By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Top weatherman says global warming good for Russia
link title
Beaufort Sea rapidly washes away shoreline (Anchorage Daily News).
"That might just represent a temporary period of heightened erosion in a region that seems to erode faster than just about anywhere else in the circumpolar Arctic, Jones said.
Or it might be a dramatic manifestation of climate change"
Or it might be little green men from Mars eating our coastline in the dark of night.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
1) I still fail to see how after many millions of years of change, that the human mind can not grasp "That change has NOT stopped!".
2) I also fail to see where the current change is outside the historical boundaries, in temperature, CO2 levels, or rate of change.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
"discussions of climate change can be "strongly emotional and not technical."
"With discussions of climate change and human impacts, it's sometimes a matter of, 'Do you accept what the science is telling you?' or 'What do you believe, almost as a matter of faith or religious belief?'"
Opposing view on global warming will be aired (And not just in here - this one is in Austin - statesman.com).
The fact remains that it is very easy to post endless articles, both pro and con about GW and most of them prove nothing, they are just opinions. I had much rather hear your opinion and your thoughts. I believe that people must use their own good experience and common sense to filter the things they hear and read because usually the folks putting this stuff out has an agenda of some sort.
Do I believe in climate change? Of course, it has been going on for millions of years. I just happen to believe that it is a natural occurrence and man can have little affect on it and that it is pointless to waste valuable resources, manpower, and money to try to fix something that is not broken.
What do YOU think?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
IT is pointless. Like trying to stop a wall of water in New Orleans with houses full of people. How much erosion occurred in the 1200 to 1300 period when it was much warmer than it is now? Stopping pollution is good. Using less fossil fuel is also good. Trying to stop a Tornado, Volcano or tsunami is just plain dumb. My suggestion to those in low lying areas would be to move. Or get to building dikes. Just don't waste my tax dollars doing it.
And those scientists are putting their research out there for peer review so I don't think it's just a bunch unfounded opinion. The pop sci articles get watered down and cherry picked, but you can filter that stuff pretty easily.
Personal experience? I saw glaciers shrink over the 20 years I lived in Anchorage and saw 1,000's of acres of spruce trees succumb to the spruce bark beetle.
The beetles used to be in check due to long, cold winters but the theory is that the weather isn't cold enough any longer to kill them off, so their range is expanding northward (or in the case of the Rockies, up to higher elevations).
Stuff like that makes me think that it's not just the odd volcano erupting that's causing all of that. The sun spot theory does makes me wonder though. But no, I don't think all the money and resources being spent studying the issue is going to waste, nor do I think the political efforts are meaningless (maybe the politics will result in parts of New Orleans moving to higher ground). And I like the spin-off benefits as I've mentioned before - stuff like cleaner air, more fuel efficient cars, more energy conservation, yada yada yada.
My wife was growing kiwis and apples in Anchorage, but that's just her. :shades:
I think it is the peer review that is shooting holes in the MM CC theories. The whole GW thing pretty much started as a political ploy. The UN jumped in and got a few scientific papers and manipulated the data to say what they wanted the masses to hear. I truly believe the tide is moving the other direction as more scientists become involved and review what is mostly computer simulations based on very shaky statistics. When you have 3 NASA scientists questioning the findings of the one NASA scientist that the Whole GW theory is built on. I find that very damning. And at least two of those scientists are now retired and feel safe in voicing their opinions.
Speaking of erosion. We have been losing sea shore along our coast for as long as I remember. People build along sandy cliffs and when their multi million dollar home sloughs off into the Pacific they want the city to do something.
If we all freeze in the dark what has been gained?
But shouldn't it be burn up in the heat of the day?
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the risk of increased severe weather would rise with a global average temperature increase of between 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit and 3.6 degrees above 1990 levels. The National Climatic Data Center currently reports that global temperatures have risen 0.22 degree since 1990."
"Other researchers, they noted, have suggested that "the likelihood of the 2003 heat wave in Europe, which led to the death of tens of thousands of people, was substantially increased by increased greenhouse gas concentrations.""
So does anyone see a problem here - that if we've only gone up 0.22 degrees, that does not equal 1.8 degrees. So how then did the CO2 level cause that heat wave?
Is this science for the 3rd grader?
Also if we're supposed to acknowledge researchers strong, strong belief that they know what controls the climate - CO2; why do they constantly have major updates to their understanding/theories?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
California utility PG&E buys big into solar power
California utility Pacific Gas & Electric on Tuesday announced a five-year program to produce 500 megawatts worth of solar energy from distributed solar panels.
Rather than build one giant solar power plant, PG&E plans to generate solar power from a collection of midsize projects, from 1 megawatt to 20 megawatts. This investment will cover half of the total target of power generation.
One megawatt is enough to power one large retail store or roughly 300 homes. A large solar installation at a single business, such as Google's rooftop array and solar carport, can be over 1 megawatt in generating capacity.
Solar photovoltaic panels will be mounted on rooftops or mounted on poles in PG&E's service area in Northern and Central California. The utility will seek to install the panels on land it already owns or near substations to avoid having to build new transmission lines, it said.
PG&E will rely on outside providers for the other 250 megawatts. If operating by 2015, the electricity will be enough to power 150,000 homes annually and account for 1.3 percent of PG&E's electrical demand.
The move is one of the largest solar-power projects to date and significant because it represents the first time in more than 10 years that PG&E has invested directly in renewable energy. Until now, it typically purchased electricity from third-party clean-energy project developers.
I only wish our politicians were smart enough and honest enough to use the 900 billion on projects like this all over the country. It would generate jobs and help cut our dependency on terrorist oil.
Instead they are just wasting the money, our money. Another idea is that they could have built 100 new nuclear plants around the country for that kind of money. Think of the jobs that would create and oil that would be saved.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
link title
Sorry, but it was a scientist that originally predicted GW.
http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm
"Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. "
or
"The first theory of global warming came in 1824 when French mathematician Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier discovered that the Earth's temperature was slowly increasing. Fourier argued that the earth's atmosphere traps solar radiation and reflects it back toward the earth. "
http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx
This was pre-UN, by the way. :shades:
You ignore how "The OIL Companies jumped in and got a few scientific papers and manipulated the data to say what they wanted the masses to hear."
"When you have 3 NASA scientists questioning the findings of the one NASA scientist that the Whole GW theory is built on. I find that very damning."
Your are cherry picking. I suspect one of the scientists you refer to is Roy Spenser. He did a talk at the local college a few months ago. I was not impressed by his talk. He spent half of it complaining that other scientists didn't think his hypothesis was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The other half of the time he complained about not getting all his papers published. Nobody gets all their papers published!!!
Ironically, he wasn't afraid to have someone plug his book all the while complaining that others are trying to make money off of GW. He also seems to have connections with the denial institute, I mean Heartland Institute.
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/02/25/news/state/177689.txt
The cost to raise the current dike system is estimated at " between $72 million and $100 million."
We may not be able to stop or even slow down sea level rise, BUT, we better understand the cause and how high it will go...
How will higher taxes on coal generated electricity slow the rise? As far as Devil's Lake. We have wasted billions of tax dollars trying to control the Mississippi River. Not sure the relationship to So called Man Made Global Warming.
If you went to Florida or the Gulf coast and took a survey. I believe you would find that most people would rather take their chances with rising ocean levels than quit using Air Conditioning.
I personally would take the word of 3 NASA scientists that refute 1 Nasa scientist. Even if all three have an agenda. And I believe all scientists have some agenda. Many have started out believing the GW hype pushed by the media and Politics. Until they do peer review and find all the flaws in the models used.
You were not impressed with Dr. Spencer because he was plugging his book and his theories. I am not impressed with Non scientist Al Gore that has made over $100 million in 7 years plugging his movie and books. Follow the money and you will see why GW is such a popular idea.
That sounds like a good idea. I was thinking about how much space the typical Wal-Mart roof must cover. Multiply that by all the large retail complexes and you could make a dent in the electricity needs of a given area. it would probably cut down on wear and tear on the building's roof as well.
I wonder what the economics of doing that would be? Would the payback period be reasonable? In sunny areas it might be workable. There might be some re-working needed to local zoning laws to allow such things. Perhaps even use some of that stimulus money to cost-share with businesses.
What say you larsb? Any solar arrays on the local Target yet?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
The studies are not that expensive. They will be far cheaper than spending money on a solution that does not work.
"Who should pay for the studies?"
That would be you. Thanks.
You may be right about the survey. People are likely to care about immediate needs first. You can usually get people to deal with acute problems or emergencies. It is very difficult to get people to care about long term issues.
You must be joking. We lost a Climate satellite just launched to the tune of $273 million. I have no problem with research on alternative energy. Though I don't think the Federal Government does a very good job. I liked McCain's idea of giving incentives to inventor's that come up with good ideas. Civil Servants have a way of becoming wasted money. I think we could cut our government ranks by 50% and not see much less for our tax dollars.
So my WHY, is for spending any money on any solution to a perceived problem that may not exist. I consider like operating on some one to see if they have a problem. We really don't have enough evidence that it is getting warmer. Especially over the last 10 years.
But, you left out the next paragraph which says:
"Now, researchers report that "increases in drought, heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency and flood risks starting at less than (1.8 degrees) of additional warming above 1990 levels.""
Researchers are now saying that the IPCC report was conservative and that we need less than 1.8 degrees to make an impact.
You also need to consider that someone from the AP wrote this article not the scientists. See the following link.
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/39373
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. notably said “Taxes
are what we pay for civilized society.”
WHY spend money on understanding climate change. Check the following link.
http://www.awwa.org/awwa/education/seminars/index.cfm?SemID=65
"Global climate changes affect your utility and the success of your operations. This two-day interactive seminar provides a way to assess your vulnerability to changing climate, and it will help you identify and assess strategies for adapting to these changes through your planning, design, and operational practices."
That was just one example of why people need to understand climate change.
It really must be tough for you to see the evidence for GCC build while you stick with your beliefs.
My strongest belief is Politicians are corrupt. And MM/CC is Politically motivated. Believing the planet gets warmer and colder is not difficult to comprehend. It is difficult to see how my paying more in taxes and utility bills will change the course of nature.
It was warmer in the 12th Century. How did man cope with that? How did man cause it? If scientists could answer those questions they may be able to convince me they are not motivated by greed.
You are baiting here !!! It is really a false construct !!
For example, I have lived in towns that had a some to majority volunteer fire persons. I live in a town now where there is a "reserve" officer force. Indeed while not ideal from a lot of perspectives, but being part time NOT being one of them, our ( 5 ) elected Town Council is not paid full time. There is a movement among the 5 elected officials to switch to full time pay (for part time work afoot). :surprise:
To show you how it has "progressed" one municipality to the north of us pays their police AND fire 100% of their salary, when they retire !!!! The enterprising among those still working, manage to get certified for " health or back " issues, which then qualifies their salaries to be tax exempt.
So you're saying that you think it legitimate, and you're going to believe in scientists, that change their theory conveniently, to fit the facts? So if you're the scientists and there are a few instances of severe weather like Katrina, then you simply change your theory from 1.8F to 0.2F, and say "ahha, see the data fits our theory". And the scientists conveniently ignore that Katrina wasn't that unusual as there have been numerous Category 5 hurricanes over the last couple of centuries, the wildfires werely mainly due to arson, and drought has occurred in many areas during history (you can go to Arizona and see ruins from Indian farming civilizations that were wiped out by drought).
This is nothing more than biased science being passed off to the non-scientific press and population. It is speculation at best, and fraud at worst. This is not science; it is not much better then our ancient ancestors looking at a volcano and based on its activity, telling the people they have or haven't been good, and what they need to do.
There may be GW, and man can make a small impact - we emit a few percent of 1 GHG (CO2) that nature emits along with us, with other GHG's being emitted by nature. It's a small amount.
If the consensus is correct that global temperatures in the 12th century were as much as 6.0F degrees warmer than today, What caused that Global Warming. Why not the same Sun that has existed since long before the earth was created?
Is it possible that Politicians are not interested in the 12th century GW because it would be hard to blame it on MAN?
The whole idea of scientific theory is to set it up and then attempt to destroy it.
This is why science is not the same as belief--the latter, once embraced, can never be altered---whereas scientists, if they are good scientists, are perfectly willing to admit they are wrong.
So far, the theory of GW is holding up remarkably well.
Unfortunately, the science training of most media people is no better than that of the American public, which is to say, dismal.
One example of this is the "anti-GW" media using "experts" who have no expertise in the area they are pontificating about. Al Gore presents experts, he does not claim to be one.
If you cannot be totally willing to destroy your own theory, you cannot be a good scientist, period.
Every good scientist, in his life, will come to a crossroad. This is the point where he/ she realizes that he/she is probably wrong, and has to turn the other way, or retreat.
the fact that 99% of all credible scientists are not retreating from GW theory suggests to me that they are confident at this point that they are still right.
The onus is on the believers in G/W to PROVE it...but they keep challenging others to disprove something that is yet to be proved. ( I would beg you not to take this as an opportunity to start posting opinion pieces in support of the theory.)
The proponents are smart enough to realize that no one is likely to prove or disprove this theory for many years, if ever, so they can cling to the theory forever and continue to get their grant money for years to come. The guy who is receiving welfare is certainly not going to criticize others who are also receiving welfare.
Whenever someone with a shred of integrity stands up and says wait just a minute...they get shouted down. Human nature and self preservation at work.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That would be a hard theory to prove. Many TOP scientists are backing off. The ones that cling to the theory are sucking on the US Government teat. That is why I would believe Spencer over his subordinate Hansen.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Gravity is just a theory (if you've figured out how it works, can I be your agent when we announce the findings to the world?)
Like I said, no one is going to figure out GW any time soon so these guys just keep getting free money to "study" it. Nice scam.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Because you can't tax the sun.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I don't know about that. I seem to be creating a bigger gravitational pull every year. :P
Less traffic should mean cleaner air right?
The Upside of a Down Economy: Traffic Down 30 Percent in 2008
You could have fooled us. We try to stay off the highways and byways during peak periods. Now it is hard to determine when it is peak. Seems to be all day long. My wife went shopping Friday while I sat on a jury. She finally got disgusted with the traffic and went back and parked at the courthouse and read her book. While our traffic is nowhere near as horrible as Los Angeles or Seattle. It is still far less than pleasant. We used to like going to the zoo for walks and find it just too much hassle driving down there. I think we have been to San Diego twice in the last year. Both times to catch a flight out.
Speaking of CC. I understand now if you do not use toilet paper you are allowed to drive a Hummer. I think I will continue to use the stuff on rolls and leave the Hummer to someone living in a cave. Do they plan to put a Carbon tax on Toilet paper to discourage its use?
You know how it is---it is so much easier to be controversial than to be a scientist.
A good scientist, during the course of his or her extensive education, is trained through acculturation to be extremely cautious and to add qualifiers to their research.
In addition, any credible scientist undergoes peer review.
A "contrarian" or a disgruntled weatherman or a talk show host is under no such constraints whatsoever. In other words, there are no consequences to their opinions, whereas a scientist can suffer great loss of reputation by being hasty or fraudulent.
I am not aware at this point of any top scientists are backing off the theory that GW is a man-made event. Has something dramatic been published in the last few days that I've missed? Please link, thank you.
As for this point, I personally can find no plausible objection to the theory that has not been scientifically answered with solid data.
Given the overwhelming consensus of the global scientific community, it would be an unprecedented event in the modern world for so many scientists to suddenly be wrong about something after putting so many reputations right out there. This has never occurred in modern science.
Contrarians to GW theory are merely adjusting their belief armor, seems to me, because GW has become politicized. In reality the objections to GW theory are not scientific, they are based on the fear of losing business or world economic dominance. Ditto governments, which are NOT responding properly, and they won't either. Things will have to get very ugly before you see any purposeful government response.
Which is about normal human behavior to radical alterations of the status quo. Understandably. It's a big shake-up.
It takes about a decade after the discovery of some scientific truth for the governments and media to catch up.
Science education among the media is pretty dismal.
Be sure not to give yourself a cramp squatting in the isle.
I see that sneaky old CC has hit a new low. This week it is causing record low temps in Regina Canada and they are predicting snow for the deep south again.
I'm sure this is just a ploy by big oil and the republicans to sow doubt in the minds of the CC true believers. :surprise:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible