man made global warming a Hoax?

[tenorplayer23]

That's right.....Rush maybe doesn't stand to make anything from global warning......on the other hand, he will make a fortune talking about whatever the opposite is. So, it should be apolitical. And, so if you think Gore's positions are wrong or in the extreme, just listen to the other side, authored by Rush....it would be the same extremist position if you think there are GW issues to worry about.



I'm worried about laws being passed and money being spent on false information too. This needs to be very carefully done, no doubt. I don't care what the political disposition of the proponents or opposition, as long as we can find out what is accurate. However, I do believe that global warming and environmental changes are affecting our climate and most likely doing damage that will be hard to undo. So, we need to deal with it.........



But, you need to look at what the rest of the world is going to do, too, whether we propose any laws or not. The up and coming industrial giants (China, India, etc.) are hell bent to boost their economies at whatever the cost. The US, per an article in USA Today, this week, does NOT want to subsidize China or India to get them to reduce emissions. But, the India representative to the world forum on climate change said, in the same article, paraphrasing here, "we are going to do what we want and if it means boosting our economy without worrying about emissions, then we'll just go ahead". 2X that for China. That is NOT what we need. We'll figure it out............and they'll just do what they want, regardless of the impact.



Another source I looked into after seeing him recently on the Late Show w/David Letterman is James Hansen, PhD. Check out his credentials re: the study of global climate change. His research and published findings tell a pretty compelling story, as well. Look at his level of experience in the subject. All these guys aren't all making this stuff up.



I hope we get the straight facts and I'd like to take the biases out of the data, but we are indeed impacting the planet's climate. And I would be afraid of a "false-negative" conclusion from the opponents of this issue. The challenge we have in front of us is what should we do about it and how will we deal with the effects. It might not be a near term catastrophe, but we are going to have to "pay" the piper. We just need to decide how best to do it. It would be a lot better to get in front of this than let it get worse without recourse. If you are young enough, this will impact you financially, no matter what.



See ya. :wavey

The difference between the 2 you just listed is one is set up to make millions off of GW and the other is not. One is trying to get laws passed via false data and the other is not. Funny you said lets not make this a right or left subject yet attack someone one the right.

The data I've presented comes from scientist in the climate field you and others have not. I'm not worried about 2 figures in the media/radio. I'm worried about laws being passed based on false/tampered science that are going to affect my way of life financially. I don't want to pay more for a problem that doesn't exists.

We have bigger problems to deal with.

 

[tenorplayer23]

Yo, Scott, what's happening???........BTW, it's already 110F in Dallas during the summer!! You want it 110F all the time??? AND, you guys don't have snow and ice.....WE have snow and ice. You just have a drive-by-storm once in a while!!



Maybe the warmer climate means more or better growing seasons somewhere, but it also is melting ice in places and either flooding places that used to have reasonable water tables or disappearing from areas that used to have it, altogether.



As far as snow removal costs go, from my times in Dallas, I suspect you actually don't have any. LOL Up here, it's just part of life in the Dec. - March time period. Nobody ever talks about the cost, unless road salt is hard to get........The other thing to consider in this whole discussion isn't just temperature change and the warmth's effect on humans, but also the ancillary things that happen, aka, the cycles/frequency and directions of storms. This guy who I have read some about, talks a lot about the impact of these cyclonic changes. In TX, OK, AR, etc., what if you end up with more tornadoes or if we all of a sudden started to have them (which in history, is awfully rare around here!!. We get 30" of snow sometimes, but never a twister!!) Or the water level in coastal America (not you or I) but the folks along the Pacific, Atlantic & Gulf coasts see a rise in sea levels, as predicted. Even if it is say, a few inches, the effect will be gigantic financially.



And, forget the heating costs......what about the AC costs?? We'll just trade coal/gas usage around to make more electricity. It is probably worse than a net sum game. BUT, the Chinese.......now, that will be a disaster if they need to use more fossil fuel than they do!! If you average temp. in TX rises are few degrees, take a look at the % increase in electric utilities. BTW, I'm curious, since I don't know.........natural gas is pretty cheap in TX., right? Do you heat with NG (oil maybe??) or electricity?? I happen to be in a little corner of the world where I have ALL electric utilities. My electric rates in the summer are ~ $0.03/KWH. In winter, there are premiums & rate increases based on demand, but on average, I live in the land of cheappppp electricity. So, my total utility bill, all up, on average is probably ~$60/mo. I don't have any utility complaints.



I'd second that two requirements you make. The first issue will be highly dependent on "stopping the current rate of change", since it's not at all static. The second, will have to be independent of interplanetary/solar influences (aka, the data is "normalized" to take these occurrences/or their history of occurrence, into account). With that info, we could get to a reasonable conclusion.



Ugh..........still gives me a headache.



Now, let me get back to the Pinks All Out Marathon running on Speed TV!! LOL These are old episodes where they are really racing for Pink slips. I can see why they changed the show to award cash and prizes. :nixweiss



See ya. :wavey

This is not an issue that even if true spells the end of mankind. Humans have lived through ice ages and warmer climates than we have now. A warmer climate means longer growing seasons, more inhabitable areas of earth (like northern Canada and Russia), lower snow removal costs in the winter, lower gas and coal emissions due to less need for winter heating, etc. As far as I am concerned the earth is too cold as it is. I'll take 110 in the summer if it means no snow or ice in the winter.



I want to see two things:



1. Proof that the current climate is the one we need to lock in

2. Proof we can then prevent any future variations from that norm, regardless of anything the sun does, ocean currents, etc.

 

[MSOsr]

[quote name='tenorplayer23']Yo, Scott, what's happening???........BTW, it's already 110F in Dallas during the summer!! You want it 110F all the time??? AND, you guys don't have snow and ice.....WE have snow and ice. You just have a drive-by-storm once in a while!!



Maybe the warmer climate means more or better growing seasons somewhere, but it also is melting ice in places and either flooding places that used to have reasonable water tables or disappearing from areas that used to have it, altogether.



As far as snow removal costs go, from my times in Dallas, I suspect you actually don't have any. LOL Up here, it's just part of life in the Dec. - March time period. Nobody ever talks about the cost, unless road salt is hard to get........The other thing to consider in this whole discussion isn't just temperature change and the warmth's effect on humans, but also the ancillary things that happen, aka, the cycles/frequency and directions of storms. This guy who I have read some about, talks a lot about the impact of these cyclonic changes. In TX, OK, AR, etc., what if you end up with more tornadoes or if we all of a sudden started to have them (which in history, is awfully rare around here!!. We get 30" of snow sometimes, but never a twister!!) Or the water level in coastal America (not you or I) but the folks along the Pacific, Atlantic & Gulf coasts see a rise in sea levels, as predicted. Even if it is say, a few inches, the effect will be gigantic financially.



And, forget the heating costs......what about the AC costs?? We'll just trade coal/gas usage around to make more electricity. It is probably worse than a net sum game. BUT, the Chinese.......now, that will be a disaster if they need to use more fossil fuel than they do!! If you average temp. in TX rises are few degrees, take a look at the % increase in electric utilities. BTW, I'm curious, since I don't know.........natural gas is pretty cheap in TX., right? Do you heat with NG (oil maybe??) or electricity?? I happen to be in a little corner of the world where I have ALL electric utilities. My electric rates in the summer are ~ $0.03/KWH. In winter, there are premiums & rate increases based on demand, but on average, I live in the land of cheappppp electricity. So, my total utility bill, all up, on average is probably ~$60/mo. I don't have any utility complaints.



I'd second that two requirements you make. The first issue will be highly dependent on "stopping the current rate of change", since it's not at all static. The second, will have to be independent of interplanetary/solar influences (aka, the data is "normalized" to take these occurrences/or their history of occurrence, into account). With that info, we could get to a reasonable conclusion.





You average $60/mo. utilities? No wonder you don't care if Cap & Trade results in doubling your bills.



I pay $300-400/mo. for electricity (government owned coal fired generators). Doubling my rates will put my staff out of jobs, as they won't be able to work for me unless I give them huge raises, which I can't afford.



Seems like adding to the unemployment pool (with productive people who can't afford their electric bills) is something that would require unequivocal proof to justify, a standard which the evidence I've seen doesn't reach.



Mike

 

[MSOsr]

I don't think we need to look at "what the rest of the world is doing" when we are (or were) the only Superpower. If the US is a superpower, wouldn't it be in the interest of the rest of the world to minimize our influence? Slowing or destroying our economy (by taxing businesses for energy consumption) is the best plan ever to minimize our influence in the world.



And we are going to sit back and take it, based upon disputed evidence?



Mike

 

[Junebug]

From Boortz:

Do you remember James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute? He's the one that has been called an embarrassment to NASA for his blind belief in this global warming hoax. Well he has opened his mouth again, this time on the upcoming Copenhagen summit. He is actually not in favor of the Copenhagen summit and feels it is headed toward disaster. But that is because he does not believe that Copenhagen is drastic enough! Here's why (you'll love this) ...



"[Global warming] is analogous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill ... On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say, let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50 percent or reduce it 40 percent."



So there you go. This guy is actually comparing global warming to the Nazis and slavery. Remember; we're supposed to take these people seriously. Yeah, right.

 

[tenorplayer23]

My utility bill doesn't influence my thinking on whether there are climate change issues. Keep in mind that it's just "my" utility bill. I feel the economic effects of every other power/utility cost impact, wherever they occur. The cost of everything is impacted by this. BTW, if I moved a couple of miles east or west, north or south, I'd be paying what you pay (maybe more because of the cold weather impact on natural gas usage & prices). Sounds like your $300-400/mo. is for business, not individual use, as well. I want good proof sources for the the impacts of our pollution on climate change, as well. But, let's not kid ourselves, that change is already occurring and it just remains to see how fast the detrimental stuff happens, not if it happens.



See ya. :wavey



You average $60/mo. utilities? No wonder you don't care if Cap & Trade results in doubling your bills.



I pay $300-400/mo. for electricity (government owned coal fired generators). Doubling my rates will put my staff out of jobs, as they won't be able to work for me unless I give them huge raises, which I can't afford.



Seems like adding to the unemployment pool (with productive people who can't afford their electric bills) is something that would require unequivocal proof to justify, a standard which the evidence I've seen doesn't reach.



Mike[/QUOTE]

 

[tenorplayer23]

Hey JBug, let me elaborate on Hansen's point. His uses this analogy because of the size of the problem and the fact that, from his perspective, that the political negotiations that will take place between all the nations actively involved with climate change management, will not result in actions capable of making the necessary changes. This is akin to aiming high, because you know that negotiations will not result in perfect answers. The question is, how deep does the world have to go to reduce this problem or start reversing the negative effects? In his mind, I think, the current pace of change will not be enough. I understand what he's getting at, especially since this is far from an "investigate & solve" type of problem. The Copenhagen conference is already in disarray, apparently & largely caused by underdeveloped nations balking at being asked to manage their emissions as developed countries would. They don't want to. So far, the demonstrations are not about bad data, they are about the conference not taking the issue far enough to get substantial change done. So, his reference to the Nazi regime or the institution of slavery is about eradicating them, aka, go far enough with managing climate change to really change the course of what's happening - not just give lip service to the issue.



See ya, :wavey

From Boortz:

Do you remember James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute? He's the one that has been called an embarrassment to NASA for his blind belief in this global warming hoax. Well he has opened his mouth again, this time on the upcoming Copenhagen summit. He is actually not in favor of the Copenhagen summit and feels it is headed toward disaster. But that is because he does not believe that Copenhagen is drastic enough! Here's why (you'll love this) ...



"[Global warming] is analogous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill ... On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say, let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50 percent or reduce it 40 percent."



So there you go. This guy is actually comparing global warming to the Nazis and slavery. Remember; we're supposed to take these people seriously. Yeah, right.

 

[dennn]

Whether global warming is solely man-made is something we cannot conclude on at the moment. However, I would NOT be surprised that it is. Let me explain.



Although I have an MBA, I involved in assisting different professors in their scientific researches. None of those researches were nobel-prize worthy, but they were important to the global scientific community.



Anyway, here's how things work in the field. Scientists make a living by researching. They invest literally years to decades on one topic. If a scientist or professor's thesis is proven invalid or false, then the scientist's life time work is rendered worthless.



Also, scientists draw their research funds from the government, which is literally an endless well providing for researchers at the expense of taxpayers. The only way to have infinite access to research funds is to continually conduct researches. By continually finding practical problems, and finding ways to solve these problems, scientists are basically securing their jobs as researches.



The thing with global warming is that it is HARD to prove that it is not man-made. Scientists and research agencies all collaborate to capitalize on this topic. More public worries mean more research funds for these people.

 

[tenorplayer23]

Mr. Invisible, that is absolutely correct! If you understand organizational theory & it's application to organizations (or academia, since it too works as an organizational structure - and this is a great example) there are tons of incentives for research scientists and their "grants" to search for conclusions that support their continued funding and therefore, their work. This comes under the theory described by the acronym "REMM" - Resourceful, Evaluating, Maximizing Man. All this means in theory is that people will evaluate their situation within an organization and do what is required to maximize their own situation (increase their personal "utility") so to speak. But, that's why there are indeed checks and balances in the organizational system.....reviewers, granter's evaluating the research done on their behalf, independent verification, et.al. As it applies to organizations - see the following snippet from the guy who taught me the course.



SSRN-The Nature of Man by Michael Jensen, William Meckling



SSRN-Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure by Michael Jensen, William Meckling







The issue I have with the the idea that the conclusions to date being a "hoax" or totally over exaggerated is that there is so much data around. Would seem difficult, in this organizational construct, to have all the sources incented incorrectly. It just seem to big.



Now, as I have said in other posts, we "may" have very precise information at that points to a somewhat inaccurate conclusion. And, I certainly don't want to go on an unnecessary tax/government spending spree to solve a problem that is orders of magnitude off........but, I just don't think it is. The question really is: how will we work to correct or reverse our negative environmental impacts; how will be adapt to the changes that are irreversible in the near/long term and what can be done to take advantage of this opportunity for new research, development of products the world needs and taking advantage of our technological head start vs. world. Somebody is going to capitalize on it, it should be the USA.



Well, that's just my opinion.......................I could be wrong!



See ya. :wavey

Whether global warming is solely man-made is something we cannot conclude on at the moment. However, I would NOT be surprised that it is. Let me explain.



Although I have an MBA, I involved in assisting different professors in their scientific researches. None of those researches were nobel-prize worthy, but they were important to the global scientific community.



Anyway, here's how things work in the field. Scientists make a living by researching. They invest literally years to decades on one topic. If a scientist or professor's thesis is proven invalid or false, then the scientist's life time work is rendered worthless.



Also, scientists draw their research funds from the government, which is literally an endless well providing for researchers at the expense of taxpayers. The only way to have infinite access to research funds is to continually conduct researches. By continually finding practical problems, and finding ways to solve these problems, scientists are basically securing their jobs as researches.



Although we perceive scientists as people that are only interested in science, they are actually extremely influential in politics. How? For example, stem cell research was nearly halted during the Bush administration. Scientists want in power a political party that supports their researches. Also, Al Gore popuarlized the topic of global warming, and scientists in this field of study flourished as a result of it.



The thing with global warming is that it is HARD to prove that it is not man-made. Scientists and research agencies all collaborate to capitalize on this topic. More public worries mean more research funds for these people.

 

[MSOsr]

The $300-400 monthly electric bill is for my 3,000 sq.ft. house. My legal assistant pays close to the same for a 1,700 sq.ft. house (apparently her house is not as energy efficient).



I agree we should penalize obvious polluters (smoking cars, plants that emit obvious pollutants from their smokestacks, etc.). However, to pass laws that cap and tax citizens for CO2 emissions, when it hasn't been conclusively proven that man's contribution of CO2 has an effect on global warming whatsoever, is nuts.



I think it's amazing that people think that Americans should change their lifestyles and pay double for energy when our government has essentially prevented nuclear power plants, offshore drilling and all other attempts at providing cheaper energy (I live near the beach and have no problem with offshore rigs out of sight on the horizon.)



Remember in the 1970s when Newsweek was reporting we were heading for another Ice Age?



How many climatologists have backed off their initial support for man-made global warming?





Mike

 

[tenorplayer23]

Yo, Mike, your utility bill isn't too bad. People in this area pay a lot more for the same size house if they use natural gas and electric. I live in an area where the utility rate is an anomaly. My house is about 2500 sq.ft. so it's comparable. On the other hand......I'll trade my utility bill for yours if you pay my taxes in New York State. trust me, you're miles ahead.



As to your suppositions. Just how many of these renowned scientists and "climatologists" have changed their minds? The propensity of evidence still points to a growing effect of CO2 on the earths atmosphere....and, soon, the USA won't even be in the top 3-4 countries doing the polluting. So, the problem you likely face in the future might be less of our doing overall.



I don't like new taxes or extra expenses thrown on top of what I already pay. You guys live cheap compared to the northern climes in the US. But, to change behavior (which is what all this clamoring about tax/caps/credits is about) there has to be something that influences people - and to do that change, it has to be a financial incentive (or disincentive). I doubt that it will get passed, but the idea is a good one, if we need to change peoples behavior about energy use/CO2 emissions.



The US should use all our available resources to attack this problem. On the other hand, replacing todays fossil fuel plants with new nuclear powered ones is NOT necessarily a net sum zero transaction. It will cost a lot for these new plants and therefore, cost customers a lot. Nuclear power isn't cheap. It may be one of the only viable choices.....but don't think it won't cost you. As far as the oil drilling off-shore goes, I'm surprised it's not more in vogue. Keep in mind that the opposition for that is not just federal, it's also your state government in FL rejecting it.



Lets hope the St. John's River doesn't rise a half a foot more.......some of those riverside restaurants I like down there can't handle a water table much higher. You'll certainly be under water long before I am!



Of course, that's just my opinion....................I could be wrong! (But, probably not!)



See ya. :wavey

The $300-400 monthly electric bill is for my 3,000 sq.ft. house. My legal assistant pays close to the same for a 1,700 sq.ft. house (apparently her house is not as energy efficient).



I agree we should penalize obvious polluters (smoking cars, plants that emit obvious pollutants from their smokestacks, etc.). However, to pass laws that cap and tax citizens for CO2 emissions, when it hasn't been conclusively proven that man's contribution of CO2 has an effect on global warming whatsoever, is nuts.



I think it's amazing that people think that Americans should change their lifestyles and pay double for energy when our government has essentially prevented nuclear power plants, offshore drilling and all other attempts at providing cheaper energy (I live near the beach and have no problem with offshore rigs out of sight on the horizon.)



Remember in the 1970s when Newsweek was reporting we were heading for another Ice Age?



How many climatologists have backed off their initial support for man-made global warming?





Mike

 

[nailzer]

Those longships emitted a huge amount of greenhouse gases!

I believe the scientific term for that was Viking farts.

 

[nailzer]

I've never heard an AGW advocate explain "Greenland". Anyone got anything on that?Mike

I'll be you have never heard Al Gore talk about the Gakkel Ridge under the Arctic, and it's active volcanoes.



"New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests that a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.



Hidden 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes can range up to more than a mile (2 kilometers) in diameter and a few hundred yards (meters) tall."



Volcanoes erupting beneath Arctic ice - LiveScience- msnbc.com



But some scientists don't think it would cause the Arctic ice to melt



Now what would make a BIG ice cube melt faster. The sun shining through some CO2, or an erupting volcano spewing molten rock? Boy that's a tough choice.



Whenever I hear Gore talk about "Global Warming" melting the ice cap of the Arctic I have to chuckle.



Oh and there's an active volcano discovered under the Antarctic also.

 

[Scottwax]

Whenever I hear Gore talk about "Global Warming" melting the ice cap of the Arctic I have to chuckle.



Oh and there's an active volcano discovered under the Antarctic also.

Al Gore said the core of the earth is several million degrees. :LOLOL



YouTube - Al Gore saying the Earths Core is millions of degrees. Climategate mixcatcom

 

[Scottwax]

Yo, Scott, what's happening???........BTW, it's already 110F in Dallas during the summer!! You want it 110F all the time???

I grew up in Phoenix, hot weather doesn't phase me. I work outside in it all day in the summer (often in the full sun) then go put 23-32 miles on my road bike in the early evening.

As far as snow removal costs go, from my times in Dallas, I suspect you actually don't have any. LOL Up here, it's just part of life in the Dec. - March time period. Nobody ever talks about the cost, unless road salt is hard to get........

I'm not talking about just the Dallas area but world-wide. Do you know that the Soviet Union is looking for ways to seed clouds to reduce heavy snow and the associated costs in Moscow?



Moscow's mayor plans to alter weather to stop heavy snow - Story - Home - 3 News

The other thing to consider in this whole discussion isn't just temperature change and the warmth's effect on humans, but also the ancillary things that happen, aka, the cycles/frequency and directions of storms. This guy who I have read some about, talks a lot about the impact of these cyclonic changes. In TX, OK, AR, etc., what if you end up with more tornadoes or if we all of a sudden started to have them (which in history, is awfully rare around here!!. We get 30" of snow sometimes, but never a twister!!)

If the poles are warming faster as the scientists claim, then the severity of storms will be lessened, not increased. You get severe strorms because of the clashes between hot and cold air masses. If the poles warm faster, than the temperature differences between air masses will be less and reduce the severity of spring and early summer storms. Rainfall would probably increase but storms wouldn't be as bad.



After Katrina, didn't we hear dire warnings about increased and more severe hurricane activity? How's that prediction working out so far?

Or the water level in coastal America (not you or I) but the folks along the Pacific, Atlantic & Gulf coasts see a rise in sea levels, as predicted. Even if it is say, a few inches, the effect will be gigantic financially.

A few inches is not going to have a huge impact.

And, forget the heating costs......what about the AC costs??

My winter electrical bills are usually higher than my summer electrical bills. :nixweiss



I have the thermostat on 68 in the winter and 72 in the summer.

Now, let me get back to the Pinks All Out Marathon running on Speed TV!! LOL These are old episodes where they are really racing for Pink slips. I can see why they changed the show to award cash and prizes. :nixweiss



See ya. :wavey

Those changes mean more cars run and spew out CO2, are you sure you want to support that?

 

[tenorplayer23]

Hey Scott,



Come on, it hasn't been the "Soviet Union" for almost 20 years! Remember??



I think you have some of your conclusions mixed up and what you've said about the frequency of storms/severity isn't correct in the sense of ice melt, falling water temperatures in the oceans, the patterns of storm centers,etc.. Living in TX, you see a lot of tornadoes and the impact of warm/cold fronts colliding & causing severe weather. Not necessarily the same process.



As far as water tables go, a a few inches will make a big difference to areas existing at sea level today. In addition, you have to have seen the publications out there re: to island nations in danger of losing their land simply because of rising seas, right. For you and I in land-locked land USA< maybe not such a big deal, but along our seaboards, it is a big deal. As far as the frequency of hurricanes and major storms around the world, it is all about trend. The bad news is, no one point or even a very few points of data will tell us whether the theories about storm activity or any other climatic event are correct. It is a large collection of data and regressions to eliminate other natural or man made influences.



Given that it is today a BALMY 7F here in the frozen tundra of upstate New York, I too would likely prefer warmer weather. Maybe not 110F every day, but given the choice, I think it would be better! . This cold stuff sucks......but, unfortunately, around here, it goes with the territory.



BTW, PINKS was a repeat. I think they are done for a couple of months........and it IS a shame that all those cars might be a thing of the past as we move forward with all these issues. I LOVE muscle cars of the late-60's/early-70's......wish I had that Dart you showed me (I'd especially like a 'Cuda or a Challenger big block.........but, they're way out of my price range if they are any good. Ugh.......) On the other hand, if we could reduce the CO2 output of what we drive everyday, we could probably afford to keep our high output vehicles of that era or any, for that matter. That's Jay Leno's theory anyway......we just need to do the math!!



Say, keep the threads coming. Enjoy your work........and, have a good holiday too!



See ya. :wavey

I grew up in Phoenix, hot weather doesn't phase me. I work outside in it all day in the summer (often in the full sun) then go put 23-32 miles on my road bike in the early evening.







I'm not talking about just the Dallas area but world-wide. Do you know that the Soviet Union is looking for ways to seed clouds to reduce heavy snow and the associated costs in Moscow?



Moscow's mayor plans to alter weather to stop heavy snow - Story - Home - 3 News







If the poles are warming faster as the scientists claim, then the severity of storms will be lessened, not increased. You get severe strorms because of the clashes between hot and cold air masses. If the poles warm faster, than the temperature differences between air masses will be less and reduce the severity of spring and early summer storms. Rainfall would probably increase but storms wouldn't be as bad.



After Katrina, didn't we hear dire warnings about increased and more severe hurricane activity? How's that prediction working out so far?







A few inches is not going to have a huge impact.







My winter electrical bills are usually higher than my summer electrical bills. :nixweiss



I have the thermostat on 68 in the winter and 72 in the summer.







Those changes mean more cars run and spew out CO2, are you sure you want to support that?

 

[Scottwax]

I think you have some of your conclusions mixed up and what you've said about the frequency of storms/severity isn't correct in the sense of ice melt, falling water temperatures in the oceans, the patterns of storm centers,etc.. Living in TX, you see a lot of tornadoes and the impact of warm/cold fronts colliding & causing severe weather. Not necessarily the same process.

My point is that while precipitation amounts may increase, warmer air at the poles means less severe storms.



I still haven't seen a shred of proof that the current climate is the one that needs to be locked in.



As someone who seems to have faith in the climate change models, wouldn't you at least agree that governments of the world and the UN are using it as an excuse for a huge money grab?

 

[tenorplayer23]

Well, the temperature climbed to a balmier, current temperature of 18F right now. I think I saw a BIG 80F notation right on top of TX on the last national forecast map. Now is a good time to enjoy that, because this cold & snowy stuff just sucks. The worst part is the decreasing daylight/sunshine on top of it. Oh well......just a few months and we'll be on the upside again. Plus, if I am less coherent with my comments tonight......I had another (usually every 3 mo.) appt. with one of my MD's today about a post-operative scan I had last Monday. Have had great results for the past yr. after the big abdominal surgery I had, post-surgery radiation/chemotherapy, etc. She said it was most likely nothing to worry about (she wasn't worried) but that I needed another scan to look at something and rule out any problem. Want to talk about anxiety!! :nervous2: I told them to schedule it today while I was there, but that was a little "quick", so back I go on Sunday & then the results on Monday. Makes the debate on GW seem petty in comparison.



But, I digress, since it is just a weight on me right now......but, back to climate change (thanks for listening to my fears barking out loud).



Do I think there is a huge money grab going on? No. Do I think there is plenty of opportunity for arbitrage within political/financial aspects of the climate change issue? Yes, plenty! I view much of the difficulties in this whole situation as being less scientific and more, how to "operationalize" the changes necessary to help the problem. It's a big organizational issue like I described in one of the earlier threads.



If you follow the top daily headlines from the Copenhagen conference, much of the debate & negotiation has little to do with the science (or validity of it) and much more to do with how to implement emissions control(and who should do what). And, who, of course, who is going to pay what to change the sources of CO2 emissions. Big negotiations between Chine/US, as well as the major industrial nations AND the developing or currently underdeveloped countries that either don't want to pay the price of better controlled mfg. processes or really can't afford it. This is where the financial incentives come in to get somebody else to pay them for the changes....and where the biggest chances are for us to assume a leadership position in contributing/subsidize these nations to do better emission-wise.....AND NOT get what we are paying for. In my opinion, this will need to be something like Ronald Reagan's "trust but verify" moniker. Especially with the Chinese. The way industry is moving, China is already the biggest CO2 emitter (US #2) followed by India, etc.. That's where the biggest financial f=risk is.....what do we end up doing to get them to comply with the challenges.......????? Ugh.......and we're worrying about whether good tool boxes are made there!



Speaking of tools..........have you tried the new PC 7424XP and new Griot's polishers side by side?? I was reading another thread about the differences (seemed like some specs-manship maybe) but wondered whether you had actually handled both. (Just FYI.....my new PCXP was made in Mexico)



Let me know.....thx.



See ya. :wavey



Bob

My point is that while precipitation amounts may increase, warmer air at the poles means less severe storms.



I still haven't seen a shred of proof that the current climate is the one that needs to be locked in.



As someone who seems to have faith in the climate change models, wouldn't you at least agree that governments of the world and the UN are using it as an excuse for a huge money grab?

 

[Scottwax]

Do you really think the leaders of many of these smaller nations will actually use the money provided for cleaner energy? There are a lot of corrupt leaders who will skim a lot of money right off the top for their own use. Just like the states here who got all that tobacco settlement money and how little of it went to the intended use. Instead of money, we could work with them to develop clean energy.



I have a G110, haven't used the 7424 XP or the Griots. My Dewalt 849 is my correction workhorse anyway.

 

[nailzer]

After Katrina, didn't we hear dire warnings about increased and more severe hurricane activity? How's that prediction working out so far?

I heard Brad Pitt make that prediction on the news not long after Katrina. :chuckle: