Have You Been Living with your eyes closed?

SAVE YOURSELF

The trouble is, what some people would like to see eventually happen economically, sociologically, and technologically in response to the global warming threat is drastic and severe. An end to a way of life.

Two things I'd heartily welcome, however:
–a combination of widespread plug-in electric cars and widespread new nuclear power plant construction (as long as I can still get a "sport" model with tenacious tire grip, low center of gravity, and tight suspension).
–a combination of major tax incentives to encourage companies to support telecommuting, technology and infrastructure to enable it, sociological change to make it more socially acceptable, and a loosening of compliance regulations to make it legally feasible (I'd be all over working from home!).

If anyone has conclusively proven that CO2 is the sole environmental system contributing towards global warming, I’ll walk to work and picket outside my local CO2 factory. Until then, I’ll remain over-taxed by a government who base their theories on bad data, scientific bullying, public hysteria and alternative economic agenda’s.

Most other types of alternate energy require lots of materials to build the generator (wind power, solar power, etc…) or are very restricted on where you can build them (geothermal). The construction costs (money and energy and pollution) have to be included in the equation when you evaluate if it makes sense to use an alternate energy form. None of the alternates really make thermodynamic or economic sense, except in very limited applications.

The only energy dense technology that works now is nuclear power. For a given amount of infrastructure (what you build), nothing is better than a nuke, and they make no carbon dioxide when they run. Why aren't we building as many nukes as we can? Fast breeders even make fuel as they run.

No matter when it runs out, one day there will be no more oil. Doesnt it make more sense economically to benefit from new energy business initiatives now? Why not lead the way with new technologies like this country has always done?

Too many people (on both sides) have become 'true believers' and don't even question the basis of the belief any more, and I have a nasty suspicion that they are not as 'altruistic' as they seem. As most things have become in our society, it has become impossible for many people to discuss things civilly. If I disagree with the theory, I'm somehow evil/callous/selfish. Everything ends up as a big shouting match and the side with better propaganda (and funding sources) seems to win…

As to the second article you mentioned (I read it), solar variability is the number one factor affecting the climate — the total solar input to the planet has to be, because it's the source of all the heat in the first place! If the sun were to suddenly reduce it's output by 1% (or increase it the same) things could get really bad. It's something we can't control, predict or really measure accurately…

In fact, I wish we didn't burn so many hydrocarbons, and not really for the pollution/carbon dioxide release reasons. We need those long chain molecules to make stuff (like plastics), and once you burn them, they are gone. Substitutes are going to be expensive (and really energy intensive to make, too).

He's done a great job reporting in a balanced manner. What the traditional media (and some that are posting here) seem to forget is that balanced doesn't mean 50/50. If this forum discusses peer reviewed articles on all topics of astronomy and 99.9% of these articles reporting on climate change show an anthropogenic source of increased CO2 and related climate change then 99.9% of Ian's reports should reflect that. If Ian used the 50/50 rule the audience may get the (wrong) impression that there is uncertainty rather than consensus about climate change and it's sources.

Regarding grant money, my guess is that Shell, Chevron and every corporation that creates or uses fuel on a large scale would fund research. Universities should be eager to make ground-breaking discoveries in either direction. Having left academia for private sector, I can't tell you what is funded and why. It is evident, though, that academia pursues theories like cosmic rays creating aerosols and solar variability and finds them to be non-contributors or that the evidence is non-compelling (unlike greenhouse gases). Universetoday has reported on studies like these, so they do get funded.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/25/potential-global-warming-fix-will-damage-the-ozone-layer/
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/

Thanx for a couple of rational, non-inflamatory posts on the subject.

One of the major problems I have with the whole movement is that it is research driven — but try to get a grant to disprove the global warming theory (ain't going to happen). In reality, according to the scientific method I was taught, we should be trying with all our might to disprove the theory (hypothesis) rather than proving it, but what grant money is there in that?

David, England's population in 2006 was about 50 million. The world population was 6.5 billion. That means England's population is about .77% of the Earth's population. If England is contributing 2% of the greenhouse gases, your per capita contribution is huge! All the more reason to cut down.

Regarding China, California just signed a pact with the UN to help China find ways to reduce their emissions. China's emissions are being worked on at many levels.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_re_us/california_china_emissions_1

One thing I am sure of (and is everyone who uses CFD) is that my answers are wrong. They are always wrong, because we can't accurately model many of the effects involved in fluid flow (especially turbulence and phase interaction). No one can accurately model the simple process of stirring a cup of coffee, let alone the motion of air, water and energy (heat) on the whole planet. If we can't model what's going on now, how good are our predictions for a minute from now, or an hour, or a day, or a year, or a century? The amount of error likely is simply staggering, and we're supposed to direct the future of our whole species by models like this?

By the way, one of the best greenhouse gases is water vapor, shall we reduce that?

The interesting thing to me is that everyone always seems to have a reason (or excuse) for their own energy use but are quick to tell other people to change their habits. In this case some folks are even defending Al when he could do a lot of his work remotely via teleconnect technology on the web or other communications service. Is a handshake or two really worth tons of GHG emissions? Apparently it is!

If you ignore the damage done to humanity and rest of the living world, then Griffin has a point. But if the temperature rises by 2 or 3 degrees, we pay dearly.

PS. I read the articles on this site everyday out of interest but have never felt the need to comment as i don't know enough about the subjects. However the fact that a "layman" can quite easily make a valid input on the matter when all these "scientists" are squalbling like children would suggest you are outside of your remit.

Climate change allows for Global Warming and Global Cooling.

As long as there are governments throwing money at people to produce a report in favour of global warming the reports will be produced. The UK government are bankrupt financially (and morally) and are not throwing money at people to produce pro GW propaganda any more.

This has allowed the debate here to develop.

My daughter came home from school with a fact sheet of terror about 'man made' global warming. I sat with her for half an hour and we went through this 'fact sheet'.

It explained why carbon emissions were warming the planet and why it was a 'good thing' that fuel and taxes should go up to help future generations.

There was not ONE word to suggest it is (or may be, if you think that way) part of a natural cycle. I did however counter every item with a possible alternative.

I will not say anything else, except I will not have my children brainwashed with one side of the story.

"Peer-reviewed, reproducible "studies" by *respected* scientists," PLEASE!

Spoken like a true Socialist… Silence anyone who disagrees with the party line..

———————–

"""If you don't think G/W is a CURRENT crisis, you either aren't paying attention, aren't being honest, or have the IQ of the lifeforms that will be left on the planet when humans finish killing themselves off.""""

Like they say..
It is one thing to have people THINK your a Moron, but it another to type such tripe and remove all doubt..

Yep.. The whole topic of Global Warming needs to be removed from the otherwise fantastic Universe Today website..