Global Warming? My A$$ Its Cold Outside

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

My thought is this, an influx of man made pollution pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial age cant be good for the environment as a whole. My guess was the planet wasnt fist pumping like yes this is exactly what I need.

The mental image of the earth fist pumping gave me a nice laugh. Nice work, Chico.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. You must be right b/c once greenhouse gases are pumped into the air they stay there forever!!

There is, actually, another side to the equation in that GHG's have an atmospheric lifetime (form most it is a few years). The question is whether the rate of production the GHG's with longer atmospheric lifetimes is outstripping the ability of the world ecosystem to absorb/dilute and ultimately disperse the GHG's and, if so, to what extent. That is a complex question dependent on climate models which, in turn, depends on the variables and assumptions used in those models.

Again, you're overthinking. You are a good thinker but sometimes you just do too much of it. The question is not whether the greenhouse gases can be absorbed. They would be absorbed at the same rate regardless. The question is how much would be in the atmosphere if we controlled our emissions better, vs how much would be in the atmosphere if we just burned fuel like China.

Focus on the actionable.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Again, you're overthinking. You are a good thinker but sometimes you just do too much of it. The question is not whether the greenhouse gases can be absorbed. They would be absorbed at the same rate regardless. The question is how much would be in the atmosphere if we controlled our emissions better, vs how much would be in the atmosphere if we just burned fuel like China.

Focus on the actionable.

lol ... someone telling me I am overthinking an issue. I am shocked! shocked!! I have never, ever, ever been accused of that before ... well, not since yesterday.

Generally, I agree with your second statement. It is good to limit GHG emissions. It's just not that simple, however, because of the economics and the politics surrounding enforced limitations of GHG.

What is the cost of controlling emissions versus the likely harm to the environment and our economy? If the limitation of our emissions by complying with Kyoto would be significantly detrimental to our economic health but have minimal effect on the potential change to the environmental harm caused, then should the US adopt radical and detrimental economic strictures while China is allowed to ratify Kyoto but be exempt from compliance as a non-annex country (China took over top GHG emitter from the US in 2006)? As such, understanding the reality of climate change (including the earth's intrinsic ability to handle GHG emissions) is essential for the US to make rational policy decisions in its adopton of environmental regulation.

Is the environmental end really near and will it have a radical, detrimental effect on our economy greater than the cost of harm caused by a longer but less radical transition to greener technologies? [BTW - Even though we have not adopted the Kyoto strictures, our GHG emissions have already decreased through such incremental changes].

See. Clear as a bell with no more thought than absolutely necessary.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

lol ... someone telling me I am overthinking an issue. I am shocked! shocked!! I have never, ever, ever been accused of that before ... well, not since yesterday.

Generally, I agree with your second statement. It is good to limit GHG emissions. It's just not that simple, however, because of the economics and the politics surrounding enforced limitations of GHG.

What is the cost of controlling emissions versus the likely harm to the environment and our economy? If the limitation of our emissions by complying with Kyoto would be significantly detrimental to our economic health but have minimal effect on the potential change to the environmental harm caused, then should the US adopt radical and detrimental economic strictures while China is allowed to ratify Kyoto but be exempt from compliance as a non-annex country (China took over top GHG emitter from the US in 2006)? As such, understanding the reality of climate change (including the earth's intrinsic ability to handle GHG emissions) is essential for the US to make rational policy decisions in its adopton of environmental regulation.

Is the environmental end really near and will it have a radical, detrimental effect on our economy greater than the cost of harm caused by a longer but less radical transition to greener technologies? [BTW - Even though we have not adopted the Kyoto strictures, our GHG emissions have already decreased through such incremental changes].

See. Clear as a bell with no more thought than absolutely necessary.

These are all excellent points. Maybe I misread you before, I thought you were contesting whether global warming was actually happening. That's the view that drives me nuts and is devoid of the most basic understanding of science. You're raising entirely different questions, which basically boils down to: what is the impact of global warming, and does that impact really matter to us. I love thinking about those questions, and I definitely personally prioritize economic need above almost all else.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

These are all excellent points. Maybe I misread you before, I thought you were contesting whether global warming was actually happening. That's the view that drives me nuts and is devoid of the most basic understanding of science. You're raising entirely different questions, which basically boils down to: what is the impact of global warming, and does that impact really matter to us. I love thinking about those questions, and I definitely personally prioritize economic need above almost all else.

Yeah. I wasn't particular clear in my first couple posts and, truthfully, was hedging b/c of my earlier doubts on the subject. Based on what I believe to be the widely held "black box" belief of the scientific community, however, I now believe global warming/climate change is happening and is being affected by human GHG emissions.

It is the predictions of doom and gloom and the call for immediate and economically crippling environmental regulation that has me skeptical. I think both the world and humans are more adaptable than current assumptions/predictions would indicate.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I'm not arguing that there isn't GW. I am arguing that the entire discussion, on both sides, has been hijacked by propaganda and money.

Pretty much this.

[FRPLG]

We're all missing the point anyways. This thread is for bitching about the cold weather. Intelligent debate is not needed.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

We're all missing the point anyways. This thread is for bitching about the cold weather. Intelligent debate is not needed.

I agree.

It's cold and drizzling today here in San Diego. I might have to wear pants and a long sleeve shirt to work tomorrow.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by jamf

I agree.

It's cold and drizzling today here in San Diego. I might have to wear pants and a long sleeve shirt to work tomorrow.

-1 points for the humble brag

[BaltimoreSkins]

As some one who studied environmental science in college and currently teaches it I will attempt to convey some of the science without getting into the personal bias. Most of what we know as climate change gets confused with GW when in actually GW is one of many phenomena associated with climate change. Including GW some of the other phenomena include: altering of weather patterns and ocean currents and ocean acidification. The models we are using predict wide ranges of temperature increases, however the vast majority are showing increases in atmospheric temperatures. The beauty of science and models is as new information arises we can alter the models to get more accurate readings.

GHG affects: Joe explained very importantly that all gasses have a life cycle in the atmosphere and here is the life span:
water vapor ~9 days
carbon dioxide ( a few years to up to a 100(generally accepted value is 70 yrs))-This variable is due to the rate of release of carbon dioxide vs sequestration. The more trees, wetlands, and less sprawl the more get sequestered
Methane- 12 years
Nitrous oxide 100+ year
CFCs up to 500 years

The scientists studying climate change and find validity in the models range from academia, government, military, and climatolgist working for energy corps. Most of the intrest in creating and utilizing the models are for discoveries of impacts on a countries natural reources and citizens, military for establishing control over newly opened land masses and water routes and establishing and researching reserves of natural resources.

[DynamiteRave]

We're apparently on watch for a potential "blizzard" type system that would hit the area next weekend.

I'm half hearted about this. I want it because it'll keep me from having to go to work. But I'm also going to be in Wisconsin from next Friday to that Sunday. So this system, if it ends up being a blizzard, could prevent me from getting home.

Meh.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

We're apparently on watch for a potential "blizzard" type system that would hit the area next weekend.

I'm half hearted about this. I want it because it'll keep me from having to go to work. But I'm also going to be in Wisconsin from next Friday to that Sunday. So this system, if it ends up being a blizzard, could prevent me from getting home.

Meh.

I've heard this too, but personally, I hope we don't get hit hard next weekend. It would end up costing me a couple hundred dollars since I'm supposed to referee a couple of wrestling events and the season schedule probably won't allow for makeup dates.

Then again, I am very lazy...

[RedskinRat]

[RedskinRat]

[RedskinRat]