Global Warming Debate

[erps]

On another forum, a person indicated that global warming is most evident at the poles. So I googled Alaska climate history and got a hit for temperature recording stations all over the state. I picked the northern most one, Barrow, to see what the trend was since the 1950's.




Alaskan Climate History

[Boasun]

And here all the time, I thought that the BIG CHILL was about to happen...

[craigimass]

Cam, you are so full of poop on this that your eyes are brown!

There are MANY pages of this thread about Enchiladas......for instance!
I would, of course, never go off subject like that, but then again you didn't have hissy fits when your friends spent pages of "your" thread on that. And make no mistake about it - this is YOUR thread. It is not a discussion. It is just you yelling louder and louder until you "win", or you getting angry when anyone presents a POV that you don't agree with.

A perfect example of the intelligence of the right wing. If ideas don't work, first piss on the debate. If that doesn't work, pull out a gun. If that doesn't work, pull out a bigger gun. Sooner of later, you will "win".

Silly man.......

As to Global Warming, again there is no doubt it is happening. What percentage of it is man-made is up for discussion.

One example is the planting zones for crops and trees in this country. The map has changed greatly in the last couple decades. This is from totally non-political perspectives.

The Arbor Day Foundation, for instance, publishes a map of changes in just the last 16 years:
The Arbor Day Foundation

Notice that the vast percentage - virtually ALL the changes are to the warmer temps...not colder.
"Significant portions of many states have shifted at least one full hardiness zone. Much of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, for example, have shifted from Zone 5 to a warmer Zone 6. Some areas around the country have even warmed two full zones."

Those are some major changes! And, they are consistent over MILLIONS of square miles.

Of course, 16 years of data is not enough to make the case for science. We have to keep an eye on it. But not with one eye closed and our minds shut off. That has never worked too well.

[billyruffn]

Originally Posted by craigimass

The Oil boys did help destroy our nations economy by making certain that we did not develop the technologies of the future.

Craig, you may be an energy buff, but I think you have got the economic history wrong.

Oil was "discovered" in Pennsylvania in 1859. The GDP (constant dollars) of the US economy was: $71.98 billion ( in 2000 dollars).

When John D. Rockefeller founded the Standard Oil Company in 1870 the GDP was just about $100 billion

The GDP of the economy in 2008 was something on the order of $11,652.0 billion (also in 2000 dollars).

If the "oil boys" were responsible for all that economic destruction, I think we should just get out of their way and let them run things.

Everyone who has studied it (except end of world types) has found that our current oil-based economy is NOT sustainable. That means it cannot go on....

Yes, you've got that right -- things that are "NOT sustainable" by definition "cannot go on", but could you please cite the studies by "everyone".

I don't think your assertion that the economy "can't go on" is correct. The economy oil-based or not, will go on and it will continue to grow provided capital resources (financial, human and natural) are employed wisely. The economic history of the world thusfar has shown that the "wisdom" of the free market in pricing and deploying capital is vastly superior to any other mechanism yet developed by man -- and that certainly includes the geniuses that have run / are running governments.

I would hope we are wise enough to leave the process of "picking winners" to corporations and venture capitalists. They, unlike government workers, have skin in the game, which seems to make all the difference in the world when it comes to investing wisely in the future. No one (aside from environmentalists and NIMBYs) is keeping private capital from investing in wind, solar and other alternative energy sources. If the demand is there, and if investors believe that future returns (including any subsidies politicians might be dumb enough to offer) are at or above the cost of capital, resources will be invested in alternative energy. While I may be wrong, I think the biggest risk to sustained investment in alternative energy is rising oil prices -- as it seems that everytime there has been a sustained spike in oil prices, proven reserves have also taken a big jump. In the near term (i.e. next 25-50 years), the real limits to oil production are almost entirely due by eco-politics.

I spend a career thinking about things like this and now I'm happy I don't have to and can go sailing. My grandson is a very smart fellow. I think I'll let him figure it out.

PS -- I'm now asking myself, "Why did I come here? I should have stayed in 'Gear and Maintenance'"

[craigimass]

Billy, my reference to the oil guys is post-1970.
And, the Oil guys are not Bush/Cheney, although they certainly ARE Oil Men. The Oil Cabal/Cartel during much of that time was the Saudis. They shook up the entire world economy by first doing the great embargo and causing shocks to our economy (1970's - TWO Oil Shocks).

We reacted like Americans are known to do. We said screw you and started to build an energy efficient economy. I have pictures of Carter installing efficient wood stoves and solar panels on the White House. I was involved with new Solar companies that installed MILLIONS of square feet of solar panels.

Reagan became President in 1980 and yanked the solar panels and stoves from the White House. His message of American optimism told us that we did not have to worry about such things. The Saudis, meantime, became very concerned that we were quickly becoming less addicted to their oil, and lowered the price to make certain that alternative markets would not develop.

That is, of course, some fact and some opinion - but I was there right in the middle of all that. Gas lines, oil shortages, 3 mile island, etc.

Also, I 100% agree with you that THE economy will go on. I am an optimist and never predict that we are going to Mad Max. Basically, technology will save us to some degree.

The point is that the "old" economy where we did not pay as much attention to waste and overuse as the rest of world cannot go on.

BTW, a LOT of the growth in GDP was fueled by Coal, which was used from your original date - well, up to today, but really heavily until the end of the second world war.

Oil is a great fuel. I'm glad we found it and learned about it. But America cannot get away with importing vast quantities of our fuel without implications to the economy and national security.

So, again, the destruction of our economy I am speaking about is in the last 30 years, as our addiction to oil and consumerism threw aside our usual independent spirit and we outsourced everything from energy to manufacturing. That cannot go on forever, simply because it relies on the rest of the world believing in us. And, after the latest shenanigans, that is pretty unlikely (to the degree it was before).

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by billyruffn

I would hope we are wise enough to leave the process of "picking winners" to corporations and venture capitalists. No one (aside from environmentalists and NIMBYs) is keeping private capital from investing in wind, solar and other alternative energy sources. If the demand is there, and if investors believe that future returns (including any subsidies politicians might be dumb enough to offer) are at or above the cost of capital, resources will be invested in alternative energy.

It would be great if we were wise enough to do that, but we have not been. There have been billions of dollars of tax credits given to oil companies for domestic production. The ethanol tax credits started by the last administration caused massive spikes in food prices, besides the fact that the ethanol production was inefficient.

When the President and VP are both Oil Men First Class, it is tough to imagine that these massive energy interests don't control a lot of the debate.

Government should not pick the winners - but government should not squash innovation in favor of directions which are harmful to the country. Government (as mentioned before) did also have a BIG hand in the automobile (road/bridges), the railroad (transcontinental) and other such technologies.

As you well know, VCs and Business are somewhat risk-adverse. It is a bad business proposition to spend a decade creating alternative energy technologies and then have the rug pulled out from under you by $20 a bbl oil. If oil was produced here and did not create pollution and CO2, that might not present a problem. But government is supposed to help do what is good for US...as a sum total. I think most Americans agree that energy security is part of that.

Most of the above is water over the dam anyway, since I think we have passed the point of no return. I listen to a lot of audio programs dealing with VC and current innovation, and VAST percentages of the current bets are on Energy. We will see major changes over the next 10-20 years - positive ones - as these changes hit the market.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by craigimass

The Arbor Day Foundation,

.

oh yeah, I'll take what this activist group has to say seriously

[poopdeckpappy]

This will crack you up; lied lodge, not too bad for a NP org out to plant trees

Lied Lodge is committed to tree planting around the globe as we provide our guests with the best service possible.

Every environmental activist has a motive for pushing this GW agenda, some are just more opulent than others, none has anything to do with Global Warming

[JohnRPollard]

Anyone who's been around here long-enough knows that many threads, regardless of their original subject, tend to de-rail after the subject has been exhausted. In some ways, it's part of the fun: After the relevant data dump and debate, folks get a little silly and amuse themselves and others with inanity. For the most part there's really no harm in it.

But there are a few threads sprinkled around Sailnet that have done a better job of remaining reasonably on-topic. Some of them attempt to tackle larger, longer-lived issues that don't lend themselves to instantaneous resolution -- a good example being the Cape Fear 38 thread that required patience while we awaited more definitive answers from formal accident investigations.

This "Global Warming" thread is another such thread. The premise of this thread stems from the understanding that the body of "Climate Change" science is incomplete and that research into the causes of climate change is on-going. New data and research becomes available on a regular basis.

Everyone is invited to debate the available scientific evidence -- for or against -- and present new data as it becomes available. While technically, there are no thread "rules", most members have respected efforts to keep this thread focussed on science and climate research. But one question raised throughout this thread is whether some of the science has been manipulated for political or other purposes - so at times political discussions have surfaced as well.

Looking back over some of the recent postings, this thread seems to be getting derailed by too much politics. Camaraderie's most recent posts were way overboard, but were obviously intended to make that point plainly. It would be a shame if things kept going in that direction.

For anyone interested in this debate, I just want to remind folks that this is not the "Dems v. Repubs", the "Market Crash", or the "Big Oil" thread. My suggestion to everyone -- regardless of which side of the debate you fall on -- is: Stick to the presentation and discussion of hard data and research that refutes the positions that others are presenting or that supports your understanding of Climate Change.

[ssneade]

do trolls wet their beds? or is that sweat from global warming.

danged liberal bed wetter.