The Cycle of Global Warming 42

[corus]

Looking at the web site posted by LCruiser and some of the ridiculaous data shown on it for 'proving' that global warming doesn't exist by looking at the temperature recording of one town in the USA (

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp)

led me to lok at who funds the people who create these sites. Needless to say it's the oil companies

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3645&method=full

electricpete's idea that all the countries in the world, besides the USA, have been taken over by the far-left is absurd to say the least. It'd be more plausible to conclude that the USA's lone stance against tackling global warming is due to the take over of the USA by the far-right and oil companies.

corus

 

[LCruiser]

Thanks for pointing out that heatisonline.org website. I thought commercial sites needed to be .com? The guy's trying to sell books and dvd's. That's about the most alarmist site I've seen. Sells books.

Getting back to financing, you do realize, of course that most of the "work" done in the area of "global warming" is done by people whose paycheck depends on fear. Plus, it's backed by the IPCC, which is part of the UN, who are the "Oil for Food" guys. So, the alarmists are funded by oil too.

In looking at the funding levels to the co2science.org group, I'd say your comment "funded by" is quite over the top. "Some funding" would be appropriate, as opposed to the funding levels of the alarmists.

As an aside, it's been over 17 years now since I've bought any Exxon gas...

Getting back to corus - did you have anything of substance to say? I mean besides the obvious error discounting funding of climate change research: The US has put up more funding toward research than the entire EU.

And if you think the science is settled, you're sadly mistaken. The latest is that less than a quarter is due to increased CO2. Destruction of arable land, heat islands, solar particle variation - there is much more to it than what plants eat (CO2).

 

[electricpete]

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

"Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998."

(CFTSOCDAGC is of course the same people who give us the wonderful co2science.org)

For $90k, I could build a website and slap up a helluva lot of misleading statistics such as the one mentioned by Corus. (Temperature records from a single city proves there is no global warming!)

$90not enough for you LCruiser? See here:

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html

"These records and others show that ExxonMobil Foundation and ExxonMobil Corp. also have contributed $160,000 to the George T. Marshall Institute in the past three years and more than $900,000 to the Competitive Enterprise Institute"

As far as I can tell, none of these institutes that Exxon donated to is research oriented - they are all P.R. oriented posting the same junk science that is peddled at CFTSOCDAGC.

The scary thing about these sites - they can't make up their mind. Is it that there is no evidence of global warming, or is it that global warming will actually be GOOD for us? They don't really care as long as we believe something that means the oil companies can continue to make their big $.

And lest we forget in discussing contributions approaching 1 million above, we're just talking about one oil company.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

$65k for 4 people for 8 years is not what I consider "funded by." I admit they receive some funding, but most alarmists get 20 or 30 times as much - to spread fear. If there was no fear, most alarmists would not have a job.

And, to say they are trying to prove there is no global warming by posting a single city's record is ridiculous. They are pointing out by different sites every week that temperatures vary all over.

It's becoming apparent that "Urban Heat Island" is a misnomer. We all have our own share of heat island - roads we drive, roofs over our heads, land that has been used up for cultivation and various other reasons. All that reduces evapotranspiration, reducing cloud cover. It's not just "urban".

I'm not saying CO2 isn't having some effect on the temperature - but we still don't know if it's relatively significant, or if it's even bad. We know it's food for plants. Not just fertilizer, but food.

In the past, civilizations have always thrived when temperatures are going up, and when temperature goes down it causes strife.

We don't know enough about climate to make any kind of decision yet on any action that may unnecessarily burden us.

 

[owg]

In search of an unbiased source of climate change data and opinion I came across

http://www.pewclimate.org.

I think you will find that this organization believes that we are changing the climate for the worse. The founders of the organization are the Pew family of Philadelphia. Second generation J. Howard Pew's Sun Oil Company, "Sunoco" was fully responsible for the funding of the first synthetic crude plant in the Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, which started up in 1967, and now produces 260,000 bpd. So we have big oil funding research that comes down in favour of anthropgenic global warming.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[LCruiser]

I don't think there are any unbiased opinions out there on the subject (including the Pew Center). The reason is that we simply don't know enough about anthropogenic effects on climate. The potential for benefitting the food supply, particularly in third world countries, by enhanced CO2 is tremendous - giving us more time to address the population explosion there.

And, as is very convincingly pointed out (e.g. the Pielkes) adaptation, if required, will be a much more cost effective solution.

 

[electricpete]

It's a good debate with good arguments on both sides. LCruiser I enjoy reading your posts even if I don't tend to agree with your views. I hope no-one takes it personally if I argue/question on a few specific points.

"I don't think there are any unbiased opinions out there on the subject (including the Pew Center)."

owg has made a pretty convincing argument for objectivity of this source. I would tend to conclude your basis for distrusting them would be that they don't agree with your views. Can you identify any sources you consider more objective which support your views?

"We don't know enough about climate to make any kind of decision yet on any action that may unnecessarily burden us."

"And, as is very convincingly pointed out (e.g. the Pielkes) adaptation, if required, will be a much more cost effective solution."

In other words, until there is proof positive, there is no sense in doing anything about it. We all agree with the politization of facts on both sides there will never be proof positive. So you advocate doing nothing until after we are forced to adapt to the man-induced climate change (if/when it occurs)?

With all the benefits to plants and third-world countries and benefits of man-made global warming, maybe we should be trying to ramp up our CO2 emissions?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

I think anyone who makes the argument for action is naive. There are in fact both costs and benefits to increased CO2. The benefits are establishing themselves slowly but steadily - increased crop production intensity and spatial coverage, and less water use by plants to name a few. There is a lot of backlash from the original sin department (fear mongerers, or alarmists).

Here are some basic questions and *my* opinions:
1. Is man causing global warming
a. I think most of it.
2. Are CO2 emissions the main cause
a. I think not - there is more and more evidence that land use changes are partially to blame, and that black carbon falling on the Arctic ice and snow are a major cause of that warming.
3. Is warming going to be bad?
a. Nobody knows, but historically warming has been good. You hear of people dying in heat waves - those are typically people close to death anyway. Freezing to death is not that way - it takes anybody.
4. Are solar variations contributors?
a. Yes, but not simple solar output. The mechanism appears to be the solar wind variability shielding us from cosmic rays, which nucleate water vapor.

So, on the one hand we have the alarmists saying the sky is falling, and on the other we have the skeptics saying it's not happening. Then, on the other hand we have a lack of coherency in the whole research program, indicative of slanted science, particularly by people who depend on fear for their next paycheck.

Well, I'm out of hands so that's about it...

 

[electricpete]

"I think anyone who makes the argument for action is naive."

Duly noted.

"1. Is man causing global warming
a. I think most of it."

So you think we're causing global warming (unrelated to CO2) but you have a feeling that's a good thing?

And atmospheric CO2 has increased by 25% as a result of man's activities and that's a good thing as well?

Dang, we're good.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

I meant of course.... we the U.S. are good. Those Europeans and Japanese and the rest are just plain irresponsible for not participating in all this goodness we're creating thru warming and CO2.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

OK, everyone's participating. Some just trying a little harder than others.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

Sorry, maybe a little to heavy on the sarcasm. I was just a little surprised by your position. It's definitely not with the mainstream on either side. I'll have to ponder it a little bit.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[25362]

Astronauts manifest their emotions on seeing the beauty and fragility of our planet from outer space. Here is one of many expressions:

A Chinese tale tells of some men sent to harm a young girl who, upon seeing her beauty, became her protectors rather than her violators. That's how I felt seeing the Earth for the first time. I could not help but love and cherish her.
Taylor Wang, China/USA

 

[scotty7]

So if we accept that global warming is happening, and that we know that the ice sheets are retreating at the moment, a brief extrapolation puts the sea level rise at 1-7 metres. Which pretty much wipes out quite a few population centres, starting with London and New York, New Orleans of course, and most of Bangladesh, population vast, who will need relocating. Anyone got space for a few hundred million evacuees?

 

[jmw]

It's all about the Frankenstein complex....

We have been pursuaded that if we like something it is bad for us or someone else. And that includes just about everything we do.

Global Warming (or Abrupt Climate Change; the more inclusive catch all now favoured by some alarmists) is an easy piece of propaganda since it triggers a Pavlovian reflex of guilt and fear.

The fundamental point is that we don't really know if we are headed for an ice-age or a greenhouse and we don't know what the real balance of good and bad are for either option.

As has been said, we can adapt; that is what we are good at, adapting. Not just us but all of nature. Sure, it looks alarming and appeals to our cuddly centres if we see Polar Bears floating around adrift on ice floes and we respond. This is a triggger.
Sadly, one of the endangered species is the European brown rat and as one conservationist said, nobody cares about it because it has all the wrong associations for people.

Our environment has been in a continuous state of change with species going extinct and other species resurgent. In almost every field of conservation there are disputes aabout what it is that is being conserved and why and what is the right policy........ in the UK there are no bears or wolves, nor wild boar, though there used to be. So of course, there are those whao believe they have a natural place in the UK countryside and are trying to re-introduce them....

Adapt means to respond to changes but if they are momentous changes coming then we need to be sure which it is we can expect and devote our resources to that scenario.... a bit tough if we have spent all our resources on the wrong scenario and don't have anything left....or if that effort has been completely counter-productive.

Of course, part of the propaganda is to instantly label anyone who questions the "Global warming" scenario as a Humvee driving polluter. It isn't axiomatic that you are environmentally friendly if you belive the global warming scares.

We live in a sound byte photo-opportunity age where one picture of a cuddly polar bear or an oil soaked seabird outwieghs all logic or rational thought.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

Well said JMW.

The problem with the future is that with 3rd world overpopulation things are going to jam up. Not only is the numerator going up, the denominator is going down, with sucking dry aquifers and ruining arable land with inadequate irrigation practices. It's that denominator that's going to get us.

So, blame it on the US, and we become the Great Satan to more and more people. Last time it was called the dark ages...

Those of us who believe in science should be scared. Very scared.

Just kidding.

Maybe.

 

[electricpete]

We are.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

I have read there is a correlation between CO2 and warming based on the infamous ice cores. Cause and effect not exactly clear.

Somewhere in this thread I think someone (a status-quo advocate) said the CO2 always comes after the warming. Where did that information come from? (any links?)

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

9pm ET on CNN, Larry King will interview Al Gore on global warming and more.

Watch and learn. Maybe. Should be entertaining anyway.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

LCruiser - you made the statement:
"You can see, if you look closely at them, that the CO2 variation follows the temperature variation, so it's kind of doubtful that CO2 caused the temperature change (cause seldom trails effect...). "

Can you provide any more information on this (links)?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.