Global warming

[Jones_]

A voice of reason:

The Global Warming Debate

More please.

[raleighfan]

Ahh, you're right Jones. I should have googled his name before I posted. I forgot Exxon wasn't allowed to fund research. So, please disregard. My bad.

[Jones_]

You really think, I mean you really really think that money doesn't say, taint or influence or offer some sort of correlation between why the "research" seems only to support the funder? The reason there isn't "more please" of this is because there is none until Exxon pays up for someone to write some more. I suppose its a communist plot to undermine the US economy by forcing expensive greenhouse reduction technology onto industry. Its not like that will actually create a new industry with new jobs. What would the creators of such an evil plot have to gain?

[ChiefJoJo]

The NC Utilities Commission will regulate the sale of carbon offsets to combat global warming.

The N.C. GreenPower offsets will be sold in $4 units, with each $4 purchase offsetting 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions monthly. The minimum purchase of $4 a month would offset 6,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Paying $8 a month would allow a resident to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of a typical car, or about about 12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year, according to an emissions estimate by the Environmental Protection Agency.

N.C. GreenPower will distribute the revenue from the tax-deductible offset purchases to projects intended to cut greenhouse gases. The projects and validation methodologies have not yet been selected but the nonprofit group will issue a bid for proposals soon.

[sax184]

The NC GreenPower article is interesting. Does this mean that those buying POWER at $4 per block will also have the opportunity to buy OFFSETS at $4 per unit? Or, are they simply renaming the purchase program for renewable power to be a highly regulated carbon offset purchase market?

I buy $4/month of Green Power now. I'm wondering if I will be buying $4 of offsets a month without any changes to my bill.

[raleighfan]

You really think, I mean you really really think that money doesn't say, taint or influence or offer some sort of correlation between why the "research" seems only to support the funder? The reason there isn't "more please" of this is because there is none until Exxon pays up for someone to write some more. I suppose its a communist plot to undermine the US economy by forcing expensive greenhouse reduction technology onto industry. Its not like that will actually create a new industry with new jobs. What would the creators of such an evil plot have to gain?

[Jones_]

Oopsy poopsy.

True, American Physical Society is not funded by Exxon but...their official stance is that they do support global warming research. The article you pulled is from a guy they had to make a special release to make clear, that it was not their stance. Any more?

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

And a little bit about the man who wrote the journal.

Actually there is a third party connection to Exxon by the writer if you read down.

I told myself I wouldn't bother going down this road again, but I couldn't resist. So I suppose this organization is funded by Exxon as well?

[Spatula]

It's just a natural cycle. Totally normal. Nothing to look at here. Other than the part about the carbon dioxide emissions.

This claim requires some data. We haven't had thermometers for even 1,000 years yet. They say our climate has gotten a little more than 1 degree warmer in the last century. Do you honestly think that we have accurate data for the global temperature in 1800BC?

[dmccall]

...and the margin of error is...??? You don't think that any of this FUD is politically motivated, now, do you?

[DB78]

I figured the following scientific finding would intrigue quite a few people here. It sounds pretty inoccuous. Anyhow, getting CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels without taking draconian measures or doing tons of harm to the world economy:

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news08/next-...ws7.28.08a.html

That is quite a big deal. Thoughts?

[Jones_]

It is a huge problem. Even the most hard-core environmentalists know you can sack the economy. The Environmental Defense Fund does a great job of crafting solutions that make economic sense. The reason we are at this stage though is allowing pollution is a subsidy at the expense of the environment. The true cost of doing business in this country (and in most developing country's now) excludes the cost of environmental controls. In water/wastewater, for instance businesses never had to pony up for a trust fund to clean up burning rivers. The Federal government did and most of this funding was channeled through the EPA. One way or another you end up paying in dollars whether its clean smokestack technology or healthcare costs and lost coastal land mass.

[dmccall]

Pretty much a graph showing hurricane activity in the North Atlantic during America's love-affair with the automobile.

[Jones_]

ACE stands for Accumulated Cyclone Energy. The graph shows the numbers divided by 10,000 and I think wind-speed input is in knots.

[mattm]

OK, now I'll talk out the other side of my mouth (hurricane climatology being one of my long-term interests). Despite the recent (since 1995) increased activity levels, it's MUCH harder to point to changes over the long term. The records are just too poor before the era of weather satellites. Yes, we are building some proxy records through old ship logs and paleotempestology (how's that for a cool name, eh?), but really all we can say for certain is that there seems to be a 20 year cycle of alternating increased and decreased activity in the North Atlantic. Other basins may or may not have different cycles.

Yes, in theory warmer oceans should make for stronger storms, but changed wind shear patterns trump all that. The south Atlantic, for example, has plenty of warm tropical waters but rarely ever sees tropical cyclones because the upper air patterns rip everything to shreds. Interestingly enough, paleotempestology (studying storms by looking at historical overwash layers near the coast) suggests that there weren't tropical cyclones in the north Atlantic basin before around 5000 years ago (or 5000BC?). Much more important is the effect of rapidly rising ocean levels, which will overwhelm the protective barrier islands and coastal marshes before they can naturally migrate.

Much more important than that, even, is the vast amount of development that's occurred in vulnerable coastal areas since the 1960s, which brings us right back on topic. (A number of years ago I saw a documentary that had about 5 experts discussing the dangers of hurricanes at the coast. Only the developer thought beach houses were a good idea. The rest wouldn't wish them on their worst enemies.) After all, this is a board to discuss development patterns, right?

[Spatula]

...and the margin of error is...??? You don't think that any of this FUD is politically motivated, now, do you?

[dmccall]

The discourse above assumes that the climatologists and physicists have absolutely no political leanings, that there is no scientific argument against CO2 emissions being the only cause of global temperatures rising, and that nobody has claimed a rise in hurricanes is being caused by global warming.

[Jones_]

I was at an infrastructure finance conference recently. Specifically, the Council of Infrastructure Finance Authorities. The volumes of data supporting the snippets you see in the news is enormous. Its so comical that politics even enters this. The group holding this conference holds prayer before lunch, and is composed much more so of engineers than of policy wonks. They have long since stopped even listening to "doubters" (the evidence is simply too clear and too voluminous) and are now focused on the what the f$%^ do we do now? People responsible for infrastructure are in mitigation mode, as global temperature is indeed rising and sea levels are beginning their follow up.

To clarify, this was a Republican leaning, organization, that is lining up government, financial institutions and coastal infrastructure agencies in an effort to be ready to start adjusting to the impacts.

There was also an interesting notation. China is now a huge focus. It is anticipated that if the US gets its pollutants under control, China can still all by itself, push the train down the proverbial track.

[DanRNC]

I suggest everyone watch the Frontline special that was on recently to get a clear picture of the United States's ineptitude on this issue (among many others).

Frontline

Its enough to make you want to vomit and illustrates how greed and self-interest has pretty much killed any chances of ever getting anything done.

[Spatula]

The discourse above assumes that the climatologists and physicists have absolutely no political leanings, that there is no scientific argument against CO2 emissions being the only cause of global temperatures rising, and that nobody has claimed a rise in hurricanes is being caused by global warming.

[dmccall]

so just because some random loony might doesn't discredit or affect the consensus over global warming in any way.

[Spatula]

That's an impressive list of scientists.

[orulz]

Indeed, it is tough to look at the issues of greenhouse gases and climate change in a completely apolitical manner. The fact that doing anything to reduce CO2 emissions requires significant policy changes makes this an inherently political and ideological issue.

I think that global warming really is a serious issue caused by man, but I also think that the ideological nature of the argument leads to a degree of excessive alarmism in political circles, the media, and perhaps even the scientific community to some degree as well. Some people eagerly blame every somewhat unusual weather phenomenon on global warming, and doing so does the world a disservice.

Nobody disputes that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. Nobody disputes that the earth is getting warmer, either. The vast majority of the scientific comminuty holds that the two are linked. Evidence points to industrial emissions as a major reason that CO2 levels are rising. We're taking carbon out of the ground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas, and releasing it into the atmosphere. There are natural sources of CO2, and other natural factors that may contribute to global warming, so skepticism is understandable, but be careful not to let your skepticism be politically or ideologically based, either. We're going to stuck in the realm of theories (not conclusively proven, but strongly supported by evidence) for quite some time yet. If you're waiting for climatologists and environmentalists to put together each and every last piece of the puzzle and have a 100% conclusively proven explanation for every single climatological and atmospheric cause and effect relating to carbon emissions and global warming, be prepared to wait another 50, 100, or more years, and by that time it may be too late. If you're tackling this issue from a scientific standpoint rather than ideological, at some point you have to be willing to say "I've seen enough evidence; I'm convinced. How do we address this?"

However, when we have a disasters such as Katrina, or a drought, or a flood, there seems to be an almost knee-jerk tendency to sound the bells and scream "Global warming! Global warming!" The truth is, the world has experienced strong storms, droughts, and floods since the dawn of time. Global warming probably plays a role in all of the above, but you have to recognize that we only have about 100 or 150 years of reliable weather records upon which to base our estimation of what is "normal," and that natural atmospheric phenomena that are not all well understood, and would occur with or without global warming, are still the primary causes of these disasters.

[Jones_]

I want to bring some attention to inland impacts of even minor global temperature increase regarding storm intensity. 100 year floods are statistical averages and are affected by how much rain falls in a given amount of time and is dependent on the terrain on which it falls. Without accounting for changes in flood maps due to suburban and urban development, within one hundred years, what we now consider a 100-year storm will be occurring closer to every 10 years. What we now consider a 500-year storm (think Floyd) is predicted to occur every one hundred years. Culverts throughout the city are sized for typically the 5-10 year storm. Crabtree spills its banks at about this interval out into Kiawanis Park. Fran, caused it to spill up to the Six Forks/Wake Forest intersection. You'd be looking at floods 5 feet deep at the old Oak City Diner every 5-10 years instead of once a lifetime. Thats the type of "oh sh&*" on the drawing board.

[ChiefJoJo]

I choose to look it this way. The earth is warming. That is not in doubt. What caused this to happen? I don't know with 100% confidence what is true (neither do the scientists), so the question is what's most likely? That the rapid increase in greenhouse gases generated from human industrialization and population growth caused the warming... or that warming is due to some other factor that is unknown to us, the climatology is bogus and the scientific community is wrong. The best answer is usually the simplest one, so I'm going with logic and science.