...me either.:mad2: How much fuel and the resultant emmisions emitted could be saved if we drilled for oil here instead of shipping roughly 58% of it to the United States? Guess you could also toss in the Eco damage done when an oil tanker has a leak, and the emmisions from the manufacture of said tankers....
Scientists remain adamant that the weather should not be used as evidence against climate change. Their claims come despite the fact that the northern hemisphere, from America to Europe and Asia, is suffering some of the worst winters in living memory. Huge snowfalls are being witnessed from China and South Korea, across eastern, central and western Europe and to America where even Florida is struggling to record temperatures above freezing.
I don't think an abnormal winter is any evidence against climate change. How much of the extreme winter has to do with this long lasting El Nino that has been messing with our weather for most of 2009. El Nino has the jet stream all out of sorts and it's been making for a pretty crazy weather pattern for months now. Based on the El Nino they forecasted: -Less waves for me to surf this summer on the east coast. Check. -Fewer atlantic hurricanes: Check. -Mild Winter in midwest for Nov. and Dec. Check. -More extreme winter in the North East, plains states, and southern states. Check. And what is El Nino? Higher than normal water temperatures. So just because we're experiencing cold temperatures, it isn't evidence against climate change.
I agree, we can't look at a short term condition as evidence of a long term trend and in the big picture of global climate and what we know about it, a few decades of research is a pretty short term. This will be a bad winter, and El Nino has caused some warming of the waters, but we've also been experiencing increasing levels of solar radiation (incidentally this should peak in 2012, sending doomsday followers into a fit). I'm still firmly convinced that anyone, climate scientist or not, who thinks they know what's going on, has probably overlooked something.
All I know is that my friends here in St.Louis blame me for bringing the cold weather with me from Manitobarrr: It's probably going to be the coldest recorded temps. here tonight in over 10 years, so they may be right:lol: Mark
The climate is a vast, complex system. It is the kind of system that chaos theory talks about. Large inputs in some areas can have seemingly little effect until they reach a certain threshold. Then the effects can be huge. In other areas, small inputs can amplify through the system and cause massive changes. Chaotic systems can be extremely difficult to predict because you need to have so many data points and understand so many interacting relationships. Some of the government programs that do computer modelling for weather and climate issues are based in Monterey. When I was active in a local astronomy club, one of the members was involved in programming for those systems. It was interesting to talk to him. As time goes on, they can compare the predictions to actual events, and refine the models. The amount of data available for input to those systems has become mind-boggling, but then the problem is mind-bogglingly complex. Some of the climate change models, I've heard about, predict that North America is likely to get more extremes in temps. Colder winters, hotter summers, and less precipitation in some areas, more in others. The model went on to predict a serous decline in our agriculture. The mid-west would cease to be the breadbasket that it is today. This same prediction indicates that Russia will become more temperate with an improvement in wheat production. We would have to buy wheat from Russia. For those who are worried about a transfer of wealth from the USA to third-world countries, the eco-aid we might be sending Brazil to preserve the rain forests would be a tiny amount compared to loss of our agricultural wealth. Of course this is only a model, it hasn't been proven yet. So we can just ignore it. The data is quite clear that human beings have significantly increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere at rate much faster than we have found in studies of the past through ice cores, etc. We don't know the exact consequences, so let's just keep addingmore. It will be fun to find out what happens. What are some of the possible events we have to look forward to? There are lots of wonderful possibilities. Arctic ice is melting and opening up access to new area of the arctic seabed. Link This is the kind of threshold even that can happen in a chaotic system. Pour carbon into the atmosphere for centuries, and only mild changes occur. Then all of a sudden, a feedback loop is triggered and all hell breaks loose. Other fun events that have been suggested as possible consequences of climate change have to do with ocean currents. The weather in the USA is greatly affected by the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream"]Gulf Stream[/ame], and the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pacific_Gyre"]North Pacific Gyre[/ame]. Changes in these currents will cause major changes in our weather. So, climate change wont just be some boring four degree increase in your local temps. It could be really exciting stuff. Look forward to it. There is no will to do anything about it, after all. I have no children to worry about, and I probably wont be around to see the major changes. So, I don't mind burning up your children's future. :devil: I wonder what your great grandchildren will say about you?
Pretty confident that my great grandchildren will say with great pride, "our family never bought in to that hoax". :lol:
This is just an honest question, but you don't believe any of it at all or do you just not believe it to be as extreme as some people are building it up to be? I'm just curious.
I believe that incentives are driving many "scientists" and governments to over-state the risk, the degree of human causation, the degree to which we can actually alter global temps (up or down) over the long term, and what developed countries should be willing to pay for activities that will ultimately not significantly impact the outcome. I believe that, regardless of whether man does or does not cause a change of even several degrees over some period of time, that this change is small compared to the historical non-human-caused variations in temps over time. In other words, even if we weren't here influencing anything, sea levels would still rise and fall, ice sheets would still form and recede, regions would cycle from being arid to lush, etc. And no matter how hard we try to influence anything, those changes will still occur due to factors completely outside of human control. So the low lying islands are still going to flood (as they have in the past), the glaciers will grow and recede (as they have in the past), Greenland will be 'green' again (as it was in the past), etc. So anything we try to do is like building castles in the sand at the beach... might make some people feel good for a short period of time, but will not have any significant lasting impact one way or another. So any amount that we disrupt America's economy to build these castles in the sand is a waste of America's resources and America's wealth, which should be used to do things that actually matter for Americans. And I believe that the incentives I mention above are sufficient to create what sound like very rational, "fact based" arguments of why I'm completely wrong. But I believe I'm not wrong.
The one constant about planet earth is that it and it's weather patterns are in a constant state of change. Given that, we should be good stewards of our OWN ecosystems and ask that others do their part too. BUT to redistribute American wealth around the world in the name of it is just wrong and not required to maintain a healthy planet.
The vast majority of incentives are with the carbon based energy companies. Oil and coal companies have huge incentives to obfuscate the climate change issue, and block a conversion to a greener energy system. We've seen from the tobacco industry how large corporations can block the acceptance of scientific knowledge. It isn't the scientists who are blowing smoke up our... As far as disrupting the American economy, our current economy is unsustainable. We are living on deficit spending. Our current standard of living has been supported by China's willingness to carry our debt. Our balance of trade continues to be in the negative, in part due to the purchase of foreign oil. We need to reduce our need for oil, and develop new industries if we are to survive economically. If you worry about transferring our wealth to other nations, the reliance on carbon energy sources is already doing that. We are transferring wealth out of this country to buy oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, Algeria, the UK, and Brazil. This transfer far exceeds anything considered in Copenhagen. For those who say "Drill baby drill." That wont help much. We just don't have the untapped reserves to satiate our thirst for oil. Per-capita we are the biggest consumers oil. This is something that is not sustainable. As China and India develop, their oil consumption will increase -- raising the price of oil. One way to economically survive this inevitability is to reduce our dependence with alternative energy sources. If we are the ones to develop these alternative technologies, we can sell them to other countries. If we ignore this path, we will end up importing them. Alternative energy can have two benefits. It can lower our dependence on foreign oil, and can provide wealth to those who provide the technology. It would be better for our balance of trade if we were the providers. Dependence on carbon is also a drain on our political power. Russia gains much political power and influence because of its oil and natural gas resources. Ever wonder why Europe is so reluctant to go along with with us in economic measures against Iran? It is because Europe needs Iranian oil. Oil gives Iran political power, and the wealth to invest in nuclear weapons development. If the USA was no consuming so much oil, the power of these countries would be diminished. It has long been known that the terrorists who trouble us are funded, in part, by our oil money. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and hope to continue with things as they are. The status quo is harmful to the USA.
I'm all for more energy independence, alternative energy sources, etc. I have been for decades. But let's justify it on the merits you cited above, not under the guise of CO2 as a "pollutant". And I don't see how replacing the money we're spending on foreign oil with money we spend on fictitious carbon offsets to "compensate" developing countries to produce less CO2 helps our deficit spending. I live in a tobacco state. My family grew tobacco. And not for one second did any of us believe the tobacco lobby propaganda.... so we're not quite THAT gullible... :lol: But, yeah, apparently big oil has me wrapped around his finger. Which is why I support alternative energy development on its own merits. :wink5:
Just exactly how does redistributing American wealth around the world bring about energy independence and promote the use of alternative energy sources here in the USA? Because we won't be able to afford oil anymore?:rolleyes5:
In looking at that web site, and the kind of articles they run, I don't give that story much credence. Looks like the British version of a supermarket rag to me. Go look at the home page and tell me this is a serious news source. It seems I am not alone in my impression of this source. If you want food for discussion, read these: Sea Ice At Lowest Level In 800 Years Near Greenland Melting Of The Greenland Ice Sheet Mapped Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Minimum Extent For 2009, Third Lowest Ever Recorded If you are going to believe tabloid trash over the publications of scientific organizations, there is nothing I can say to you, but enjoy your fantasy world.
Which redistribution are you talking about? If you mean the purchasing of foreign oil, then it doesn't bring energy independence, nor does it promote the use of alternative energy. If you are referring to the various proposals at Copenhagen, they pale into insignificance when compared to the purchase of foreign oil. Copenhagen was a failure. The nations came together and tried to bargain others into taking resonsibility, rather than doing so themselves. In the end, little was accomplished. Developing nations say that the developed nations are the ones who put all this carbon in the atmosphere, so they should be the ones to take steps to reduce it. The undeveloped nations who are facing the consequences of global warming, but had little to do with causing it, want developed nations to foot the bill for their adapting to the consequences. Developed nations want to do as little as possible. Stalemate. IMO, what China does will have the biggest impact on CO2 emissions in the future. We want them to take a greener route to development, yet we are resisting making green changes ourselves. It is difficult for us to convince China to be concerned about carbon emissions when the largest (per-capita) consumer of carbon energy is reluctant to change. Brazil is rapidly cutting down its rain forest for ranching, agriculture, gold mining, and clear-cut lumber. We want them to preserve it so it will absorb our CO2. They are saying that we should pay them for that service. Basically, developing nations want to take the fast (and often irresponsible) path towards development, as we did. We are saying that we were wrong to do so, and they should not. They don't see that as fair, and think they should be compensated if they are going to go a slower more responsible direction.
:aureola:So in the name of saving the panet I slow down development in my developing country and for doing this I will get a big check from the AMERICAN TAX PAYER (whose money this really is)? Then I can fly in my new jet to the eco conferences and ride around in my Limo eating caviar and drinking champagne while I save the planet....:ihih: