www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall More Proof of Global Warming?

Geological and paleontological records cannot provide the granularity necessary to say that ice packs and glaciers are receding at an unprecedented rate. Those disciplines can provide time intervals measured in centuries or millennia, whereas you want to draw conclusions based on data covering at most three decades. There is no way to tell at present whether (a) the glaciers and ice packs are in the midst of some radical new phase of recession; or (b) whether whatever recession we have is due to the continuation of the warming trend that followed the end of the Little Ice Age (remember that?) which ended only in the mid-19th century; or (c) whether the glaciers and ice packs are receding at all (evidence points to stasis with seasonal and annual variations about a norm).

Even assuming that the glaciers are receding at an accelerated pace, so what? They aren't quite back to the place they were in the 11th century when Greenland was colonized. And there is no evidence that human activity is responsible for any of this, so it seems ridiculous to panic and engage in radically disruptive economic behaviors that will, in the end, hurt far more people (mainly the poorest of the poor) than they benefit.

At the bottom of it all, environmentalism is a luxury only the rich can afford. If you want more environmentalism, then help the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans and the Latin Americans pull themselves out of poverty as quickly as possible. Help build more coal-fired electrical plants. And if you want Europe and the U.S. to reduce their greenhouse emissions, encourage more nuclear power. But don't for a minute believe that immature, tinker-toy "renewable" energy solutions do anything other than help pampered American and European environmentalists feel smug.

Uhhh, excuse me, a plain old regular person, for interjecting here, but haven't we taken this far enough? This is getting pretty old.
"ole' Abby"
<*)))><

Abby, why both sides in the discussion cannot admit that the truth in the matter is between the two extremes is beyond me.

What would those extremes be? On the one hand, we have those who say, definitely, man is causing massive climate change which will cause catastrophic disruption around the world, and only an equally massive intervention of government into the lives of ordinary people can stop it. On the other hand, we have people who say the evidence is not there and therefore we should bide our time. Those of us who say "not so fast" are denounced as "Global Warming Deniers", a phrase chosen deliberately to place us on the same moral plane as those who would deny the Holocaust of the Jews (kind of ironic, in my case).

For my part, I will only say that environmentalism is a religion for those who have not done the math.

Nicely said. The logical and appropriate approach to the whole issue of climate change is to look at solid science. Anyone can come along and make exaggerated, extreme predictions of what could happen (i.e., the oceans will rise 20 feet in the next hundred years). But wise, non-extremist people demand proof and don't embrace "group think". One does not compromise and seek a middle with a prediction that cannot be supported by solid science.

The measured scientific data does not support the idea of man-created global warming. Measured data shows that the climate change we've seen in the recent past is in accord with the natural climate change that has occurred in past centuries. Some of the global warming extremists see this and are now quickly changing from predicting dire "global warming" to predicting more generic "climate change". That in itself speaks volumes.

I would again ask the global warming folks to explain with solid science the cause of the "Middle Age Warm-Up" and the "Little Ice Age" that followed. Science has not explained it and it was a far bigger change to the climate then even the what the most extreme global warming folk are predicting now.

I continue to suggest that they forget about making unprovable, unrealistic predictions. Focus on good stewardship.

I'm 100 pct pro-environment, and am concerned with a number of related issues such as our dying forests around the Greater Chicago area. However in regards to "Global Warming" I only see extremists and fanatics on one side of the issue, and that of course is the side that insists the planet is rapidly warming up. Let's clean up our environment, but let's do it with our own iniatives and stay well clear of any global agreements that violate our sovereignty.

A couple of books I'd recommend reading are The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan, and Westviking : The Ancient Norse In Greenland And North America by Farley Mowat.

Stuart (check your pms), I would argue that any one would takes an absolutist position is an extremist on either fringe. If one says that the earth cycles through environmental climatic changes that is fine; one also has to admit that man does exacerbate the situation by his use of carbon fuels. We can quibble over how much mankind contributes to the situation. I believe the jury is out on both issues as I spelled out above in this post.

How about the proposal to tax farmers for the emission of greenhouse gases when their cows "burp" as our recent newpaper had it? Releasing all that methane isn't good--in fact, the article said that cows emit more toxic gases than any other source.

Bob

Except for trees (what makes the Great Smokey Mountains smokey?), volcanoes and forest fires.

JZ rightly points that you don’t take an absolutist position. Man contributes to environmental problems but good science does not suggest he contributes to global warming (since there isn't any warming that is really measurable or predictable an the earth temp is the same as it was in the 1930s). That’s why I insist on solid science. The scientists tell us that all the vehicles in the United States added together contribute 1.5% of the world's CO2 emissions (more CO2 emissions come from trees!). 1.5% is a very tiny amount. It is correct and proper to look for ways to reduce those emissions. But levying large taxes on Americans (i.e., part of the cap and trade penalties currently being debated in Congress) is rather silly. It is much better to use a carrot and free market competition to promote cleaner technologies. One can successfully appeal to others to embrace good stewardship. No extremism necessary.

It seems to me that the hot air coming from Congress is far more dangerous then any cow!

"The scientists tell us that all the vehicles in the United States added together contribute 1.5% of the world's CO2 emissions (more CO2 emissions come from trees!). 1.5% is a very tiny amount."

It should also be pointed out that 98% of automobile exhaust is nothing but CO2 and water vapor--a sign of how clean modern cars have become. This is one reason why attempts to make cars even more clean is such a futile endeavor: we are on the flat part of the curve, where every marginal improvement costs as much as all the improvements that have come before. This is a classic "Make perfect the enemy of the good" situation.

And, of course, "zero-emission" cars aren't all that "clean", anyway--it's just that the sources of pollution are somewhere else (out of sight, out of mind). Take, e.g., an all-electric car: the power to charge its battery comes from an electrical generating plant, which is most likely powered by coal or natural gas. Nuclear power would be clean, but not politically correct (same goes for hydro-electric these days: dams are bad!). Solar and wind turbine generation is politically correct and green, but utterly impractical.

That aside, nobody ever seems to take into account the environmental cost of all those batteries (whether lead-acide or lithium foam), the raw materials for which are incredibly toxic, the production of which extremely dirty and energy-intensive, the disposal of which a problem we have yet to address (as someone intimately familiar with diesel-electric submarines, I have a pretty good idea what that entails).

If we go with fuel cells, we have much the same problem, plus the added joys of producing, transporting and storing hydrogen, which can be (as NASA knows all too well) a very squirrelly element to contain). At present, contrary to those who think that we get the H2 by hydrolysis of H2O, we get it by cracking methane and other hydrocarbons. Not very green, that. If you want to do hydrolysis, you need a lot more electrical generation capacity, which can only be provided by nuclear energy.

In short, the environmental downside of these new types of vehicle are pretty large, while the benefits are marginal indeed. Rational cost-benefit analysis would say the fastest way to improve fuel economy would be switching to clean diesel fuel (not ethanol, which has a negative energy budget--it takes more energy to make ethanol and bring it to the pump than the ethanol itself contains), but diesels are politically incorrect here, even though in Europe the majority of new cars are diesel-powered (and a joy to drive in standard).

Stuart is correct with his facts.

Which is why I would never consider a hybrid. Financially they don't save much money over the long run since you need to spend several thousand dollars to replace the batteries (they did have about a 3 year life and it has gotten better but still). And environmentally they cannot totally recycle the batteries (they appear to mostly wind up in dumps).

And then there are the mercury-filled light bulbs they are pushing. If they break and you get mercury on you should get to an ER. But ERs are not all equipped to treat mercury poison (even though it would be hopefully minor poisoning since the amount contained in the bulb is on the small side). But there is huge environment damage occurring in China (communists tend not to care about environmental matters). And the very worst problem is all the health issues being caused among the working folk in China that produce the bulbs. I'm on travel this week and the state I'm in is (according the local news) trying to pass a law to force the manufacturer of mercury-filled light bulbs to pay the costs of collecting and recycling them so they don't wind up in dumps (breaking and contaminating the water supply). Yet our national government is trying to make use of them mandatory!

Yes, I'm a bit off topic as this has nothing to do with the claims of global warming that is the topic of this thread.

I own a Civic Hybrid and when speaking with my service guy at the dealer I asked him about the battery life for my car. He told me that the average mileage that the batteries need replaced from his experience is about 115,000, so most people will get about 7 years out of them.

I love my hybrid, but I'm looking at getting a Jetta TDI. I think I would like something that still gets good gas mileage, but as a little more power, these hills of Western PA are rather taxing for my little car.

Dear John,

Scientists do in fact have a lot to learn about the environment, and I'm not sure their 'models' will ever be perfect. However, sampling, measuring, and analysis methods have greatly improved and have been standardized in the past 40 years and the global community has reached a consensus that our current life style is not sustainable, hence why dramatic new environmental regulations are comming into play.

You believe that the Northern glacial ice will come back this or next year and return to it's Southern most line of 30 years ago. None of the governments who make claim to the 'Far North' think so, including Canada, Russia, Norway, and the USA. As far as they are concerned it is now a matter of when, not if, the Northern passage will be open all year. The Panama Canal will soon become obsolete. Perhaps it is a you say "just part of a cycle", but many governments are investing heavily into the new reality of a warmer North.

Then there are other effects of global greenhouse gases. Here are some other 'facts':

"CO2 is natural" as you say, but only in low concentrations. 500 million years ago there was about 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today and many plants and animals flourished. That was "natural" then, but today that concentration would be lethal to much of life on the planet. So what's "natural" then would be lethal today. Further, higher concentration of CO2 can cause much more damage than greenhouse gas related environmental changes.

A new study has determined that water seems to be taking on carbon dioxide (CO2) 100 times faster than the atmosphere.

It should therefore come as no surprise that coral reefs around the world are also dying at an alarming rate and many scientists believe that increased atmospheric CO2 levels is the main reason. Ocean acidification is a major threat to corals, clams and any shell-forming animals. As pH declines, the water becomes corrosive and eats away at the creatures hard exteriors.

Recent experiments designed to test the risks of burying anthropogenic carbon underground have shown that CO2 can turn groundwater into an acid, too. If a reservoir of CO2 were to leak into an aquifer, water that humans rely on for irrigation and drinking water could start leeching heavy metals, benzene, and poisonous gases out of the surrounding rock. Most people are worried about CO2 escaping from below and coming up, If it does, its going to bring all kinds of things with it, he added.

Your belief that "Liberals want to punish" and "Conservatives want to reward" environmental compliance is real nonesense. Liberals are at the vanguard of the environmental movement and will both reward AND punish to improve it. Conservatives on the other hand of will let their children and grandchilren die of environmental polution just so that the 'Liberals' don't get things their way. Can't let them Liberals be right.

On Communism we both agree. Communism never produced anything that man could be proud of, and brough so much despair and sadness to humanity. Only President turned Prime Minister (but still really Presidnet) Putin and his followers still feel a need to praise Communism.

It is not 'I' who has introduced politics into this thread, but rather those who evoked the name of AL GORE. Please review the tread to better understand who introduced politics into the thread first. They should have been warned the first time not to do it.

I.F.

Bob Said: "How about the proposal to tax farmers for the emission of greenhouse gases when their cows "burp" as our recent newpaper had it? Releasing all that methane isn't good--in fact, the article said that cows emit more toxic gases than any other source."


Dear Bob,

Your comments would be funny if they are not so close to the truth. Our American diet could not be sustained by a global population for two reason: first, there would not be enough land on which to raise the animals, and yes you guessed it, their gases would create a toxic environment which could not sustain most life. By the way, Earth did have a methane atmosphere at one time, but that was a long long time ago when there was no life on Earth.

I.F.