Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

gagrice

Our soldiers in tents in Iraq where it gets 130 degrees with wind and sand. They do not have AC and are surviving. You are right, without heat people freeze to death. Every year just across our border we get reports of people dying of exposure because they do not have heat in their cardboard box. Or it gets washed down the ravine they are living in. We could easily survive with another few degrees of global warming. Open up all kinds of great areas for growing crops to feed the additional masses.

Whining about what might happen will not change a thing. Learning to adapt to the surroundings makes a lot more sense to me. For those that don't like it hot. Move where it is cooler.

carnaught

Whining about what might happen will not change a thing.

Or, you could do something about it like fly all around in your private jet spouting all of man's evils, then buy carbon credits from a company you yourself own.

avalon02wh

"p.s. I was wondering who was going to be the first idiot that blamed the Haiti Earthquake on Global Warming and it was (opening the envelope)... "

Actually, Pat Robertson said they "swore a pact with the devil".

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/13/crimesider/entry6092717.shtml

All and all a sad comment.

avalon02wh

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

A 0.36°F degree increase per decade could be significant if it continues. By 2100 the world would see about a 3 degree increase. These folks would need to revise their map.
http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html

On the lighter side, I recently found this video on www.ted.com
Be warned, the clip would probably not get a "G" rating. (PG or PG13?)

Talks | In less than 6 minutes
Yossi Vardi fights local warming

http://www.ted.com/talks/yossi_vardi_fights_local_warming.html

Claires

Glacier scientist admits glacier melting claims were included in (Nobel Prize-winning) report purely to put political pressure on world leaders

kernick

You do know, and you can see it on that map, that when you take the globe and put it on a rectangular grid like that the poles become stretched out and tropical areas become compressed. So if you look at the map, it would be deceiving to many who are looking at the amount of warmer spots versus cooler.

The main things I take from that map are that most populated areas are the same or cooler than normal. Many areas of the arctic and frozen Siberia are slightly warmer, which is good for them becoming closer to areas people can inhabit if the trend continues. Overall less warming than I'm hoping for.

Anyone hear what's up with ocean temperatures? Still no warming noted? Last time I went to the beach in Aug. here in New England it was too cold to go in the water for more than 15 min.

gagrice

For those that believe what ever NOAA and NASA report. Here is something to think about.

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+da- ta+skeptics/2468634/story.html

I know if they use the Airport Temperature in Prudhoe Bay, AK for their so called scientific studies, it is always warmer than reality. They have a weather station attached to their building. They always reported several degrees warmer than our big thermometer attached to our Tower. No matter how well insulated a building may be, it still radiates heat in the winter. If NOAA picks one Canadian station that gives "good" readings for their agenda, that does not bode well for their supposed unbiased position in AGW.

stever

They always reported several degrees warmer than our big thermometer attached to our Tower.

Maybe it has something to do with the height - where on your "tower" did you stick it? Surely you didn't climb the tower 30' every day to read the temp. :-)

"The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) agreed standard for the height of the thermometers is between 1.25 m (4 ft 1 in) and 2 m (6 ft 7 in) above the ground."

kernick

It must be pretty hard for climatologists to keep their instruments at that height when these glaciers are melting right out from underneath the equipment.

Now before I got in this forum, and read some of the things here, I would assume that if this is a scientific study of some enormous implications and effort, that there would be an extensive, well-thought-out temperature-data collection system.

For instance I could imaging that in order to understand global temperatures you would each area of the world reperesented equally. So I would have thought that every 100 miles you might put a battery-powered thermometer that send it's data to a satellite say 4 times (the same exact times) a day. I would hope that we would have buoys in the ocean spaced every 100 miles apart, and throughout the Arctic, doing the same.

stever

you would each area of the world reperesented equally

Modeling can take care of that handily. :shades:

gagrice

Our Thermometer was about 10 feet off the ground. So we could read it from inside the building about 20 feet from the tower. The one at the airport was on top of their two story building. Last I checked heat rises. Normally I would say 2-3 degrees variation is not important. When the AGW is trying to tell us the GW is up .3 degrees over the last decade, it gives a new meaning to accuracy in collecting data. Here was a record warm day in 1999. We had some warm days in 1998 also.

stever

Last I checked heat rises. Yeah, and the wind nevers blows at Prudhoe.

That pole probably is sinking come to think of it.

kernick

I feel it getting warmer just from the CPU's cranking away. More proof the warming is occurring and it's man-made.

BTW: I know some unemployed programmers, who will make you a model of whatever you want to prove. Throw in some PhD math and geology students, and I'll set you up with a theory that all the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is causing New Orleans to sink, and the earthquakes in Haiti.

stever

Well, since the heat island effect is man-made, and that's been shown to warm the temp, there's your proof of anthropogenic global warming.

The fresh posts in here got me nosing around - UAF has been doing interesting arctic and permafrost research for decades. Here's one link I cherry picked.

gagrice

Does not look like many Americans think GW is an important issue.



http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.

millwood0

" I'll set you up with a theory that all the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is causing New Orleans to sink, and the earthquakes in Haiti. "

and that's on absolutely sound science: the butterfly effect. or the chaos theory.

you don't need billions of dollars to prove it either.

a much better alternative use of our precious resources than GW.

avalon02wh

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Fewer+temperature+reports+could+underestimat- e/2476467/story.html
"Environment Canada says climate scientists who track global temperature trends may be underestimating the amount of warming in the Canadian Arctic, because they are working with data from a declining sample of weather stations across the region."

So really, the lack of readings may be underestimating the change.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/04/the-year-in-climate-science-scientists/

"China Automakers Boosting Capacity to About 21M Units in 2012"
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/01/china-20090628100124.html#more

It is looking like cars will play an even bigger role in GCC. :shades:

kernick

Yes I see the cherry-picking as in the upper-left "Clean Air / Cool Planet" link, which has already concluded that GW is sustained and is something man should try and stop, regardless of us not understanding the amount of impact man has.

during last glacial period – some time between 20 and 80 thousand years ago. It was much colder then than it is now and permafrost distribution was much wider. Permafrost occupied a significant part of Europe, a very significant part of northern Eurasia, practically all Russia, Mongolia, and northern China. In North America all non-glaciated areas in Canada and Alaska were permafrost areas. Canada had the largest distribution of permafrost - almost all of it was occupied by permafrost. Permafrost existed in some places underneath the huge glacier that covered North America.

And how did all the warming occur from that period to the present? During these thousands of years there have times where the temperatures dropped quickly for decades or centuries and times where they have spiked. But there has been a general warming trend. since those many thousands of years ago. I still see no proof that man-made CO2 is effecting the climate significantly. While that interview may be correct in facts of effects of future warming, there is nothing in there that supports that the warming is caused by man, or can be stopped by man. The last I read is that man-kind puts a few % of the CO2 into the atmosphere compared to natural releases.

We both can put up many, many links detailing how the Earth has changed over millions of years, yet when we discuss the present, you infer that the Earth somehow should be constant forever-more - same coastlines and same climate. It makes no sense to me. If mankind did not exist do you think the Earth would not cool or warm, but would stay exactly like it is today forever and ever? if so why do you think the climate has stopped changing when it has been changing for billions of years?

Until we become god-like, I suggest we do as gagrice has suggested several times - learn to adapt. We're a long way from having so much of the planet too hot to live. There is far more land area that is too cold, compared to too hot. Any warming will result in a net increase of liveable area.

gagrice

So really, the lack of readings may be underestimating the change.

Also easier to fudge on a few vs many data sets. Sorry I just do not trust the people tied to the UN or our government. I see no reason to use one outpost reading in the Arctic and call it good. Something fishy there.

Now that China is the largest auto market, they can take the blame for GW. See if they will buckle under and hand out $100 million or billion whatever we are wasting on this scam.

stever

Yes I see the cherry-picking as in the upper-left "Clean Air / Cool Planet" link

You know, I had so many tabs open I thought I was still on an official UAF page.

Here's more of the "parent" link, and it really is at the college:

Geophysical Institute

Most of it isn't global warming stuff, but a lot of it is interesting reading (try the Permafrost tab).

millwood0

"which has already concluded that GW is sustained"

that is probably true, given that the earth's temperature now is below its historical average and we are still climbing, temperature wise, out of the last ice age. so we have been warming up, slowly, over the last 100 - 200K years.

and thank God for that, or the warmers would still be a bunch of monkeys picking flee out of each other's back.

"and is something man should try and stop"

well, I don't think the warmers are the ones to make that decision for us,

gagrice

I was looking at the bill we got to send our Congress people to Copenhagen. It says a lot about our stupidity at the polls. The real ignorance is the Warmers that planned the whole thing. Going to Copenhagen in the winter to promote their theory of Man Made Global Warming has to be one of their biggest goofs. Why not some nice place in the Southern Hemisphere where it is going to be Warm?

Thankfully, in spite of wasting tax dollars, it turned into chaos. Hopefully we switch controlling parties and the whole AGW, Cap n Trade becomes a footnote in history. At least until 2100 when Florida goes under and becomes like Atlantis. :shades:

millwood0

the warmers had a point about us getting warmer: not too long ago (relative to mother nature), the entire new england was under 1 - 2 miles of ice. so from then we must have warmed up, to the point we only got some ice during certain parts of the winter, .

so I think those guys are on sound footing when it comes to us getting warmer.

unfortunately, for the warmer, their "science" stopped quickly after that, .

"At least until 2100 when Florida goes under and becomes like Atlantis. "

that's why you should buy real estate in Canada as the Florida retirees will soon flock there,

gagrice

I'm thinking about the 100 ft level of Georgia should be beach front property in a few years. Hopefully they don't waste a lot of tax money with dikes like they have in New Orleans.

stever

Congress Went to Denmark, You Got the Bill (CBS)

Is so.

Growing Algae for Biofuels Worse Environmentally Than Corn, Other Crops - Study

Not it ain't:

Algae Industry Blasts Study, Says Authors Lacked Experience and Used Old Data

(Green Car Advisor)

kernick

Knowing all the crow our Congressmen eat, and the resultant mess they make, I'm not surprised by the food bill at all!

I remember when I worked at a shipyard as a GS worker, there were daily limits on food and lodging. I'm sure there still are. Amazing how the rules don't apply to the elite. In fact it sounds like they don't know what amounts they are signing for! What if that Marriott hotel charged $10K / night or $50K / night; it sounds like no one is aware of it.

I mean how many more examples do we need to show how screwed-up and corrupt things are; not just this GW-scam, but all of our leadership. That is why I'm against giving the system more and more control, power, and money. :mad:

Fight the urge to play the shell-game, and buy the Ginsu knives at the fair. Yes Lucy is going to pull the football away from Charlie Brown for the umpteenth time. Yes, you're going to get taken again, if you just follow along and play their game!

gagrice

Most of the algae research I have read does not use open ponds as the report alludes to. Bottom line. I would hope they do not mandate the use of bio fuels from Algae until it is proven profitable without subsidizing. We screwed up big time with Corn Ethanol. When those plants are all obsolete it will be our tax dollars rusting away. Same as the 98 corn ethanol plants from the Carter era that went broke. I don't think we guaranteed the loans back in the 1970s, like we do today.

stever

(You thought I said unintended acceleration for a moment there eh?).

"Greenhouses gases absorb infrared radiation from the Earth and release it back into the atmosphere as heat, causing the planet to warm up over time. Aerosol works against this by reflecting heat from the sun back into space, cooling the planet as it does so."

Healing of ozone hole could accelerate global warming (Gizmag)

gagrice

That's good news. Now we can bring back Freon 12 AC units that work to keep cars cool. :shades:

I think the message here is, no matter what insignificant act man does to the planet. In time it can heal itself. It may not be what we want it to be. I don't think we have much choice but to take what we are dealt.

ponderpoint

It finally happened.

She was screeching away about the usual global warming hysteria and how man is destroying the planet and then she said it;

"We're in the middle of Winter and Australia is BAKING HOT IN A HEAT WAVE!!!!"

We were stunned. There was a couple of bemused looks but nobody had the heart to tell her it is of course, summer now in Australia.

Wow.

kernick

Doesn't your state know that GW is the problem? Tell those people in your state that the Arctic is getting warmer, and that it's warmer than ever in recorded history. Send them some of those reports you like to quote, but make the print large, because it's easy to read when shivering. :P

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/weather/01/28/arizona.winter.storms/index.html?hpt=Sb- - in

kernick

Why the Earth's surface temperature hasn't warmed as expected over the past decade continues to be a puzzle for scientists. One study out earlier this month theorized that the Earth's climate may be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than currently assumed.

Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet."

The findings are "surprising," says Bill Randel, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not part of the study. He said it was surprising how big an effect such a very little change in stratospheric water vapor has had on the surface climate.

These fluctuations in water vapor could be part of a feedback loop. Although it's known that water vapor in the troposphere increases as the climate warms — and is a major climate feedback that is well simulated in global climate models — in sharp contrast, models do a poor job of simulating water vapor in the stratosphere, according to the paper.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-01-29-watervapor29_ST- _N.htm

What else does the model do a poor job of simulating, if they don't understand something as prevalent and obvious as water vapor?

stever

"New tape from terror leader says global warming is 'an actual fact'."

Bin Laden blames U.S. for climate change (MSNBC)

houdini1

If I was Bin Laden I would be shouting the same thing. Too bad we have so many people here trying to help him !!

avalon02wh

Some thoughts on the “Weather Station Siting Issue”. First, here are two links to get you started.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/28/watts-not-to-love-new-study-finds-the-poor- -u-s-weather-stations-tend-to-have-a-slight-cool-bias-not-a-warm-one/?utm_source- =feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Clima- te+Progress%29

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exag- gerated/#more-15729

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There seems to be a fair amount of he said, she said being thrown around. Right now the ball is in Watts corner. He said he will reply to the new study. It will be rather ironic if it turns out that he helped prove the case for additional warming. In any case, it will make the science better, even if that is not what he wanted.

“Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN station.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

avalon02wh

World's glaciers continue to melt at historic rates
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/25/world-glacier-monitoring-servi- ce-figures

Despite the "Himalayan glaciers" issue, overall glaciers are retreating. I wish someone would do a website showing which glaciers are melting and where (world map). Actually, the map should include all glaciers, the ones that are retreating and the ones that are advancing. Pictures would be included as well as a linked to information on each glacier (rate of retreat or advance).

Methane Causes Vicious Cycle In Global Warming
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800&ft=1&f=1001

Interesting story but I would have dropped the word vicious. Seems like every headline nowadays has to include some over-the-top word or phrase. (Sigh!) I would never put an unrelated word or phrase in my title. Nope. :shades:

The other news of the week is some people are wondering what the role of the IPCC should be. We need a central place to collect the information. We also need a place to debate the issues. Maybe the Internet is the place to do that, however, with China filtering information we have a bit of a problem.

avalon02wh

http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14083&p=97372

After looking at the descriptions, I came to the conclusion that I could not place myself in any of the categories. Bummer! I am probably more of a floater. As new information comes along I change my thoughts on the subject.

I also did not think the descriptions were that good or complete. Why not 7 groups or 26?. Anytime, I see a round number it raises a red flag. It suggests the person forced the descriptions into the 10 groups. In other words, they started from a predetermined position - I like ten, its a nice round number, so lets make it fit.

The ranking would also suggest that this is a two dimensional issue with two extremes. It is more complex then that.

Just finished reading: What Have You Changed Your Mind About?: Today's Leading Minds Rethink Everything (Paperback). It had some interesting essays on a variety of topics - even GCC. I thought some of the biology related topics were more interesting, however. The whole idea of the human body replacing most of itself every year or so was new to me.

avalon02wh

Algae to fuel might be a good deal for wastewater systems. We have hundreds of wastewater lagoons in ND, SD, MT, CO and so on that might be able to use the technology. Removing algae from the system for fuel removes nutrients. The resulting effluent becomes cleaner. The economics are a big unknown for now, but I would not count it out just yet.

How can you call corn ethanol a screwup???? How many other issues have united democrat and republican lawmakers? Or what about the higher prices for corn products? Think positive.

gagrice

I have to read your other links before I respond. The problem I see with Corn Ethanol is the huge expense for a product that will not likely ever be self sustaining or even neutral. It take more fossil energy to produce than you get back. Some other ethanol may be viable. If and when that happens we will have several hundred corn stills that will be obsolete. You forget, there is a common denominator between Democrats and Republicans. It is called PORK. Corn ethanol falls clearly into the pork barrel waste of tax dollars. Making all the pols in the Midwest happy. The folks at either end of the country get screwed and pay the price for the ethanol mandate. Including the loss of mileage with ethanol laced gas. I think it could be proven a total loss. As I lose about 10% mileage on whatever percentage they are using in California.

kernick

What do those articles have to do with MMGW? We know that the Earth's climate and continents are always changing. That change over history is suspected to have had many sudden ups and downs.

How does the current change compare to the advance and retreat of the glaciers that covered most of North America and carved out the Great Lakes and such?

Isn't it interesting to consider that the world must have been warmer not too many millenia ago. Otherwise how do mammoths get encased in ice in the Permafrost? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter1.asp
They wouldn't have even lived there if the ground was permanently frozen.

stever

What Have You Changed Your Mind About?: Today's Leading Minds Rethink Everything

Another one for my reading list. I've always liked the old truism "everything you thought you knew is wrong". Not to mention, "the more you know the less you know".

Gore asks How serious is global warming? (Helium)

millwood0

"That change over history is suspected to have had many sudden ups and downs. "

the historical fluctuations are not just suspected. they are proven beyond any doubt: the earth has gone through an ice age about every 100,000 years.

so in between the ice ages, the temperature went up and then down, all before massive human activities.

something the warmers could never explain away. all the warmers could do is to explain the rough temperature trend for the last 100k years: from the bottom of the last ice age to today, and obviously it has warmed up,

dah!

edit: here is a temperature plot for the last 500,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

ask a warmer what caused the temperature fluctuations,

kernick

But for different reasons, I put Al Gore's believability right there with John Edwards. Another sleazy politician looking for political power, $, and fame.
All Gore and these scientists have done is to take 1 probable theory - that the Earth is warming, together with a lab fact - that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and come up with a money-making crusade which uses the unproven - Manmade CO2 is causing the majority of the warming.

It is a 0F morning here in Jan as I type this; my climate is the same as it was 45 years ago - Darn, Darn cold as my biological data collection system has recorded. I do not plan on supporting any politician who will add a tax to my utility or companies that I buy products from, to reduce CO2 which is only a part of this miniscule warming (which I don't see). And I'm not paying our local restaurants for food, simply because on my way to work driving by, I smelled their coffee or burgers cooking - it was insignificant.

gagrice

Is there any legitimate peer reviewed data in the IPCC reports?

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

More damning evidence on UN report

PS
I am a 5 on the Treehugger list.

avalon02wh

"What do those articles have to do with MMGW?"

I would use GCCW/HE. (Gllobal Climate Change With a Human Element).

Does it matter if we are accelerating change in climate?

avalon02wh

"I am a 5 on the Treehugger list. "

Based on your previous posts I would not agree that you are just a 5. I would suggest you could also be identified as having other positions. Again, I do not think the list is complete, nor do I think people can fit neatly into one category.

After reviewing the list again I would put myself in 3, 5, 6 & 11.

kernick

Does it matter if we are accelerating change in climate?

The last I heard we humans were just as natural and biologic as any species that has and exists on Earth. All species have effected the course of history and where we are today. We are PART of nature, not some alien species to Earth nature.

But to answer your question in terms of temperature - the Earth's average temperature is 59F, which is substantially below the optimum human comfort-zone.

gagrice

OK put me down for a 3 and a 5.

I believe the World economic policies are a bigger threat to mankind than GW by far. Man has killed and starved a lot more people than any drought or storm.

kernick

The news this morning is carrying a story that DC is going to get the "Snowstorm of the Century" today. About 2' of snow. Huh, I thought it had to be cold to snow.

Well anyway I hope it happens again in Mar., and then even Apr. so they're not dropping in the streets from this accelerating GW. Maybe we'll have to put our capital way up in Alaska as it's really getting warm there.

millwood0

"Huh, I thought it had to be cold to snow."

just wait for the wamers to claim this winter is the warmest in history.



I think history will show that global warming, together with the tulip mania, social security and medicare are some of the greatest scams of man kind.