My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[REASON]

The earth has been getting warmer since the glaciers started to melt, and it is likely to continue for a while more.

 

Really. So what's causing the glaciers to melt? I suppose you're going to tell me that the Earth just decided to melt it's glaciers. Because you know, the Earth is always making these crazy decisions. :)

 

 

Study it, project its consequences, deal with it, but don't lose sleep over it. The warming trend started when humans still lived in caves, and will continue until the earth decides its time for a change.

 

There you go again. The Earth and it's huge brain is going to make some more decisions. Obviously you're not going to lose any sleep over it because you are comforted in the notion that someone else will deal with it. Or that the Earth will decide to fix it before it gets too uncomfortable. Maybe we should just pray harder. But anyway, who cares if people are suffering in some other part of the world, as long as your air conditioning is running, right?

 

Since you think that the fear of global warming or climate change is so absurd, maybe you would be willing to shed some light on the legitimate fears you have that modifying our patterns of behavior with regard to energy consumption is going to cost us so much money. Isn't that the primary fear you have if we allow ourselves to be suckered in by these devious climate scientists and their bogus claims of AGW? Explain how "green" technology is going to send us all to the poor house.

[belovelife]

just to inteject

i saw the supercomputer forecasts on the furure weather

i'm talking massive hurricanes

huge ones cat5 and larger

crusin across the pacific and destroying japan and chinas east coast

not to mention the atlantic ones

in your educated role of thermodynamics and calculated risk assesment

would it be wise to enlarge HAARP to old said huricanes in the ocean

this could also steer clouds to dessert locations that could be released by decreasing the pressure at intervals enough to let the rain go out

[engineerdude]

. Isn't that the primary fear you have if we allow ourselves to be suckered in by these devious climate scientists and their bogus claims of AGW? Explain how "green" technology is going to send us all to the poor house.

 

OK, here's an example.

 

I'm on vacation in Hawaii. I read this in the paper this morning:

 

The University of Hawaii spent $50,000 to install roof-top solar cells, which will generate 24 kilowatt-hours of electricity daily. The University would like to generate 25% of it's electricity from renewable resources by 2020.

 

A link to basically the same article is here:

News from the University of Hawaii 10-Campus System

 

The problem is that a kilowatt hour of electricity costs a business like a University about 33 cents a kwH in Hawaii, which are the highest electric rates in the US. Where I live in Ohio it's only about 9 cents. A link to electric rates by state is here:

Electric Power Monthly - Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State

 

But, even at Hawaii's 33 cents a KwH, it will take 17 years to generate enough electricity just to recover the costs of the solar cells. The effective life of the solar cells are only 5-10 years, so basically the cost can never be recovered. This project is equivalent to The University of Hawaii flushing $20,000 to $30,000 in cash money down the toilet.

 

If the project was in Ohio, it would be equivalent to a University there flushing $30,000 to $40,000 down the toilet.

 

If the University of Hawaii follows through with their goal of 25% renewable electricity, they will piss away millions.

 

This is why "Green" technology is ridiculous. As I have said many times, if someone can find a way to do something "Green" cheaper than what is available, we all will switch immediately. Until then, we are just wasting money. You want to use "Green" power? That's your choice. But don't make me pay for nonsense.

[Zythryn]

So your belief in global warming is dependent upon the cost effectiveness of possible solutions??

[TIC]

Hi everybody,

 

I consider myself to be a life-long environmentalist. I have, in my own small ways, worked against aerosols, acid rain, general pollution, and of late Co2/Global Warming.

 

As a dad and a science-oriented person, I have always been able to logically explain scientific things to my kids. I have explained how optics work via experiments, illustrated Darwinian evolution via fossil records, I've mixed my baking soda and vinegar a dozen times.

 

To the point, I have not been able to explain man-made global warming to my eldest, 10 year old daughter. I simply can't find a shred of basic evidence that shows that carbon dioxide levels have any effect on how warm our planet is. I'm getting a little desperate.

 

I searched the most recent IPCC report. I really looked at the report for help - and there was nothing I could use. The charts of ice core samples only show Co2 follows changes in climate - not that changes in Co2 cause climate change. To me, all the report did was state the obvious - that the planet is getting warmer. Where I sit in Toledo Ohio used to be under an ice sheet a mile thick - no ice now. The earth seems to have been getting warmer for a long time, with no help from people. There were pages of calculations in the IPCC report - but I have seen pages of calculations that show just the opposite of their conclusions, and Britt my daughter wouldn't grasp the math anyways.

 

To top it all off, we have a small greenhouse, and Britt knows too well that greenhouses don't stay warm via "The Greenhouse Effect".

 

At risk is my daughter's (and to be honest my) belief in authority. My congresswoman, Britt's teacher, people in Bali, all seem to really believe that Co2 has something to do with global warming. Could the Nobel prize people really be wrong?

 

The earth is a complex system - maybe in a thousand years we can do math to predict the weather, but not now. I need some basic, easy to understand evidence. Please don't link me a webpage with one side's propoganda - I need some ammo here, as in "The last ice age was caused because there were too many plants which took all the Co2 out of the air, look at this data".

 

So, what am I missing?

 

Yer missing that She's only 10 years old!

[belovelife]

i think we need to adapt our current teqnologies to survuve and at the same time reduce our impact, although i wish we could hit a communal suck button that stops our impact on global ecology, the likelyness of that is slim to none

china needs to compete in the global market

americans need to drive hummers the the store to pick up groceries, and the navy needs to use sonar to deafen the whales, these are facts, solutions to the given circumstances are neccisary,

[engineerdude]

So your belief in global warming is dependent upon the cost effectiveness of possible solutions??

 

*Sigh*

 

I have detailed at length why I think people have nothing to do with global climate. The above post was an answer to a direct question as to why I think Green technology is not a good idea at this time.

[Michaelangelica]

'Sigh'

people have nothing to do with global climate

I despair of people who say 'not enough research has been done' etc when they refuse to read and review the research that is available under their noses.

• ever heard of CFCs?
  
• ever read mush about the man made changes in landscapes in the last 10,000 years?.
  
• ever read about how trees can make rain?
  
• ever read about desertification?
  
• ever heard of salinity?
  
• ever heard of the albedo effect?
  
• ever looked at how the coral in the worlds oceans is turning to dust?
  
• read about the 10 major rivers in the world running dry?
  
• ever heard of "tipping points'?
  
• ever read the USA defence force plans for future climate change?
  
• ever read the UK defence force plans for future climate change?
  

You, of course may be right. But please put your "rightness" in some time frame. Are you going to be right for 10 or 100 years given the trends in environmental degradation and population growth we have now?

 

PS

Glad your electricity is so 'cheap" Ever wonder why?

 

PSS

Climate modelling is a very new and imprecise science. Like most modelling

However these articles may give you some food for thought

Our best estimates of climate sensitivity tell us that the warming is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C, and will most likely fall in the range of 2°C to 4.5°C. For the next 20 years, warming of around 0.2°C per decade is predicted across a wide range of projected economic and political scenarios. Even if greenhouse gas concentrations had been stabilized in 2000, the temperature would continue to increase by 0.1°C per decade. Due to the immense thermal momentum of the ocean, warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries. Even the best-case, lowest-emission scenario suggests an increase of 1.8°C, while the best estimate for the high scenario results in an increase of 4°C or more.

http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news/clear-and-present-danger-a-conversation-with-nobel-laureate-steve-chu-on-the-risks-of-climate-change.html

and

to be really cynical

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-winston/do-you-need-to-believe-in_b_97959.html

[Little Bang]

To those people who don't believe that man has initiated a change in the climate that will wipe out over ninety percent of all life on this planet in the next two hundred years. They confuse the truth with what they want it to be. Their position is the same as playing Russian roulette. To argue with the fact that almost seven billion people burning fossil fuels is not a potential disaster is ludicrous. Personally I think we have already passed the point of no return. The momentum of such a large population is to big for us to be able to stop. The perception that humans should be allowed to have children anytime and in any numbers that they want cannot be changed and that is why I think it to late.

[belovelife]

arn't we only dedicated to a one degree temp change as of today?

i was under the assumtion that a 5 degree temp change would release the methane in the ocean and cause a snowball effect

although that would not happen for i think 50 more years of current carbondioxide realease as today

 

i don't think we are at the deep end yet

although 50 years is a short amount of time

 

have you heard of turby

[Little Bang]

The 5 degree change refers to ocean temp and some where in the very near future it will reach that level.

[belovelife]

yes at which point itaccelerates the methane molecule that is currently in a gel like state, o the point of releasing a gas, the amount of this gas added to the atmoshere would hold more of the suns energy in the atmoshere

i think when it gets a 5 degree temp change here in sd where i live we are expecting something like 130f average days

if so, i would ned to fix my air conditioner

(or build an ionic breese the size of several skyscrapers to

co2 ->c+o2

ch4->c+2h2

)

:hyper:

[engineerdude]

'Sigh'

 

I despair of people who say 'not enough research has been done]

 

More than enough research has been done. People currently have nothing to do with global climate. On the other hand, we destroy coral, pollute rivers, erode topsoil, plenty of very real things. You are wasting your time and effort with imaginary problems like global warming. And you are in fact hurting the planet by diverting money and energy to pretend-issues things like AGW, instead of actually helping our world be better. In my opinion.

 

And I will be happy to continue trying to convince you all of this, people I respect, and who's opinions I value.

[engineerdude]

yes at which point itaccelerates the methane molecule that is currently in a gel like state, o the point of releasing a gas, the amount of this gas added to the atmoshere would hold more of the suns energy in the atmoshere

i think when it gets a 5 degree temp change here in sd where i live we are expecting something like 130f average days

if so, i would ned to fix my air conditioner

(or build an ionic breese the size of several skyscrapers to

co2 ->c+o2

ch4->c+2h2

)

:thumbs_up

 

This isn't how our world works. There is no energy trapped or "held" in our atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is like a blanket around our planet - it does not trap energy, it just slows the movement of heat, both coming in and going out. Again, there is no significant energy trapped any place in the atmosphere - changes in air composition just make heat move faster or slower. The only part of the sun's energy that is actually held on earth is that from chemical processes or photosynthesis. The rest of the energy is just moved around and eventually radiated back out to space. The greenhouse effect has no ability to hold any energy.

[belovelife]

although i cannot agree with that statement

a cannot give a definate argument to define the effects

now as far as us heating, well regardless of why we are heating

we are heating

just look at the noah satelite images for the past 30 years

and you will the the fact that the ice sheets are melting

so much so that there is international territorial pissings going on

for the new ocean pass between europe and russia vian the arctic

now this has been in the news, since enough of the ice cap has melted

there is a path that goes thrue the arctic now (above canada)

year long, now if this warming trend continues to the 0 point

then less of the sun's radiation will be bounced back into space via the ice caps

now exactly what this means, i don't know

all i know is its not good

the amount of growing food land would be limited to the most norther and most southern territories, the equitorial region would be way to hot

[belovelife]

and i thought carbon in co2 held more energy then the hydrogen in h2o

absorbed i mean

then methane ch4 would be able to absorb some also

[Michaelangelica]

if so, i would ned to fix my air conditioner

(or build an ionic breese the size of several skyscrapers to

co2 ->c+o2

ch4->c+2h2

)

:thumbs_up

I love it when you talk dirty :D

Can you re-phase that for non-chemists?