I disagree with point #1 and #2...but I ain't gonna repeat the 988 posts that came before yours. If #1 is correct and #2 is correct then we should be seeing a constant temperature increase according to the models....but then my post # 984 could not be true. Sorry...I think I'll believe the scientists who just published that in the Journal of Geophysical Research. *
*Willis, J. K., D. P. Chambers and R. Steven Nerem, 2008: Assessing the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans
None of the scientists say that the increase should be constant. They say that while continuing to fluctuate the trend should be up. That means that it is entirely possible for there to be some colder years following warmer ones but that if you take an average over any number of years greater than 4 or 5 it should be warmer than the preceding period. Thats why you get reports like this one:
which says that the 9 past years were all in the 25 warmest ever recorded.
This is sort of like the debate about smoking and cancer. It is a statistical argument. You can always find a counterexample (someone who smoked and didnt get cancer or someone who didnt smoke and did get cancer) but overall the evidence shows that there is a correlation. On global warming there are many many fewer data points (i.e. years of weather data) than there are smokers so that the "proof" (such as it is) is correspondingly weaker. However, it is safe to say that the scientists who study this are becoming increasingly convinced and the naysayers are being steadily won over. But there will always be some who dont want to believe it, and they will always be able to point at examples which support their case because that is the nature of statistical evidence. If you are one of these, however, ask yourself this - Why do YOU think the past 9 years are all among the warmest ever recorded? Why do YOU think the Greenland ice cap is melting and chunks of the Antarctic ice the size of Rhode Island are breaking off?
For me, the evidence is pretty clear, but even if it isnt for you most of the things we should do if we believe it (burn less oil, etc.) are all things that would be a good idea for other purely capitalistic reasons (as well as national security ones - wouldnt you love not to NEED oil from the middle east if it were possible?)
I went to a talk by a guy who seemed to know what he was talking about who said that ethanol made from crops in North America isnt worth it but that the calculation looks much better when it is made from sugar cane. That is why, he said, the Brazilians are doing well with ethanol but it is stupid for us to use it unless we start buying from Cuba where they grow cane (and that aint gonna happen until castro is dead, among a few other changes). Here is a link I found to what he said
The reality of the situation is still that people eat corn, and the livestock that the corn feeds. Land used to grow sugar cane, corn, sugar beets and any other product used to make ethanol is land not used for any other purpose - and the planet isn't making any more usable land - but we are making more people.
The Fact is that governments, large corporations, the U.N. and people in general are incapable of managing the balance of use and far more people have been adversely affected by this latest State of Fear (see M. Crichton's book of the same name) than have been affected by Global Warming, Market Crashes etc.
While I think that a renewable source of energy is perhaps one of the single greatest advancements civilization could use, ethanol isn't it. It amazes me that more research isn't put into solar power, and a crap load into clean fusion power. We've had the answer for decades but are unable to achieve the solution. Perhaps the oil companies are holding back, all the tin foil hat folks in the crowd are standing by to write up the conspiracy theories from hell et. al. What I do KNOW is that ethanol is not the answer, is not even a good temporary solution because of havoc it is wrecking and the world would be better off if we turned our energy to more productive goals than attempting to lower the world temperature by .08 degrees over the next century.
It'd be much more practical if they could make ethanol from cellulose, rather than requiring corn that would be better off used as food.
Unfortunately, now that ethanol has become a form of fuel for automobiles, the small percentage of the world's population which owns cars is going to be competing for corn against the far larger and much poorer people that do not. And if oil prices stay high, it will drive more and more of the corn production into ethanol, and away from food use, causing the price of alternatives to corn, like wheat, rice, soybeans, etc to go up in price due to the increased demand by the fuel industry for corn.
__________________
Sailingdog Telstar 28
New England
You know what the first rule of sailing is? ...Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take
a boat to the sea you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of the worlds. Love keeps
her going when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home.
—Cpt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity (edited)
If you're new to the Sailnet Forums... please read this POST.
Still—DON'T READ THAT POST AGAIN.
Last edited by sailingdog : 02-17-2008 at 11:45 AM.
Why is it that the use of ethanol reminds me of saccharine?
Without actually checking, I would bet that if one compared the historical data, they could reasonable conclude that we would currently be in a warming cycle. With or without man's influence.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
None of the scientists say that the increase should be constant. They say that while continuing to fluctuate the trend should be up. That means that it is entirely possible for there to be some colder years following warmer ones but that if you take an average over any number of years greater than 4 or 5 it should be warmer than the preceding period. Thats why you get reports like this one:
which says that the 9 past years were all in the 25 warmest ever recorded.
This is sort of like the debate about smoking and cancer. It is a statistical argument. You can always find a counterexample (someone who smoked and didnt get cancer or someone who didnt smoke and did get cancer) but overall the evidence shows that there is a correlation. On global warming there are many many fewer data points (i.e. years of weather data) than there are smokers so that the "proof" (such as it is) is correspondingly weaker. However, it is safe to say that the scientists who study this are becoming increasingly convinced and the naysayers are being steadily won over. But there will always be some who dont want to believe it, and they will always be able to point at examples which support their case because that is the nature of statistical evidence. If you are one of these, however, ask yourself this - Why do YOU think the past 9 years are all among the warmest ever recorded? Why do YOU think the Greenland ice cap is melting and chunks of the Antarctic ice the size of Rhode Island are breaking off?
Correlation does not imply causation. I often drink warm tea in the morning, but the tea doesn't cause the morning. By choosing smoking and cancer as your example you are implying that since smoking does in fact cause cancer that somehow your argument has more merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sck5
For me, the evidence is pretty clear, but even if it isnt for you most of the things we should do if we believe it (burn less oil, etc.) are all things that would be a good idea for other purely capitalistic reasons (as well as national security ones - wouldnt you love not to NEED oil from the middle east if it were possible?)
If there were an economical alternative to pumping oil out of the ground and pumping it on to a boat and sending it across the ocean, don't you think somebody would be doing it ? Pumping oil out of the ground is very inexpensive in the big scheme of things, not much more complicated than pumping water out of the ground, just harder to find. It's a LOT cheaper than creating an entirely new fuel from other raw materials, including sunlight. Common sense says it's not going to be cheaper to create fuel from corn than it is to just pump it right out of the ground.
Edit ...
Or, let me say it another way. If suddenly tomorrow someone in their basement discovered a way to create a new fuel out of dirt that was easy, efficient, and less expensive to produce than oil ... how long do you think it would take for someone to start making money off of that ? Do you think the government would have to subsidize the owners of dirt, or that there'd have to be government programs to encourage the use of dirt fuel, or that we'd be sitting here having arguments about the merits of oil over dirt fuel ? No, it would take off over night, there'd be no stopping it, dirt fuel would replace oil so quick it would make your head spin.
The problem isn't that there aren't any alternative energy sources, there are plenty. The problem is that none of them is cheaper to produce and use than oil. Where they are cheaper, windy areas for example, companies do create power generators to take advantage of it. There really are geothermal plants, large wind farms, etc, in places where it is economically advantageous to use them. But ethanol fuel simply isn't cheaper, it's probably never going to be cheaper, and that's why it has to be forced down sensible people's throats.
__________________
What are you pretending not to know ?
Last edited by wind_magic : 02-17-2008 at 12:35 PM.
Reason: Last bit ..
Windy - obviously you didn't get the memo from Algore. You can't use the term "common sense" in climate discussions.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
which says that the 9 past years were all in the 25 warmest ever recorded.
.... Why do YOU think the past 9 years are all among the warmest ever recorded? Why do YOU think the Greenland ice cap is melting and chunks of the Antarctic ice the size of Rhode Island are breaking off?
For me, the evidence is pretty clear, but even if it isnt for you most of the things we should do if we believe it (burn less oil, etc.) are all things that would be a good idea for other purely capitalistic reasons (as well as national security ones - wouldnt you love not to NEED oil from the middle east if it were possible?)
Let me take each of those 3 points on.
1. The Nat'l Geographic report was widely discredited and is documented elsewhere on this thread when it was discovered that the NASA scientist in charge had scrogged up the data and made an error in favor of warming. The data has since been adjusted and some temps in the 1920's and 30's are now the warmest of the past century. Furthermore...the temperature recording data itself is totally innacurate as I have demonstrated with pictures and graphs here many times. Finally...the recorded data referred to in Nat.Geo. goes back only to 1895 and there is ample evidence that several periods in the last 1000 years have been warmer than the present with only good effects on human endeavors. 100 years of MAYBE a 1/2 degree warming trend does not constitute climate change.
2. The artic melting has been shown to be the result of sea current change which is not associated with global warming. Also covered earlier in this thread. BTW...ice is PRESENTLY at a 15 year high in the Arctic which means this summer's low is an anomoly rather than climate. Minus 30 degrees Celsius. That's how cold it's been in large parts of western Greenland where the population has been bundling up in hats and scarves. At the same time, Denmark's Meteorological Institute states that the ice between Canada and southwest Greenland right now has reached its greatest extent in 15 years. That was reported yesterday!!
Arctic ice?? Here's the graph:
OK now take a look at that bottom line...that is deviation from the ice levels of the 1979-2000 period. Not much...and getting less...maybe we're now in a cooling period. (And we have no evidence that 1979-2000 ice levels are "correct" or natural!!!)
3. On foreign oil. YES...we should rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil for natinal security and balance of payments reasons. The way to do that is to ALLOW the free market to work...drill for oil here and offshore...build lots of nuke plants which are clean...let capitalists figure how to make money from clean coal technology...and YES...by all means, let the market figure out how to make affordable solar and wind power and better batteries for electric cars. YES...make STRICT pollution laws (not CO2 laws!!) and try to get China to do something! Subsidizing stuff that DOESN'T work will not lead to new solutions.
