on. It's information like this that makes me a skeptic. Sure co2 levels have been on an upswing as of late and maybe we are partly to blame. OTOH all the graphs you see show only recent data, conveniently excluding historical levels.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels/


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Historical levels that show a higher co2 level than we're at today. And I recall as a kid in the early 70's "scientists" predicting a coming ice age.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

The problem with all of the work showing higher CO2 levels in the distant past (tens of millions of years) is that the sun was dimmer then
As stars age they get brighter - since life began on earth the sun has become 30% brighter - and it continues to get brighter - 

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

_A star remains near its initial position on the main sequence until a significant amount of hydrogen in the core has been consumed, then begins to evolve into a more luminous star. (On the HR diagram, the evolving star moves up and to the right of the main sequence.) Thus the main sequence represents the primary hydrogen-burning stage of a star's lifetime.[12]_


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

and the significance of that is what?


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

The article you posted was supposedly based on another article in Science magazine, which seems to state the opposite and asserts that lower levels of CO2 accompanied glaciation:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

Here is the abstract:



> Earth’s modern climate, characterized by polar ice sheets and large equator-to-pole temperature gradients, is rooted in environmental changes that promoted Antarctic glaciation ~33.7 million years ago. Onset of Antarctic glaciation reflects a critical tipping point for Earth’s climate and provides a framework for investigating the role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) during major climatic change. Previously published records of alkenone-based CO2 from high- and low-latitude ocean localities suggested that CO2 increased during glaciation, in contradiction to theory. Here, we further investigate alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds.


After registering with AAAS and reading (most of) the full article, it seems that Antarctic glaciation occurred during a time when atmospheric CO2 levels dropped from about 1200 PPM to 600 PPM, and this was given as "proof" that our present levels of 400-500 PPM or so is not enough to cause reversal of the process and melting of the ice pack. But many other factors have changed since that time, and it would be prudent to heed the "alarm bells" and at least prepare for increased and more violent weather and TRY to reduce our energy usage and pollution.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

ElectriCar said:


> and the significance of that is what?


Anthropogenic solar intensification.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> and the significance of that is what?


I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious

The level of CO2 required to maintain a certain overall temperature on earth is related to the solar output

As the solar output increases the level of CO2 required to maintain a certain overall temperature on earth will go down

THEREFORE
The fact that CO2 was higher in the past is - predictable - and not relevant


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Guys, you are beginning to duplicate the "Climate Change Debate" thread.
..and one of those is more than enough wasted space on any forum !


----------



## ndplume (May 31, 2010)

*RE : Climate Alarm --> Who's at the wheel?*

Science, these days, seems to be like medicine, you can shop around until you get the opinion that fits your view. Follow the money in most cases to find the incentive. 

Check out this article for an unexpected admission -
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...lobal-warming-plateaued-last-15-years-despite

Within the industries, I expect the companies to promote their product. They want to keep their jobs, have the incomes to support their loved ones and charities. In addition, I think most believe in the good aspects of their products. Solar Panels, BEVs, Hybrid Mfgrs, Oil Companies, Fuel Cell folks, Nuclear Power Plants, Wranglers, Chevys, Whole Foods... You name it.

What seems new (to me) is the demonization of the other competitors. Demonization has been tradition in armed conflict, it really gets YOUR guys jazzed up to go to war, but doing the same in economic competition? I may be too young to recall that happening except in recent times.

In some camps, it seem that when the products don't sell on their merit or not fast enough, a "war" is waged by coming up with "Scientific data" to show that the xxx industry is harming YYY so we should switch to products from industry ZZZ. This new battle is exacerbated by social media and agenda driven "news" outlets. Many people are now coerced into choosing a side. Tricky business since both camps have "Scientific" supporting their cause. Of course, the ultimate jackpot is obtained by getting the govt to coerce the citizens. Using the IRS seems to be a popular method these days. 

I'm heading back to the workshop to listen to some nice waltz music while I work on another project. Hard to go wrong with a good waltz... Think of the theme to Lonesome Dove by Basil Poledouris. Thats just a suggestion, you can choose your own music :^)


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Deleted, wrong area of forum...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Anthropogenic solar intensification.


All right, that's it!!! I demand that Congress do something about intensifying sunlight!!!


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

*Re: RE : Climate Alarm --> Who's at the wheel?*



ndplume said:


> Science, these days, seems to be like medicine, you can shop around until you get the opinion that fits your view. Follow the money in most cases to find the incentive.
> 
> Check out this article for an unexpected admission -
> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...lobal-warming-plateaued-last-15-years-despite


What else can you expect from a website that has as its main purpose:


> "Exposing and combating liberal news bias".


We don't know to any great degree of certainty if global warming is caused by human influence, and we also don't know if small time-scale observations are indicative of a long-term trend, but it seems prudent to take precautions and at least reduce our levels of pollution and energy waste. Such actions are not really harmful to the economy, and in fact create more "clean and green" jobs. The only harm may be to the profits of big energy companies, who predictably promote and fund misinformation such as presented in this website and others with similar mission statements.

And, I agree that further discussion belongs in the "Climate Change Debate" thread.


----------



## ndplume (May 31, 2010)

*Re: RE : Climate Alarm --> Who's at the wheel?*



PStechPaul said:


> What else can you expect from a website that has as its main purpose:


I expect them to expose hog wash like this. But it seems you stopped short. The source of the article is the NY Times. Hardly exposing and fighting liberal bias. They ARE liberal bias, even if they don't know it or admit it. That's why I said it was UNEXPECTED admission. I'd never expect the NYTimes to publish an article contrary to global warming. 



PStechPaul said:


> <snip>... but it seems prudent to take precautions ...


So we should take precautions against global warming or global cooling? I'd suggest we need to take precautions to make sure the practitioners of GW don't convince the geniuses in congress to waste a bunch more of our tax dollars on schemes whose intent is to control the climate, but whose effect is the line the pockets of the practitioners.

If individuals would like to change their behavior to "save the planet", more power to them (or is it less?). But don't foist that belief on the neighbors by using the Govt. Sell the neighbors on an economic basis or individual basis. Surely the argument is so patently obvious, people will jump on the bandwagon without being coerced by the Govt.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: RE : Climate Alarm --> Who's at the wheel?*

Hi ndplume

I suggest you do a bit of studying, 

Inconvenient FACTS
Global temperature is rising
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
CO2 levels are rising
The carbon in the CO2 reveals that it is mostly from fossil fuels (isotope analysis) - and hence human caused
Sea levels are rising
Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency
Oceanic acidity is rising
Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting 

The "Ice age warnings" back in the 70,s were a small number of papers - and what do you know "further research" showed it was not happening!
Scientists change their minds when more facts show the old theory was not correct
It is the main difference between scientists and politicians

The other thing is - most of the things we should be doing to combat Global Warming are
THINGS WE SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY
Better insulation,
More efficient vehicles,
More efficient appliances
Make polluters pay for the cost of the pollution


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

*Re: RE : Climate Alarm --> Who's at the wheel?*



Duncan said:


> Hi ndplume
> 
> The other thing is - most of the things we should be doing to combat Global Warming are
> THINGS WE SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY
> ...


And IMO that is correct. If you want to continue to drive companies out of America or out of business, continue to have the EPA pile up mandates on fossil fuels. Working in construction, I know THERE IS A TON OF STUFF THAT CAN BE DONE AND CHEAPLY OFTEN to reduce energy consumption. Solar water heating is cheap and reliable as an alternate means of preheating boiler water, preheating water for water heaters and can be good for home heating supplementation quite inexpensively. 

Industrial lighting often can be reduced by over half and produce better lighting but industry can't see past paying my bill to have it done. I have one customer who's calculated payback on a $10000 upgrade was less than one year. It's been over a year since I proposed it to them. Far too often businesses just won't consider anything short of a mandate unfortnately.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: RE : Climate Alarm --> Who's at the wheel?*



ElectriCar said:


> THERE IS A TON OF STUFF THAT CAN BE DONE AND CHEAPLY OFTEN to reduce energy consumption. Solar water heating is cheap and reliable as an alternate means of preheating boiler water, preheating water for water heaters and can be good for home heating supplementation quite inexpensively.
> 
> Industrial lighting often can be reduced by over half and produce better lighting but industry can't see past paying my bill to have it done. I have one customer who's calculated payback on a $10000 upgrade was less than one year. It's been over a year since I proposed it to them. Far too often businesses just won't consider anything short of a mandate unfortnately.


I live in New Zealand - this is the warmest (in winter) country I have lived in
WITH THE COLDEST HOUSES!
Houses are built to minimum standards - million dollar houses where the pipes freeze!

The only way to improve is to mandate higher standards


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

*Re: RE : Climate Alarm --> Who's at the wheel?*



Duncan said:


> Hi ndplume
> 
> I suggest you do a bit of studying,
> 
> ...


 ... but is lower than in the Middle Ages, and we're due for an Ice Age...


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas


... that make up 0.3% of our atmosphere. H2O is also a greenhouse gas, has more impact on temperatures than CO2, is far more variable in the total % of our atmosphere it comprises, and makes up closer to 3% of our atmosphere.


> CO2 levels are rising


...and in another 50 years, CO2 will make up 0.4% of our atmosphere, but will be on the decline as most combustion power sources are retired in favor of solar. Too, if we still think it's a problem in 50 years, we will have multiple better solutions which cost less than the "Carbon Credits" scam currently being pandered as Rx for a faux crisis.


> The carbon in the CO2 reveals that it is mostly from fossil fuels (isotope analysis) - and hence human caused


... or not. Giving Duncan the benefit of the doubt is always a stretch, but in this case I think he means to say "the CO2 which is not being naturally re-absorbed into the system" - which is obvious because other sources of CO2 are spewing daily, and if there weren't already some kind of leveling mechanism our atmosphere would be 100% CO2 by now.


> Sea levels are rising


..., but only in Duncan's dreams. It has been conclusively shown that the islands upon which that bogus claim staked their claim were actually sinking, and Antarctic ice is growing and absorbing more water than Greenland's glaciers are losing. Of course, the ignorant might say that if all of the Arctic ice melts we would have sea level rises!!!! However, the scientific among us note that water displaces exactly the same amount whether it is solid or liquid.


> Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency


...compared to Duncan's imagination again. All that we know for certain is that we have better data, and that with higher populations more people are affected when bad weather does strike.


> Oceanic acidity is rising


 ... more as a result of fertilizers than from CO2.


> Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting


... as it always does, but more Arctic ice is being created than the ice melt.


> The "Ice age warnings" back in the 70,s were a small number of papers - and what do you know "further research" showed it was not happening!


...the "research" being the local news reporting that, yes, again this year there are no glaciers spreading south. However, we still haven't explained the last several ice ages - so that doesn't mean that we aren't about to have one. 



> Scientists change their minds when more facts show the old theory was not correct


... and other scientists change their mind when they can only get funding if their thesis is politically correct.


> It is the main difference between scientists and politicians


... except when the funding comes from government and is allocated by those same politicians.



> THINGS WE SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY


... because it saves you money...


> Better insulation,
> More efficient vehicles,
> More efficient appliances


and 
Make Congress balance its budget like we have to do.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: RE : Climate Alarm --> Who's at the wheel?*

There is the world the Phantom lives in
And there is the world the rest of us live in
It's a shame but some of us have to live in the real world


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I think Phantom is a pretty sharp guy and does his homework before he posts, unlike me sometimes...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Sorry guys but you'll have to take this back to the climate change debate thread.


----------

