Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari?
07-12-2007, 11:24 AM
#16
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Jim that was a nice paper and very scientifically laid out. Some comments:
Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases.
During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.
The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.
Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).
Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases.
During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.
The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.
Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).
Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
07-12-2007, 01:24 PM
#17
Drifting
Thread Starter
This brings up an interesting point. As far as I can tell, our "data" for weather and such has only been available for @ 100 years... We do know that the age of the earth/universe makes 100 years look like a rounding error, so can we consider all of this data "statistically significant"? (Dell?, anyone?) Sure, we can cite an Ice Age 10,000 years ago - but it seems to me that we are making a lot of "obvious" assumptions rather than scientifically based ones simply because we just do not have enough data (hey, I'm an engineer, okay). One "obvious" assumption made until 1492 was that the earth was flat.
It seems to me that many people are confusing passion with fact. Also, one needs to look very closely at personal agenda. I have ALWAYS had issue with the scientific community in one regard. Being different is a means to respect and admiration, whereas becing someone that merely confirms existing opinion is not exactly career making or newsworthy. Remember - most college professors at research universities are not there to teach, but to raise grant money for the institution based on their work. Raising grant money is an art form. It is based on both personal reputation and scope of the project. But be aware that their is smart money and dumb money in that "business" as well. For every agricultural company trying to figure out how to maximize the wheat harvest with fertilizer, their is some foundation representing a dead nut job who wants to prove that there are aliens among us. Those are the two extremes, and the "alien" extreme usually does get published in the respectable journals. However, the real trouble lies in the middle ground between them. To address this wil respect to cars, look at the Audi 5000 fiasco in the late 1980s. Where was the science in that?IMHO, the nebulous topic of global warming is quite comparable, though it makes a great story...
With that said, if we can somehow channel this fear into somehing "good" for the masses (i.e. don't litter, don't waste electricity, etc.), then I am all for it... Let's just try to find a productive outlet for all of this paranoia....
My lengthy $0.02,
-B
It seems to me that many people are confusing passion with fact. Also, one needs to look very closely at personal agenda. I have ALWAYS had issue with the scientific community in one regard. Being different is a means to respect and admiration, whereas becing someone that merely confirms existing opinion is not exactly career making or newsworthy. Remember - most college professors at research universities are not there to teach, but to raise grant money for the institution based on their work. Raising grant money is an art form. It is based on both personal reputation and scope of the project. But be aware that their is smart money and dumb money in that "business" as well. For every agricultural company trying to figure out how to maximize the wheat harvest with fertilizer, their is some foundation representing a dead nut job who wants to prove that there are aliens among us. Those are the two extremes, and the "alien" extreme usually does get published in the respectable journals. However, the real trouble lies in the middle ground between them. To address this wil respect to cars, look at the Audi 5000 fiasco in the late 1980s. Where was the science in that?IMHO, the nebulous topic of global warming is quite comparable, though it makes a great story...
With that said, if we can somehow channel this fear into somehing "good" for the masses (i.e. don't litter, don't waste electricity, etc.), then I am all for it... Let's just try to find a productive outlet for all of this paranoia....
My lengthy $0.02,
-B
07-18-2007, 08:19 PM
#18
Banned
Originally Posted by mitch236
I would like to find out the real answer once and for all. I watched that Gore movie and thought, "I live in south Florida, I'd better buy real estate in the mountains!". Now I hear Gore ownes a company that cleans up CO2! Then I hear that the effects of CO2 have a maximum density, meaning that once we achieve a certain level, any additional CO2 will have no more effect. Then I read that a Hummer, over its lifespan will have less impact on our environment than a Prius. Is there a website where I can find an unbiased, science driven fact?
Seriously though; No. Trust no one.
07-20-2007, 01:08 PM
#20
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SF bay area, CA
Posts: 2,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OldGuy
This is why I dont understand why people vote for liberals. Yes they will give you welfare but it puts you under their spell- while one by one your rights are taken away. Little by little your wealth will be spread amongst others. One day we will wake up with our independence and freedoms will be gone. This is a prime example. They know SO much more than you. They are SO much smarter than you. They will take care of you and tell you how to live. Its coming.
IT is called hillary
IT is called hillary
LOL, i would prefer a rhodes scholar in the white house rather than a simpleton who can't get his lines straight. this country needs a brilliant leader, something bush is not even close to being.
dems telling you how to live? reps are just as bad. both dems and reps just take from one group and give to others. i for one wish the reps would give me a tax break but seems they don't really care... i guess i just need to get really wealthy to get a break, lol.
07-20-2007, 01:50 PM
#21
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by karlooz
LOL, i would prefer a rhodes scholar in the white house rather than a simpleton who can't get his lines straight. this country needs a brilliant leader, something bush is not even close to being.
07-20-2007, 02:15 PM
#22
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Karlooz no suprise you live in the leading befuddled part of the country . Now I got one for you-Instead of relying on some rhodes scholar who has NO clue how REAL people live-try this-Think for yourself!! try coming to your own conclusions.
You'll find this quite mentally invigorating really. Thats much better than being blindly led by someone who had to learn how to hug and be hugged, and how to shake hands in her senate campaign. But alas you live in an area that votes in a solid block instead of thinking for themselves-Just like lemmings. At least you dont deny dems think they are so much holier than you and can regulate your life for you-protecting you from you.
No insult intended for you financial independents up there. I feel for you- you're grossly out numbered by those voting their pocket books and looking for hand outs. Its a struggle for the rest of us Californians trying to vote out of the wlefare state mentality. At least here in Kern County where people work hard for a living people vote solid non welfare state.
You'll find this quite mentally invigorating really. Thats much better than being blindly led by someone who had to learn how to hug and be hugged, and how to shake hands in her senate campaign. But alas you live in an area that votes in a solid block instead of thinking for themselves-Just like lemmings. At least you dont deny dems think they are so much holier than you and can regulate your life for you-protecting you from you.
No insult intended for you financial independents up there. I feel for you- you're grossly out numbered by those voting their pocket books and looking for hand outs. Its a struggle for the rest of us Californians trying to vote out of the wlefare state mentality. At least here in Kern County where people work hard for a living people vote solid non welfare state.
07-20-2007, 03:29 PM
#23
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SF bay area, CA
Posts: 2,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OldGuy
Karlooz no suprise you live in the leading befuddled part of the country . Now I got one for you-Instead of relying on some rhodes scholar who has NO clue how REAL people live-try this-Think for yourself!! try coming to your own conclusions.
You'll find this quite mentally invigorating really. Thats much better than being blindly led by someone who had to learn how to hug and be hugged, and how to shake hands in her senate campaign. But alas you live in an area that votes in a solid block instead of thinking for themselves-Just like lemmings. At least you dont deny dems think they are so much holier than you and can regulate your life for you-protecting you from you.
No insult intended for you financial independents up there. I feel for you- you're grossly out numbered by those voting their pocket books and looking for hand outs.
You'll find this quite mentally invigorating really. Thats much better than being blindly led by someone who had to learn how to hug and be hugged, and how to shake hands in her senate campaign. But alas you live in an area that votes in a solid block instead of thinking for themselves-Just like lemmings. At least you dont deny dems think they are so much holier than you and can regulate your life for you-protecting you from you.
No insult intended for you financial independents up there. I feel for you- you're grossly out numbered by those voting their pocket books and looking for hand outs.
that's so funny. that's how bush got elected. he's like every joe out there. seems like it was a brilliiant idea, eh?
those ARE my thoughts, don't know why you would think otherwise. sounds like you are just babbling the party line. really, i don't care if it's a rep or dem in the white house as long as they don't screw things up as badly as bush, and it is BAD.
lemmings? that is how bush got RE-ELECTED, LOL. how about you take your own advice and think for yourself. take the blind folds off and see what a mess we're in because of you know who.
i am glad i live where i live. i am sure you are quite content where you are... away from people like me. hey, i'm alright with that too
i'm done here. enough of the OT. PM me if you like
