Posted 5 months, 6 days ago in 
Loading ...
J. Eugene Fox, in his April 30 letter to the editor, chastises Joe Aaeng for advocating that S. Fred Singer would bring credibility to the anti-global-warming arguments.
Perhaps his criticisms of Singer, as relying “on oil companies” for his views, are correct. However, Mr. Fox goes on to spout the “consensus view of thousands of research scientists” have agreed “unequivocally that human activities are modifying the concentration of greenhouse gases causing most of the observed warming over the last 50 years.” He goes on with “concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.” Well, I am a skeptic on the matter.
Nobody, but nobody, can predict climate change, including Al Gore. I suggest reading the book by Michael Crichton, State of Fear. While a work of fiction, there are a host of verifiable references therein.
It is most interesting to note that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies changed its Web site to show less temperature data (before 1880) after publication of the hardcover book. Check the references and some of the bibliography, not all of which support the author’s view. Whether a “believer” or not, the book is worth reading.
I feel we are now caught up in a “cause-of-the-decade.” Models used for Gore’s predictions of catastrophe, use assumptions of change. “Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.”
CREIGHTON BRICKER
Grand Junction
87 Responses to “Debate far from over on climate change”
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you for the clarificaiton on these issues and amen to the screw up stuff
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yessiree, Crate, it’s far from over. We need real proof, like stacks of corpses on our doorsteps before we can really make any accurate observations and wrap our hands around this hoax. Absolutely no reason to make any significant changes in lifestyle or worldview in the meantime.
The solution, it seems, is to just kick back, enjoy a tall cool one, putt a few holes, and READ MORE FICTION.
As they said in the X-Files: “The Truth Is Out There”
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If assumptions are the “mother of all screw-ups” then boy does the Bush administration have a lot of mothers. And should we mention that John McCain has told us that the debate over global warming is over and that it is indeed manmade?
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, if John McCain says so, then that must be the way it is. If Bush says it, then it is a lie, but if it serves your purposes, then it is gospel.
What was that “garbage in, gospel out”.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Verifiable references! You bet. And if you go and try to verify them, you will learn that Crichton is a decent writer of fiction, but that he is inept at understanding climate science. (But at least you are using the hardcover book, since we all know hardcover books are more authoritative than paperbacks!)
Here’s one site to show how wrong Crichton is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/
And here’s another:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/
And if you want to visit the GISS site to see if they agree with Mr. Bricker or Mr. Crichton, here it is:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
(Note that this page includes an analysis of solar output too. Note how solar output has been declining recently, but temperatures just keep going up!)
As for predicting climate? Here’s a climate prediction for you:
June 2008 will be warmer than January 2008 in Grand Junction.
How much are you willing to put up in a bet that my climate prediction is wrong?
So, yes, the SCIENTIFIC debate about global warming is over. The SCIENTIFIC debate over whether humans are contributing to it is over.
The ideologues will continue to deny it. But then ideologues never were much good at understanding science.
Posted May 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Aww Bruce86,
From another letter written by someone slightly more knowledgeable than you.
” The IPCC has about 3,000 government-appointed members, of whom there are about 50 climatologists, and fewer yet climate modelers. On the other hand, some 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that the climate models are too primitive to be useful. Look up http://www.oism.org to see the list. ”
So, no, the debate isn’t over because the scary people don’t much like factual date.
And as for you “prediction” of June 2008 being warmer than January 2008.
I’ll take the bet if I get to choose the hemisphere.
And this ” The ideologues will continue to deny it. But then ideologues never were much good at understanding science. ” would be the algore supporters?
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson quotes the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and its bogus petition as though this were a genuine source of information. This so called institute is in reality a one person shed on a farm in Oregon run by an eccentric biochemist, Arthur Robinson, whose principal claim to fame is that he was kicked out of the Linus Pauling Institute for research that Nobel prize winner Pauling called “amateurish” and “inadequate”. Anybody can sign his petition and very few of the signers are actually scientists. Even among the scientists there is practically no one with credentials in climatology. Robinson himself is a right wing religious freak with no expertise at all in climate research and he has lied about his self published paper being in a peer reviewed journal. For a complete expose of this truly shady operation, see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine on the internet.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 10:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Creighton Bricker writes that he is a skeptic on the matter of anthopogenic global warming and advises us to read the book by Michael Crichton as a source of data. Crichton is a writer of fantasy and fiction whose MD degree does not even remotely qualify him to speak as an authority on the subject of climatology research. Bricker should cite some peer reviewed papers in journals dealing with the sciences of climatology; otherwise we might suspect that his objections are ideologically motivated rather than scientifically.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Most folks in this country are not going to be reading scientific journals in order to convince themselves, one way or the other, on the issue of global warming. I suspect that the average American will not become truly involved in the issue until really tough measures are proposed that would cost HIM a significant amount of money. I am convinced that before any such measures are passed, there is going to have to be a real public debate, between opposing sides, on television, on prime time. Then, if the global warming side can prove that the huge costs required to make a significant reduction in carbon emmissions are warranted, and make the case to the average American that he needs to pay the price or there will be catastrophic consequences, we will see anything significant take place. Until then, it’s all talk.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish Frog argues that we need public debate on the issue of Anthropogenic global warming. Scientific truths are not subject to opinion polls and do not depend upon the debating skills of the people involved. Since most of us are laymen in most areas of intellectual endeavor, we have to depend upon the conclusions of those who make a particular area the subject of their life’s work and study. In many areas of science, new theories are hotly debated with a variety of scientific viewpoints regarding the evidence. In these instances the layman simply has to adopt a wait and see attitude until the data and evidence are strong enough to convince the majority of scientists in the field. However, in the question of human caused global warming, I have rarely seen such an overwhelming consensus among those who are trained and do research in this field. The nay-sayers who are legitimate experts in climatology are confined to a tiny handful opposed by the conclusions of many thousands. If we carry Bullishfrog’s notions to their logical conclusion, then we must publicly debate every scientific issue which has an effect on the average American such as: Should we use monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of melanoma?
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JohnB asks the question as to how some view this as a “political” issue. The science itself, I would submit, should not be a political issue at all as few are qualified to understand it and the many scientific disciplines have to go into it, never mind the significance of the findings. The only thing we, as individuals not qualified in those areas can do is ask the question: If it is true, then what must we do in order to combat it, and reverse the trends.
On the other hand, we always have those who are “contrarian” by nature. Such individuals, one person says one thing and they feel obliged to say “No. That’s not true”. All too frequently they have no justification or oppose, mind you, they get the satisfaction merely by opposing. Such individuals are not the least interested at all in “debating”, what they want to do is argue. And there is a huge difference between them. Debate (unless it is merely an academic exercise) has the objective of exchanging views and fostering discussion with the possibility of arriving at some type of understanding or comprehension of scope. Arguing, on the other hand, is merely an attempt to “shout someone down”, in the mistaken notion that the one who has the last word, or who can shout another down has somehow “won.”
As to “experts”, the best definition of “expert” I have found, and which I find totally applicable is: “One who knows more about less and less, until they know absolutely everything about nothing.” Those who have studied the record of those calling themselves “expert”, and oddly enough a Bill Moyers program dealing with this appeared on RMPBS this last Friday (expertology), the record is that their record indicates that they are rignt only 50% of the time. In order words, if we follow their “expert” advice, we have no more chance of being right than if we “flipped a coin.”
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK,
” The only thing we, as individuals not qualified in those areas can do is ask the question: If it is true, then what must we do in order to combat it, and reverse the trends. ”
The key word in there is “IF”.
But if another person questions the validity then we become;
” “contrarian” by nature. ” followed by;
” Such individuals, one person says one thing and they feel obliged to say “No. That’s not true”. All too frequently they have no justification or oppose, mind you, they get the satisfaction merely by opposing. ”
So, even if the data the theory is based on is faulty, by admission of those presenting he theory, we are;
” Such individuals are not the least interested at all in “debating”, what they want to do is argue. And there is a huge difference between them. Debate (unless it is merely an academic exercise) has the objective of exchanging views and fostering discussion with the possibility of arriving at some type of understanding or comprehension of scope. Arguing, on the other hand, is merely an attempt to “shout someone down”, in the mistaken notion that the one who has the last word, or who can shout another down has somehow “won.” ”
In other words, if we agree, we can be considered intelligent and well mannered?
If we disagree we become ill mannered, argumentative oafs, with no purpose than to cause emotional grief?
The ‘computer models’ to forecast globular worming did not take into account the effects of either increased evaporation theoretically caused by worming, nor did the models include solar activity such as sunspots.
Also missing from the models was the previously known about el nino and el nina cycles.
But, if we question the theory of globular worming, WE are the stupid, argumentative ones?
To quote Mr. Borgen.
” • John B.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, you seem to prefer this blog to be the property of the lowest common denominator. Is it about ideas or is just a game of gotcha? Your posts would seem to indicate the latter. Have fun. The dumbing down of America is alive and well in this space.”
Precisely who was he describing as the “lowest common denominator” ?
Those who question the validity of data known to be flawed by the presentors of said data?
Or those who feel they must protect the flawed theories from any ‘deniers’ or doubters?
I do not view the vast majority of users on this site to be “the lowest common denominator”.
Apparently Mr. Borgen does, or he would not have said it.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis Johnson states: “The ‘computer models’ to forecast globular worming(sic) did not take into account the effects of either increased evaporation theoretically caused by worming(sic), nor did the models include solar activity such as sunspots.” To make a statement such as this without reference implies that the writer is himself an authority in the field. Would you please enlighten the rest of, Mr. Johnson, about your expertise in the field and give us a list of your publications in climatology and your training in the field.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
R. Laitres posts the following quotation: As to “experts”, the best definition of “expert” I have found, and which I find totally applicable is: “One who knows more about less and less, until they know absolutely everything about nothing.” Mr. Laitres then states that experts are right about 50% of the time, no better than chance.
I assume therefore Mr. Laitres that if your urologist tells you that you have prostate cancer, you would flip a coin to determine whether or not to seek treatment?
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 6:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, did I say vast majority? NO!. But I’m sure you’ll quickly try to change the subject. The lowest common denominator is not a majority. “Known to be flawed—? I don’t recall seeing any credentials of those flattering themselves to “know”. When the difference between those did the science and published their findings so outnumber the those who stand on the sidelines saying “yeah, but” thir must be something to the science. You “know” that the things you mentioned were not considered? Let’s hear about any prominent believer in the majority who confirms that is the case. If that is the case, are they trying to cover it up? Where’s the proof of that?
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 7:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class52 makes the assumption that because I disagree with the connotations of “expert”, that I would disregard the advice of my urologist if he tells me that I have indications of cancer. That is a projection which was not in my statement, and one which is but a projection.
Would I “disregard” the advice of the doctor. No, because he knows more than I do but, such does not mean that he knows everything about it either. So, I might then obtain a second opinion. If, looking at the same raw data, the second comes up with a differing opinion, I may then get a third opinion, etc.
The problem arises when the word “expert” is used to imply that someone knows “everything” about even a single subject then, based upon that, claims infallibility. No person knows “everything” about any subject. If they believe differently, then either their mind has shut down or, believing they already know it (the most serious barrier to learning) they don’t bother to learn anything new.
One of the classic examples taken out of medicine is, having a brain tumor, which one would I choose to correct it. Would it be a surgeon who has vast experience, or a pshychiatrist. They both deal with malfunction of the brain. Why pick one over the other?
Then, one might say that I need a surgeon but, what type of surgeon? Both are excellent surgeons who know their “business.” Ah, you say, then any one of them would do. Not so, I say. Surgeon A is a neurosurgeon while surgeon B is a proctologist. Is one a better surgeon than another, no. But, one would hope that the one needing the surgery would be able to know wich surgeon to pick. At least most people would.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 9:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres writes: The problem arises when the word “expert” is used to imply that someone knows “everything” about even a single subject then, based upon that, claims infallibility. No person knows “everything” about any subject.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 9:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres writes: “The problem arises when the word “expert” is used to imply that someone knows “everything” about even a single subject then, based upon that, claims infallibility. No person knows “everything” about any subject.”
This is truly a “straw man” argument. I can’t imagine any educated person defining the word, expert, in those terms. As my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary says, an expert is someone who has special skill in or knowledge of a particular subject derived from training or experience. It says nothing about claiming to be infallible nor is that implied in the use of the term, expert.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 10:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 says that the can’t imagine “any educated person defining the word , expert, in those terms” as his “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary” defines the word. Classof52 perhaps needs to distinguish between dictionary definitions, with which we are all familiar, and distinguish between that starting definition, with which we can all agree, and how the meaning changes depending upon how and why it is used; i.e. in context. Dictionary definitions are so often merely a starting point. Neither, may I suggest is Webster’s the definitive text on meanings. For that, one needs to go to the Oxford Dictionary of the English language. One would think that any educated person would recognize both of those realities.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 10:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In post #9, bullishfrog wrote:
“Most folks in this country are not going to be reading scientific journals in order to convince themselves, one way or the other, on the issue of global warming.”
Well, if you (and others, including WLJ) are not reading scientific journals, then you really don’t understand the science behind the issue. If this is the case, your opinion, while interesting, really doesn’t matter one whit as to whether or not global warming has a human contribution or not.
And if you don’t understand the practice of science, then you may not realize that rhetorical debates are not used in ANY scientific field to determine whether one hypothesis is better than another.
I’m not saying you are stupid, just that you are not adequately informed about this issue to be able to tell whether or not the science is sound.
BTW, I really want to know, what is your opinion on whether electrons orbit the atomic nucleus in planetary-like rings or in clouds of quantum probability? This is a vexing problem and the 7th grade science textbook from the 70’s that I found didn’t present a final conclusion. Also, I’ve found that every nuclear physicist I talk to refuses to meet me for a public debate on this topic. Can anyone predict where a particular electron will be tomorrow or not? Atomic “theory” is just a bunch of assumptions, and anyone who says otherwise wants to have Al Gore’s baby.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 11:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ,
Regarding your post #6. Thanks for agreeing with me that climate predictions can have a high likelihood of being correct. Much higher than weather prediction.
(BTW, no you do not get to pick the hemisphere. I all ready made this clear by making my prediction for GJ, right here in western Colorado.)
So, you still willing to take the bet? Come on, aren’t you going to support Mr. Bricker any more?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 12:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To Classof52: I must apologize for being too quick on the “Submit Comment” button. After reading my own post, it sounds that I am taking a “slam” at you. That was not at all my intent. As a matter of fact, I agree fully with you that we are much too loose with the English language, and with words. We seemingly distort their meanings “on a whim”; i.e. when it suits our particular purpose. Would that all of us, myself included, were far more respectful of it. We might then understand each other better and avoid many misunderstandings.
Take care.
R. Laitres
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 7:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52 writes: “If we carry Bullishfrog’s notions to their logical conclusion, then we must publicly debate every scientific issue which has an effect on the average American such as: Should we use monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of melanoma?”———————Sir, we live in a Democracy. Until the time comes when we are led by a dictator, who can unilateraly impose his will on the people, we are still going to have to convince the voters that an issue that will significantly affect them is worth the cost. If you think that a presidential candidate can be elected today on a platform calling for a $4 tax on gasoline, and a doubling of his winter heating bill, can be elected, yuo are living in another planet.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 7:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In response to post #13:
” Classof52
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pm PM This User Report this comment
Willis Johnson states: “The ‘computer models’ to forecast globular worming(sic) did not take into account the effects of either increased evaporation theoretically caused by worming(sic), nor did the models include solar activity such as sunspots.” To make a statement such as this without reference implies that the writer is himself an authority in the field. Would you please enlighten the rest of, Mr. Johnson, about your expertise in the field and give us a list of your publications in climatology and your training in the field. ”
Sorry about not posting my sources from whence I gathered my knowledge on this particular subject.
ABC, NBC, CBS, API, UPI, MSNBC, CNN. HEADLINENEWS, THE WEATHER CHANNEL, as well as numerous other ‘news’ outlets.
My own training in the field of globular werming.
I watch the Discovery Channel, because everybody knows they never misrepresent science.
For instance, one fine evening I watched two different, back to back, shows on glubal wirming.
The first lead us through the mass hysteria of how and why the whirled is going to turn into a vast desert wasteland caused by ‘greenhouse gasses’.
All that newly builtup heat is going to cause more evaporation, which causes more snow to fall on Iceland, which is going to cause the glaciers to flow faster, which in tun causes more icebegs to calves and fall into the Atlantic Ocean.
All them thar icebergs is gonna drift South and run smack dab into the nce, toasty warm Glufstream.
They will then melt in all that warm water from the south, which will cool the gulfstream, causing it to sink beneath the foamy brine.
Since the Gulfstream went underwater, it will no longer flow on it’s usual path through the North Atlantic, and on over past the English Isles, which derive a great deal of warmth from the GulfStream.
Great Britain, as well as nearly all of Western Europe will become much cooler and enter another mini ice age.
And all that wuz packed into a mere 2 hours on the Discovery Channel.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 7:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To the subject of my own ‘published’ papers.
Here’s one, on the fly, so to speak.
Global Warming, were it to be accurate as presented causes it’s own problems.
Warmer air over the oceans would cause an increase of evaporation.
That causes an increase in humidity (so much for the arid desert scenario as seen in TV ads).
The increased humidity in the atmosphere would condense into clouds which are best known for blocking sunlight from striking the Earth thereby warming the surface of the planet.
Those clouds usually turn into rain, snow, or some other form of precipitation which generally helps cool the planet.
The IPCC paper acknowledges that ‘evaporation’ was not considered in its models because, “Not enough is known on what effects such a phenomena would have on actual data.”
Quite obviously, they neglected to ask me.
Any more questions?
How about the little guy there in the back row?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 7:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog, exactly the kind of thinking that hastens the demise of our country. Any price to pay by current generations for the benefit of future generations is too high. The “me” generation seems to only concern themselves with today’s economic condition and the ability to accumulate wealth with increasing comfort. It’s as if the planet will no longer exist after they are gone so “get while the getting is good”. If those who came before us had similar attitudes we would not have countless “things” and institutions today that make the opportunities for “getting” with little or no concern for future generations. We used to be “builders”. Now the ethic seems to be of “consumers and users” and let future generations totally fend for themselves. If we leave the natural environment befouled and the resources depleted, so what?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 7:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, whatever you think of the current generation, you still need to convince them that the price to pay is worth the objective. My point is that the public is not yet convinced that the danger posed by global warming is sufficient to merit the cost that they would be asked to pay to make a dent on the problem. Until they are convinced, nothing of significance will get done. You can call them stupid, or uncaring, or whatever, but they still vote.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 8:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Another factor that I haven’t seen discussed here is the fact that the United States contributes only a small percentage to the global warming. I understand that China is a major polluter, that is pretty much verified by the pictures that are on the news about the upcoming summer olympics. Brazil is another one, a comprehensive article on the destruction of the rain forests in todays Sentinel. So until the other countries get on board and clean up their acts, anything that we do is neglible, other than to make a “feel good” political impression.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
After reading the previous post I meant to say that the US contributes only a small part to global pollution. Sorry.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This would be interesting, gfbyers, if it was true.
In fact, the US has about 5% of the world’s population but consumes 23% of its energy (and thus is responsible for about a fourth of the human contribution to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere).
So, until we clean up our acts, it’s more than hypocritical to point fingers at others. It’s more than “feel good.” This is a moral issue. What do you have against personal responsibility?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86, you said;
” In fact, the US has about 5% of the world’s population but consumes 23% of its energy (and thus is responsible for about a fourth of the human contribution to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere).”
Actually, our very own, home growed EPA has restricted any pollutants from being emitted into the atmosphere that we “produce” far less that our percentage of ‘energy usage’ would dictate on an equal basis with every other polluting nation on this particular planet.
Now, since the ice caps on Mars are still meting, I don’t know what China is doing there.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In reply to WLJ’s post #24,
In other words, you have no expertise except for what the TV networks provide in 30 second bites? And you admit that you have no training in climate science. So, your opinion on global warming issues carries as much weight as, well, a carrot’s.
(As for your claim about clouds, namely that they “are best known for blocking sunlight from striking the Earth thereby warming the surface of the planet.” Have you ever been outside on a cloudy night? Ever notice how cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights? Ever wonder why? Now do you have a better understanding why your opinion is not sought by actual climate scientists? There’s a reason you were assigned a seat in the back row.)
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now that you mention it, clouds form an insulating blanket trapping whatever temperature below until such time as the clouds disperse and allow free movement of air.
The “warmer nights” of which you speak normally occur during those times when politicians and imbeciles spout the garbage du jour, and heat up the lower atmosphere.
Personally, I have been out in sub zero weather and failed to notice the warming cloud cover when the sun went down.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, WLJ.
While the EPA does attempt to enforce limits to how much pollution is emitted (at least under some administrations), they do not “restrict any pollutants from being emitted into the atmosphere.”
However, CO2 is a pollutant that the EPA has resisted putting any restrictions on.
But on this topic, since the 70’s, US emissions have decreased by 54% while the GDP has increased over 200%. This shows that we can have it all - a cleaner environment and a growing economy! Thus, bullishfrog’s concerns that the “costs” might be too much is nothing more than scare mongering.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh dear, WLJ, you really don’t know much about this topic do you?
- Temperature is not something that can be “trapped.”
- Clouds have no effect on the “free movement of air.”
Clouds DO have an effect on the transmission of longwave radiation (of interest to us here is infra-red radiation). As does all water vapor. Different types of clouds have different effects on incoming radiation compared to outgoing radiation. Thus, their effects on the heat balance of the earth cannot be categorized as a simple “cloud effect.”
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Bruce86
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:29 am PM This User Report this comment
Oh dear, WLJ, you really don’t know much about this topic do you?
- Temperature is not something that can be “trapped.”
- Clouds have no effect on the “free movement of air.” ”
Oh dearie me, I misspoke.
The cloud cover traps the warmer air beneath.
It’s called an inversion. 4th grade science class.
Weren’t you and classless52 going to present your “expert” credentials to the group?
Mr. Laires and borgen have already gicen themselves passes on presenting their qualifications ’cause we’re just s’posed to know how much smarter than us they are.
You hopin for the same exemption?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Thus, bullishfrog’s concerns that the “costs” might be too much is nothing more than scare mongering.”—————————-First you tell us that nothing has been done about CO2 emissions. Next you tell us that we have had good economic growth despite a 54% reduction in emissions (which did not include a reduction in CO2 emissions). Therefore you tell us we can have it all (which implies that we can reduce CO2 emissions, as we have reduced other types of emissions, by a very significant amount, and still not have a large impact on the economy). You are deluding yourself sir if you really believe that CO2 emissions can be cut by a third without a huge cost.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, and by the way, the need to reduce emission of bad actors was evident by smog and bad water quality. Anyone could see the need to do that and that paying the cost was more than warranted. The need to pay the much greater cost to reduce CO2 emissions because the earth has warmed by 1/2 degree is not as easily convincing to folks who don’t like to pay $3.50 for gasoline and will like paying $7.50 one heck of a lot less. That is why no politician will be elected before the public is convinced. Want proof? Look at the call for a suspension of the 17 cent gasoline tax by two of the three presidential candidates. And the third only opposes it as a gimmick, not because it is bad for global warming.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dearest WLJ,
Not only did you misspeak, but your “correction” is also in error.
-Clouds do not “trap warmer air beneath.”
Water vapor is a radiatively active gas. It effectively alters the transmission of longwave radiation from the surface of the earth to the cold outer space. It’s really quite simple. Well, maybe not!
You are welcome to do your own research and determine whether or not what I’ve written here is accurate. If my comments about the current state of the science are wrong it really doesn’t matter about my degrees or publications. Does it? And if my comments are an accurate depiction of the science, then they are accurate.
You might need to do a little bit more than watch TV to figure this out. This is not my problem.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
You’ve lost me. If you agree we can cut emissions of other pollutants in half and still double the size of our economy, why do you think we can’t cut emissions of CO2 and increase the size of our economy?
You sound just like the naysayers back in the 70’s. At that time there was all kinds of scare mongering about how reducing pollution would destroy the economy. It was all proven false. There was all kinds of scare mongering about how cutting CFCs would destroy our economy. It was all proven false.
It’s time for people like you to get out of the way so that the best and brightest that America has to offer can work on solutions. It happens every time (and the scare mongers just move on to another topic).
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And yet another perfect example of the climate-change denier’s tactics:
“..…The Alaska state Legislature is looking to hire a few good polar bear scientists. The conclusions have already been agreed upon — researchers just have to fill in the science part.
A $2 million program funded with little debate by the Legislature last month calls for using state money to fund an ‘academic based’ conference that highlights contrarian scientific research on global warming. Legislators hope to undermine the public perception of a widespread consensus among polar bear researchers that warming global temperatures and melting Arctic ice threaten the polar bears’ survival.”
The complete story is at: http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/395540.html
Completely undermines decades worth of research on polar bears and dramatically changing arctic climate. “….One legislator who opposed the polar bear appropriation dismissed it as a ‘$2 million sound bite’ ginned up by legislators for the campaign year.”
Mind you, AK is a state that receives upwards of 85% of state revenues from oil & gas monies. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey, give Willis a break on the science questions, ok? His source material hasn’t been updated for…well…a couple thousand years, at least.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s what the only sane presidential hopeful (Obama) said about possible suspension of gasoline taxes on Meet the Press: “….., the gas tax proposal defines, I think, the difference between myself and Senator Clinton. This…is a classic Washington GIMMICK. It is a political response to a serious problem that we have neglected for decades.”
And CBS Evening News reported Obama saying Clinton’s support of a 3-month gas tax holiday is PANDERING. Obama said, “The average driver would save 30 cents per day for a grand total of $28, that’s assuming that the oil companies don’t step in and raise prices by the same amount the tax has been reduced.”
Suspending gas tax is nearly as absurd as mailing out so-called “economic stimulus” checks that are nothing but borrowed money that our children must somehow repay. At what point will we be honest with ourselves about our energy future, and how we’re stealing our children’s future? Some obvious solutions are found here:
http://www.carbontax.org/
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog, If I’m not mistaken polls indicate that far more than a majority of Americans DO believe global warming is real. As you say, the key is whether they would vote for what it would take. The voters are not stupid but, maybe selfish and more probably thinking that they are living in the world they grew up in where there were no boundaries to what you could have except as dictated by your income and what you could borrow. As long as those who have a stake in perpetuating our gluttonous habits continue to preach “let the good times roll” and tomorrow will take care of itself it delays the day that people will understand that it is over. The much-demeaned Jimmy Carter was sayng that in the Seventies and then oil prices tanked. Does anybody really think oil prices in the future will be appreciably lower than they already are, and for an extended period? And diminishing the role of oil in our society is only one element of addresing global warming.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce, you need to get your head out of the sand. You appear to believe that CO2 emissions can be cut drastically for the same cost as reducing SO2 or NOX emissions. You have no clue. If it did not carry a huge cost, measures would already be on the path to implementation.
And yes, folks can be asked to pay for something they can see. Asking them to pay for something that disputed computer models predict is not the same. You and others here need a big dose of reality.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, the polls may, as you say, show that the majority of Americans believe global warming is real. I don’t knoe. Now take a poll and see how many Americans will pay to have the price of driving a car, electricity, and home heating double in order to pay the price for a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. And find me a politician who will run on that platform and can get elected. I have advocated a need for significantly higher gasoline taxes over a period of years as a matter of national security. I can make that case a heck of a lot better than the global warming case. I have also advocated replacement of coal with nuclear as a means of reducing emissions. While the capital costs of building nuclear is significantly higher than coal, operating costs are lower so it is easier to make the case even for those who do not buy the global warming forecasts. And, with nuclear as the main source of electricity, I can see electric cars as a the long-term solution to gasoline elimination.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
My head isn’t in the sand. Do you mind if I tell you where I think your head is?
The “cost” estimates that are provided by industry apologists and other scare mongers are typically inflated by a minimum of 10 times.
For example, when new standards for vinyl chloride were instituted, industry claimed that the costs would be $65-96 Billion (yes, that’s a ‘B’). After the changes were put in place and a retrospective cost analysis was done, the actual costs were between $200-300 Million (with an ‘M’). That was a scare mongering “cost” threat that was exaggerated by about 300 times. And it wasn’t all that unusual.
It’s good practice to take any “costs” that the industry apologists provide and divide by 100 to get at something that might be in the right ballpark.
Meanwhile, there are costs associated with doing nothing. It’s wonderful that you are willing to accept these costs. Do you care about others?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce, you keep writing about the costs of everything except that of removing CO2. So, basically, you have no clue. Next time you get your electric bill, write the company back and tell them to bill you exclusively based on the cost of renewable sources. Then when you get your new bill, get back to me.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, and by the way Bruce, I’m not advocating doing nothing. Read my post #46.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ve already done this. My electricity is 100% solar. At the end of the year I get a check FROM my utility.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good for you Bruce. I congratulate you for that. And I’m sure that as soon as you can convince the rest of the country that the capital cost of solar is justified given the alternatives, you will have made great strides. Better yet Bruce, go buy yourself some cheap desert land, fill it with solar panels, and make a ton of money selling that power.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 11:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
I can tell that your thoughts are heartfelt!
But likewise, if you and a few thousands of your best friends want to each sink a cool million into a nuclear power plant, go for it. You’ll have my congratulations. Just don’t tell me I need to pay higher electrical rates or higher taxes to help you pay for a nuclear non-solution.
Tell me, what will happen to the price of uranium if we actually built the thousands of nuke plants necessary to replace coal-based electricity generation? Nukes are still the most expensive and most energetically bizarre approach for making toast.
Meanwhile, the “cost” for solar energy hitting my panels remains the same. In 20 years, adjusted for inflation, the cost works out to be, oh my, $0.00! And if everyone puts in solar panels, resulting in higher demand, the cost for the solar energy hitting my panels will increase to, approximately, $0.00!
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 11:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish – please read this:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Climate/C07-08_ProfitableSolutions.pdf
since you’re so hung up on the economics (from Amory Lovins at RMI). A couple of text excerpts:
“Raymond Williams wrote, “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, not despair convincing.” Problems like climate change, oil dependence, and nuclear proliferation seem so huge and daunting that energy policy seems like a stupid multiple-choice test: “Would you prefer to die of (a) climate change, (b) oil wars, or (c) nuclear holocaust?” Yet if we take economics and technologies seriously, the right answer is the one usually omitted- (d) none of the above - because all of the conventionally dreadful answers are both unnecessary and uneconomic.”
“In short, the climate problem is neither necessary nor economic, but is an artifact of not using energy in a way that saves money. Climate change can be prevented by taking markets seriously- letting all ways to save or supply energy compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. Internalizing carbon and other environmental costs will be correct and helpful but not essential.”
****Yet, what are we doing here in the USA with our money and young minds?
Military Budgets by Country in 2006(in BILLIONS of US dollars)
United States = 560
United Kingdom = 59
France = 53
China = 50
Japan = 44
Germany = 37
Russia = 35
Italy = 30
Saudi Arabia = 29
India = 24
All other = 314
World Military Expenditure = 1235
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
But unfortunately, we don’t spend that 560 Billion on the Military. We pay our military substandard wages, give them faulty equipment, and inadequate care when what’s left of them is shipped home. We spend most of it on Defense Contractors. But if you complain about the ridiculous level of military spending, you’re not “Supporting the Troops”.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 11:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce, I know folks who have installed solar in their homes, as you have, and have been willing to pay the capital cost, because they can. Whether it’s economic or not, given alternatives, is not an issue for you or for them. They can afford to do it and so they are doing what is environmentally correct. What I have been saying in this thread from the very beginning is that people must be convinced that the cost of reducing carbon emissions is justified. You are convinced it is. The majority of Americans are not. If they were, the installation of solar panels on new homes would be as common as air conditioners. Why would anyone be opposed to zero emissions if it cost them nothing?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 11:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
With the amount of sunny days we have in this area, Solar is a near-perfect option, isn’t it? Now, how do we make it affordable?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
curmudgeon makes a very valid point…when we, the taxpayer, give 3-400 bucks for a toilet seat, we aren’t getting our money’s worth…if we had better oversight with defense contractors, hell, contractors working for the govenment period, we’ld have more ability to sink money into research for clean renewable energy..
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The “cost” of putting in solar panels is almost (but not quite!) transparent. The “cost” of inefficient use of oil is opaque - it is bundled up in our taxes and payments for other goods and services (including debt payments to China) in order to artificially present to us a low cost at the pump.
However, the “cost” of solar panels, to the consumer, on new construction is barely noticeable. The slight increase in a mortgage payment is offset by the reduction in utility bills. One does not need to have surplus money to do the right thing. We each need to keep demanding that builders, developers, planners, etc, do the right thing. It will take time. The time to begin is yesterday.
The fact that some Americans are not convinced, that some do not yet see the costs with business-as-usual is due to a plan. This plan is being implemented in part by the American Petroleum Institute, to try to confuse American citizens about the scientific understanding of global warming. The science is sound (of course there are uncertainties, as there are in every field of science).
There are some bad players out there. It does America no good for individuals who are not informed about the science to keep repeating the lies put out by the API-trained lackeys.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry to overload you with quotes, bullish, but you seem to be missing the point on supposed cost increases and “burdens” on the American public. Once again, from Lovins:
“….Climate solutions are not costly but profitable, because saving fuel costs less than buying fuel. Many leading companies are making billions of dollars’ profit by cutting their carbon intensity or emissions at rates of 5–8%/year.
When politicians who lament climate protection’s supposed costs,
burdens, and sacrifices join the parallel universe of practitioners who routinely achieve profits, jobs, and competitive advantage by wasting less fuel, the political obstacles will dissolve faster than any glacier.”
“Stabilizing carbon emissions requires only increasing energy productivity.”
The true costs and burdens to the American public are those found in continued environmental degradation & consequences (climate change, spoiled air & water & soil, and so on) that we tolerate as a result of our inefficient energy path, combined with excessive military costs & dead soldiers, and the $50,000,000,000+ that we fork over annually to oil & gas companies as tax breaks and incentives.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon is right - solar is the near-perfect option, particularly in the desert southwest. Read this for big-scale ideas:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Bottom line: “a massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.”
Xcel Energy will pay for essentially ONE-HALF of residential solar-electric installations, and even more for commercial applications. See:
http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-3_746_25709-23075-2_267_462-0,00.html
The City and/or County could wise up also, like other municipalities in other states & countries, and help finance the cost of solar panels for residential owners who agree to pay it back with a 20-year assessment on their property. For example, over this 2-decade period, the taxes would be the same or less than what property owners would save on their electric bills. And, the cost burden stays with the house, not the owner (in case you move).
There are 50 ways to skin the cat. All it takes is initiative on behalf of an educated populace.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86…cc my post 28. If you will read what I posted rather than what you would like to see you will notice that I did not indicate that we should do less, thus taking no personal responsibility. My point is that China is currently going through the same industrial revolution that we went through 100 years ago and doesn’t seem to be making any effort to curtail their emissions. Also, consumption does not equal pollution on a one to one basis. Our coal fired power plants produce nearly 0 pollution. Most of our cars are running catalytic converters which I’m sure you won’t find in most of the rest of the world. Does any other country in the world have any more stringent regulations that those laid down for us (US) by our EPA? Most have no regulations. Solar, Wind, or any other alternative energy is good, and when you are in an area that it is available, Thermal is probably the most reliable. But until such time as the conversion to these are made we will use what is available.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: “Weren’t you and classless52 going to present your “expert” credentials to the group?” In what message was I asked to present credentials? Why the personal attack (name calling is in violation of the rules of this forum)?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Byers: our coal-fired power plants produce “nearly zero pollution”??!!! Please hand over the map, quick, to this fantastical place known as shangri la, where herds of unicorns surely roam free on the premises.
Does “nearly zero” mean something like this: coal-fired elecricity generation plants, alone, are responsible for upwards of 60% SOx, 20% NOx, 40% CO2, 50% particulate matter, and 35% mercury emissions in the USA. Not to mention a whole host of other hazardous air pollutants. (US EPA data)
Shall we twiddle our thumbs and worry about China? Do you think they want to remain in poverty; or, do you think they’re quickly looking for ways to leapfrog technology and bypass many of the mistakes we’ve made? Is it better to do nothing and sit idle as the supposed “world leader”?
Also note that current, per capita, carbon emissions from US citizens is 6+ times that of China. Therefore, right you are, as you said: “…consumption does not equal pollution on a one to one basis.” We here in the US have really skewed the numbers since China has a population of 1.3 billion and the USA stands at 304 million.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the EPA Home page.
Emission standards for electric utilities
* To help reduce acid rain, EPA devised a two-phased strategy to cut NOx emissions from coal-fired power plants. The first phase, finalized in a rulemaking in 1995, aimed to reduce NOx emissions by over 400,000 tons per year between 1996 and 1999. The second phase began in 2000, and aimed to reduce NOx emissions by over 2 million tons per year. The second phase reduction goal has been surpassed, in part due to additional state-initiated NOx reductions in the Northeast.
Does this sound like we are “twiddleing our thumbs”?
Granted I might have mis-spoke at nearly 0 but I have had tours of 2 coal fired plants, one in CO and one in UT and the emissions that are vented into the atmosphere are negligable on a KW produced. The largest problem is the fly ash disposal but they are developing industrial uses for that also.
It is getting quite aggravating to have every post jumped on by 1 or 2 that are unable or unwilling to see or express any point of view other than their own. The posts I have made have been with the idea of throwing out an idea for rational discussion. I am starting to think “That thou protesteth too much”.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gfbyers:
If you’re going to make a statement like “nearly 0 pollution” you’ve got to be prepared for the reaction.
Also, it’s an inappropriate use of the Shakespeare quotation, unless you’re implying that those who claim to disagree with you are actually in agreement. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” is meant to indicate that the a person’s feelings are clearly the opposite of what they’re saying.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gfbyers: Burning coal is a dirty business, any way you shake it. Nowhere close to zero emissions, nor will it ever be. “Clean Coal” is an oxymoron and clever marketing pitch. Glad you got the promotional tour and maybe the T-shirt; now, read up on how bad the situation is in the USA:
http://www.dirtykilowatts.org/Dirty_Kilowatts2007.pdf
You’re right, though – we have enjoyed some small decreases in NOx emissions, primarily in a few eastern seaboard plants; however, most of these gains have been offset by larger plants in the west and southeast US.
Fortunately, King Coal’s days are numbered: “In a report compiled in early 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy listed 151 coal-fired power plants in the planning stages and talked about a resurgence in coal-fired electricity. But during 2007, 59 proposed U.S. coal-fired power plants were either refused licenses by state governments or quietly abandoned. In addition to the 59 plants that were dropped, close to 50 more coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged as they reach the permitting stage. “(Earth Policy Institute)
Have you tracked what has happened with proposed/new plants in Kansas & Texas? No one wants them, and no knowledgeable financiers will back them. Might be good time to take advantage of XCEL’s Solar Reward program.
You do have a VERY valid point about power-plant fly ash – this is a topic that gets virtually no press. And there are millions of cubic yards lying around, laced with mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc., and waiting for release into surface- & groundwater near you. Check out a few of the fly-ash disposal lawsuits on the East coast, then take a spin up behind the Cameo Station and find out for yourself what those enormous gray piles of floury material really are.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Clearly, this blog is not for the faint of heart, nor the thin-skinned. That said, I wholeheartedly support the rules of decorum appropriate here.
Let’s all be nice. Even when it hurts.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nigel, from the article you quoted on switching to solar power, you didn’t mention this: “But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.”. I hope this clears up the notion that there is no significant cost involved in lowering carbon emissions. Oh, and I suspect that those who want to fix Social Security, Medicare, and provide universal health care, among many other needed programs, may have other uses for that money.
As to Bruce’s claim that installing solar in a home is not a significant cost, I have a friend who is about to put it in and his cost will be in the $10,000 to $20,000 range. Nothing significant for Bruce, or for my friend, but significant for the average American.
So I go back to my initial posting on this thread that calls for a public debate on TV where both sides of the global warming issue are presented and where those predicting a catastrophe can convince Americans that they will have to pay for the required reduction in carbon emissions but that it is worth it. Apparently most on this thread are opposed to such public debate.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 4:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. GFByers,
You must realize that your facts based on actual scientific research is nothing compared to the junk sciences touted by those who shrilly proclaim superior knowledge.
And dc, I agree, it’s not for the faint of heart, and can’t we all be nice?
And I would also like to add, be honest.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 4:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog, how would a debate be organized? How can a very detail oriented scientific exposition be made when the average person seems to be swayed by sound bites and clever wordsmithing. Not to mention their all-too-prevalent short attention spans. You debate about whether a new reservoir is needed and where it should be located. Or whether a new regional transit system is needed. In this case, the science is overwhelming and the deniers are relatively few with many tainted by their relationships with Big Oil, just to mention one. The “debate” should be by way of sequential articles in print long enough to document with facts. One side goes first followed by the other. Then each gets a rebuttal. The problem, of course, is how many would take the time to read lengthy articles, which of necessity, they would have to be? The last thing this subject needs is the kind of “debates” we’ve seen in this election year so far.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, I don’t think it would be that difficult to hold a debate on the subject. For example, one side measures global warming based on detectors located on land. The other side claims those do not provide an accurate measurment, believes detection from satelites is the better measurement, and states the reason. The other side explains why land recorders are acceptable. I believe most issues can be presented in a way that someone with a high school degree can understand.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, bullishfrog – freedom isn’t free. Hopefully you read the entire article which clearly explains that $420 Billion would be spread over a 39-year period (say $10 B/Yr). Read:
“The $420 billion could be generated with a carbon tax of 0.5 cent per kWh. Given that electricity today generally sells for six to 10 cents per kWh, adding 0.5 cent per kWh seems reasonable. Although $420 billion is substantial, the annual expense would be less than the current U.S. Farm Price Support program. It is also less than the tax subsidies that have been levied to build the country’s high-speed telecommunications infrastructure over the past 35 years. And it frees the U.S. from policy and budget issues driven by international energy conflicts.”
For frame of reference: we gladly hand over somewhere in the neighborhood of $40-90+ Billion/annually to the oil & gas industry for incentives & subsidies. How much for the nuke & coal industries, you ask? $600 Billion/annually for the Pentagon budget?
$10 B/yr seems like a relative bargain, especially when it’s self-funded by a small carbon tax. The future looks bright (and potentially livable); if only we could strip a small fraction of money from the oil subsidies and the war machine.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, bullishfrog, but I think this is a very complex subject and it wouldn’t lend itself to the simplistic format you suggest. The candidate’s debates did not have large audiences and I’m afraid the audience for a “debate” on global warming would be much smaller, and lots of those would drop out from boredom. It can’t be made sexy and it might be subject to falling into personal attacks, which is the last thing this important subject needs. Scientists on both sides have little regard for each other.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well John, Al Gore got pretty good attendance for his movie and I sure didn’t think it was too complicated. I would love to see a movie that shows the other side but I’m sure Hollywood would never allow it.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 6:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, John, let me add that in this country nothing happens unless there is some sort of emergency that forces action. So I would suggest to you that if the problem and its solution cannot be clearly explained so the average Joe can understand it, it will be after we have a beach in Grand Junction before anything of significance takes place.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is a very interesting conversation going on here and it touches at the heart of a fundamental flaw in our national character. The number of people who have the inclination and resources to contribute to discussions such as this is appallingly low. Unfortunately, the average Joe is more interested in American Idol.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I would point out the information in a story in todays’ paper about the fight big oil is going to put up on the severance tax issue. The number of slick, high dollar ads the ” People of the Oil and gas Industry ” and ” the Coalition for Clean Coal Energy” are running on practically every network in every market ( I’ve been traveling some and they are everywhere I’ve been ) is huge and growing. The sad fact is that, at least up until now, these commercials work. The irony that these things are being paid for by the same people they are aimed at seems overlooked by the American people as long as the actresses are pretty, the music good, and the scenery is pristine. The California severance tax increase was defeated with an investment of $93,000,000. It saved the industry many hundreds of millions of dollars. How much do you suppose the various industries who are being asked to address climate change will spend to maintain the status quo?
Comfort breeds complacency. Perhaps that is changing. Let’s hope so.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Brilliant how you took my comment out of context. If you’ll recall I said: “the “cost” of solar panels, to the consumer, on new construction is barely noticeable.”
Note that I said new construction. Given that the average selling price for a house in GJ is now over $200,000, if a builder was to decrease the square footage by 1% and instead put up $20,000 worth of solar panels and maybe $5,000 worth of solar water, the buyer would not notice any significant change in their monthly mortgage payments but would notice a dramatic drop in utility bills.
I agree that retrofitting with solar panels is a hefty commitment (one that most of us can’t do out of pocket). Fortunately, our banker was very excited about the project and helped us with a loan on very good terms.
As for subsidies for renewable energy generation — this is what we do as a moral nation. We incentivise those activities we want to encourage (marriage, children, home ownership, food production, savings (oops, we don’t do that last one!)) for the good of the many.
(BTW, You may be familiar with the level of subsidies for nuclear energy, no? For instance, over 80% of our public energy research dollars for the last 50 years has gone to nuclear energy. No nuclear plant has been built in the US with private dollars. No private company carries sufficient insurance to cover an accident. For all this, what did we get? The most expensive form of electricity.)
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 8:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As for hosting a “debate” to determine whether or not global warming is real, this suggestiong is a very strong sign that the proponent does not understand the practice of science.
Let’s consider an analogy (albeit, a flawed one, as all analogies are). Next year, instead of having teams play to determine the NFL champs in the Super Bowl, let’s have a 16 team debate instead. Each team can select one member as spokesman. After each head-to-head debate over why each team ought to be Champions, the audience in attendance will vote for a winner.
We will not set any criteria on who gets to vote or criteria for what to use to determine how you vote. For example, if you like the uniform, you can vote that way. If the spokesman says his team is good in an eloquent manner, that’s might be good enough for some. Why bother playing and having the winner determined on the field when an entertaining debate could be held?
Likewise, scientific hypotheses are tested by evidence and vetted by knowledgeable peers. This is like having to actually play the football game. To have a bunch of non-experts like us vote on whether or not something is a scientific fact is, well, absurd and utterly non-scientific.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 8:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
SIGH….
It’s a ‘math’ thing I suppose, often difficult to understand for some, but…
” Given that the average selling price for a house in GJ is now over $200,000, if a builder was to decrease the square footage by 1% and instead put up $20,000 worth of solar panels and maybe $5,000 worth of solar water, the buyer would not notice any significant change in their monthly mortgage payments but would notice a dramatic drop in utility bills. ”
1% of 200,000 is $2,000.
So, decreasing the size of the house by 0ne percent, then adding back on $20,000 for solar, plus adding on another $5000 for solar water, we come up with an additional $23000 that we are paying a monthly mortgage payment on.
Even deducting the savings for the energy bills, it’s still there.
However, 2500 sqft home, minus 10% would still be a 2250 sqft home, and the savings works nicely.
Now all we need to do is find out exactly why the cost of solar panel is still so high.
Oh, because the manufacturers choose the middlemen, and they choose the dealers, who in turn choose the installers.
All the while, the electric companies decide who, when, and how a person can connect to their grid.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 8:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It might be a “math thing” or it might be a typo thing! What’s a missing zero between friends! You are right, WLJ, I intended to type 10%.
As for the costs of solar panels, it’s a free market sort of thing. Germany, Japan, California, etc are buying up panels as fast as they can. A new company in California with new technology opened up a second operation in Germany because of the demand.
As for our solar array, we chose our installers and told them what panels we wanted (we insisted on American made panels). They provided the services and the components that we identified for the total system output we wanted. No manufacturer directed our installation.
And if you recall, our legislators (i.e., our representatives) have directed the utilities that they must allow us to hook up to the grid without demanding exorbitant insurance or other fees.
So, you pretty much whiffed on every pitch there, WLJ. I’d say you’re ‘Out.’
(BTW, have you done your research and figured out how clouds affect surface temperature yet? Or does your “fact-checking” stop at identifying typographical errors? Don’t tell me you’ve been watching more TV!)
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yup, clouds provide shade on hot sunny days and the temperature drops.
Just ask anybody that lives outside in the summer.
Or works and plays outside in the winter.
Now, if you would like to explain how sunny days are cooler than cloudy days,
I’m all for learning new stuff.
And if you can convince me that in the winter, it gets warmer when the clouds roll in and start dumping snow by the foot….
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Delta/Montrose and the San Miguel electric associations are now offering their customers a half price deal on the installation of geo-transfer heating systems by working with the government to classify the horizontal heating loops as part of the utility system ( because they are ) thereby cutting the price to the consumer.
As a homebuilder, I can tell you that I see interest in innovative utility solutions is skyrocketing. Many people are not just considering investment in solar and other sustainable technologies with a simple cost analysis. As Bruce86 pointed out, there is a moral component ( and, yes, even a patriotic one )to the issue.
It would be great if our governments would embrace and encourage the effort with the devotion they show to the oil and gas boys. We could change things in a hurry.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, WLJ, if you are all set in your ideology while you watch TV, that’s your problem.
And if you want to try to laugh off your “misunderstandings” by claiming things that I didn’t even suggest, again, that’s your problem.
But it was your own posts (#25, 33 & 36) that showed you really didn’t have an understanding of how clouds function.
But if you want to see the effects of cloudy nights for yourself, just check your thermometer in the mornings this summer. The temperature won’t have dropped as low if the night was cloudy compared to one of our typical clear nights.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
to follow up on My post #77
I just got back from an wire service story that reports 3,500,000 new voters in this election cycle, so far. Maybe there is hope.
Posted May 6th, 2008 at 7:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
I have no misunderstandings on your positions.
My position is always the same.
The ipcc ‘climate model’ did not allow for any effects of evaporation on globular wirming.
As stated previously, warmer air over the ocean causes increased evaporation which causes clouds to form, blocking sunlight from striking the Earth, preventing the sun from heating the surface as much as direct sunlight.
You refute that by claiming that the reverse is true.
So, this summer, while the rest of us are sitting in the shade to warm up, you can sit in the direct sun to cool off.
Posted May 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh WLJ,
There certainly appear to be some misunderstandings! But I understand that your position is always the same. I’ve observed this is SOP for ideologues.
However, in your post #25, you wrote:
The IPCC paper acknowledges that ‘evaporation’ was not considered in its models because, “Not enough is known on what effects such a phenomena would have on actual data.”
Where did you get that quotation from the IPCC “paper?” I searched for it but could not find that exact passage.
I find your claim rather odd since evaporation is discussed throughout the IPCC report. Indeed, it is analyzed in depth and shows up 33 times in Chapter 8 alone.
So, unless you can demonstrate where this quote can be found in the latest IPCC report, the rest of us will conclude that you know as much about this as you do about cloud effects. (For example, you do know that shortwave radiation hitting clouds causes the droplets to evaporate, right?)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.