Global Warming? I don't know what to believe.

[stefan]

So the Earth didn't warm at a slower rate for the last 13 years -- it just "redistributed" the heat better? .

just keep in mind, this is about heat retention, which occurs both in the atmosphere and in the ocean (water has a much greater heat capacity) and there is a dynamic heat exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere. during different times the ocean could absorb more heat or give off more heat which could cause an otherwise long-term upward trend to fluctuate in its rate of increase over time (there is evidence for this).

5. (Circa 2012) ---> Wait, they switched it to "Climate Change" now? Hmmmm, sounds convenient.

the term climate change was proposed by republican pollster and wordsmith frank luntz during the bush administration which adopted it to replace global warming. (he's also the one responsible for other greatest hits like death tax, job creators, death panels, gov't takeover of health care, etc.) some view climate change as a more apt way of describing it for a variety of reasons.

[twotimer]

Who are you referring to? No one in this conversation has been angry or insulting.

Oh...that was a couple talking heads I saw on TV last night, or was it today? Last week? 15 years ago? 1979?. I can't remember...

[Slot Machine]

Yale University disagrees with you: http://e360.yale.edu/digest/carbon_e...oupled_economy
Is Yale University a good enough source?

My data (NASA's data) shows CO2 accumulation over time.

Yale's data shows emissions over time.

They are two totally different data sets that don't disagree with one another. Both data sets are likely correct. I'm sorry you did not know the difference.

[Slot Machine]

The real question is would trading in the gas guzzling bad ass Corvette for a strawberry douche powered Toyota Prius really make a difference to global warming.

I don't think the Prius would help at all, because of how humans do things.

We are like ants at a picnic, climbing all over an apple pie. We reproduce and eat as fast as we can, as long as the pie is there. It's like a chemical reaction, and the pie is the rate limiting factor.

If I buy a Prius, my neighbor will have an extra kid and buy an extra Corvette. It is not necessarily what I want to happen, but what will actually happen. If I don't eat the pie another ant will.

[rockgremlin]

My data (NASA's data) shows CO2 accumulation over time.

Yale's data shows emissions over time.

But if emissions have been flat over the last three years, how can CO2 continue to accumulate? Are the natural carbon sinks not absorbing CO2 quickly enough? What's going on here?

They are two totally different data sets that don't disagree with one another. Both data sets are likely correct. I'm sorry you did not know the difference.

Uh, thanks for the heartfelt apology. I think.

I would contend that they aren't totally different. One set describes the amount of CO2 that is being released annually (Yale), the other the rate that the released CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere...one affects the other, right?

[twotimer]

I don't think the Prius would help at all, because of how humans do things.

We are like ants at a picnic, climbing all over an apple pie. We reproduce and eat as fast as we can, as long as the pie is there. It's like a chemical reaction, and the pie is the rate limiting factor.

If I buy a Prius, my neighbor will have an extra kid and buy an extra Corvette. It is not necessarily what I want to happen, but what will actually happen. If I don't eat the pie another ant will.

BINGO! This is why I don't worry about it...it's like that movie where the guy is screaming for everyone to calm down while the riot swirls all around him. It's futile.

[Iceaxe]

If I buy a Prius, my neighbor will have an extra kid and buy an extra Corvette. It is not necessarily what I want to happen, but what will actually happen. If I don't eat the pie another ant will.

Silly pony.... no one gets to have another kid along with another Corvette..... that is without doubt an either or type deal. The only thing another kid will get you is a 'mom' car with extra seating.

If I don't eat the pie another ant will.

Are you sure you're not a Republican?

[Slot Machine]

But if emissions have been flat over the last three years, how can CO2 continue to accumulate? Are the natural carbon sinks not absorbing CO2 quickly enough? What's going on here?

I would contend that they aren't totally different. One set describes the amount of CO2 that is being released annually (Yale), the other the rate that the released CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere...one affects the other, right?

The two data sets ARE totally different. One is rate (Yale), the other is quantity (NASA). You were trying to disprove the quantity data with rate data, which does not make sense. You must use quantity data to disprove quantity data.

Silly pony.... no one gets to have another kid along with another Corvette..... that is without doubt an either or type deal. The only thing another kid will get you is a 'mom' car with extra seating.

True dat.

Are you sure you're not a Republican?

No need to call names!

It is funny, I had a long, draw out argument with a good friend about 10 years ago about this topic. I thought we could save the world. But then I realized that all fossil fuels are going to get burned no matter what.

Does that make me a realist?

[jman]

But if emissions have been flat over the last three years, how can CO2 continue to accumulate? Are the natural carbon sinks not absorbing CO2 quickly enough? What's going on here?

So we all know that burning fossil fuels creates CO2. Vegetation or anything that uses photosynthesis turns this CO2 into glucose (sugar/energy for the plant) followed by the releasing of Oxygen into the air that we breathe (although we technically breath approx 77% nitrogen, 12% oxygen, and 1% argon).

With the seasons throughout the year, one could say that the Earth "breathes". The world's CO2 levels significantly drop in the spring (as vegetation grows) and exhales in the fall (as the leaves fall off).

What is happening with these burning of fossils fuels is that we are releasing excess CO2 which nature can't and doesn't keep up with. Therefore that CO2 remains in the atmosphere expounding the greenhouse effect.

The planet Venus is quite hot, but not due to its proximity to the sun. The clouds on Venus and its atmosphere is nearly all CO2. Most of the solar rays, or "insolation", doesn't even hit the surface because it is reflected back into space due to Venus's atmosphere.

The worry is that Earth will become like Venus if CO2 increases and isn't controlled.

The worry with climate change/global warming is that these greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) are enhancing global warming (greenhouse effect).

Warming the earth by a few degrees has significant repercussions. And my personal belief is that, yes, us humans are expediting this process due to fossil fuel burning.

The result of global warming are: polar thawing (Greenland, Antarctica), polar ice sea melting, changes in global surface temperatures, more extreme weather, sea-level rise, and loss of habitat.


On a side-note but still relevant, at work there is this large infographic about the temperature inversion in Utah and what pollution source gets added in. Guess what the largest source of this pollutant is (and at 56%) - cars! So it's not the one-offs like stericycle or refineries that are contributing to it. Ironically they are only at 11%.

So I call BS to people who say that them switching to a Prius, for example, is not going to change the world.

With that logic, it is exactly that, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It won't because THEY refuse to change.

But those who are willing to change, willing to adopt cleaner and more earth responsible practices are slowly but steadily changing policy and minds. This is how the world will change. Even China who was horrific with emissions is starting to realize and crack down on these emission controls and has started to become more environmentally conscious. And it's slowly showing that.

Back to my point and relevance of the smog inversion problem in Salt Lake City. So, us common folk, are responsible for more than half of the pollution in the air, yet we point the finger at legislators and say "Fix It!!!!". The irony! *WE* are doing this damage to ourselves, and yet, a bunch of us refuse to change or fix our own habits and lament with the phrase "me switching to a cleaner vehicle will solve nothing".

It's a frustrating cycle as you can see. But thankfully younger generations are growing up to be more earth responsible and more environmentally conscious and not follow the examples of the older generations. We don't need to get crazy or excessive but we are becoming more aware of our human-caused problems.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

It is funny, I had a long, draw out argument with a good friend about 10 years ago about this topic. I thought we could save the world. But then I realized that all fossil fuels are going to get burned no matter what.

Does that make me a realist?

It makes you pragmatic. You know who else is pragmatic? Donald Trump! I get ya now, a conservative in liberal clothing.

ROFLMAO

[twotimer]

Warming the earth by a few degrees has significant repercussions. And my personal belief is that, yes, us humans are expediting this process due to fossil fuel burning.


But those who are willing to change, willing to adopt cleaner and more earth responsible practices are slowly but steadily changing policy and minds.

I'm serious as I ask this...I'm not trying to troll ya. Have you personally banned campfires? Can you enjoy one when someone else fires one up?

[jman]

I'm serious as I ask this...I'm not trying to troll ya. Have you personally banned campfires? Can you enjoy one when someone else fires one up?

Truthfully, yes I can. I mean it's fire. It's hot. It's feels great. Although I try to avoid the ones that are similar to your pic. :P

Is it hypocritical, sure. But just because I enjoy it, does it make it all or nothing, and therefore I shouldn't try to change?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[twotimer]

Truthfully, yes I can. I mean it's fire. It's hot. It's feels great. Although I try to avoid the ones that are similar to your pic. :P

Is it hypocritical, sure. But just because I enjoy it, does it make it all or nothing, and therefore I shouldn't try to change?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you know what they say...every little bit counts, right?

In the middle of May every year, I attend a week long gathering in Moab with mountain biking friends (go to Adventure Trekkers.com to join us) and one of the gals turned 50 so her husband arranged for all the guys to give her a "Chippendales" routine. We have a party with drums and a big fire every night. A sweat lodge, too...clothing optional.

Anyway, most everyone there is liberal...very liberal. Yet they all show up and enjoy the burning of whole trees anyway. It's like the Comedy Central Roasts...all these Jewish, liberal comedians giving themselves a pass from the PC stuff to indulge in gluttony and debauchery that normally is off limits. Check out the last one, the roast of Rob Lowe.

Ants eating the pie! Even if it's just an occasional indulgence.

I asked about the fire because I've actually backpacked with people that forbid them. Not many, but they exist.

[Slot Machine]

@jman, your post above is excellent. I'd like to expand on the big (biggest?) picture- the overall outcome.

So I call BS to people who say that them switching to a Prius, for example, is not going to change the world.

With that logic, it is exactly that, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It won't because THEY refuse to change.

With the Prius, you can change CO2 levels emitted from Salt Lake, but not the world. The fuel you don't burn here will get burned somewhere else. I do agree that everyone in Salt Lake should do their best, pollution wise. The red burn days are helpful, I think we all agree.

A willingness to change will not affect the long-term worldwide outcome. For example, I'm not a gluttonous ant that is eating as much pie as I possibly can. My wife and I are aware of what we burn. Our carbon footprint is a fraction of what it was 3 years ago (because we downsized). But try as I might to conserve, entropy will still win a battle of this scale. My neighbor will burn what I do not, which is neither good nor bad, it simply is what it is.

The real way to reduce carbon emissions would be to reduce the worldwide birth rate significantly, and not create extra neighbors in the first place.

[rockgremlin]

So much talk. So now what?

No way in hell is the entire planet gonna stop burning fossil fuels anytime soon...or at all. So we're just doomed then? San Diego and Miami will drop into the ocean and we'll start farming Greenland? What's the doomsday liberal scenario?

And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.

[hank moon]

And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.

Fake blood from Kennedy assassination burst holding tanks and evaporated.

Fake rocket fuel from model water rocket in fake moon shot sprayed over Earth and evaporated.

Road sign lobby triumph.

U-pick!

[Slot Machine]

No way in hell is the entire planet gonna stop burning fossil fuels anytime soon...or at all. So we're just doomed then? San Diego and Miami will drop into the ocean and we'll start farming Greenland? What's the doomsday liberal scenario?

Why not use the Google machine and find out what is actually gonna happen? http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

I'm still amazed that this is a political topic. It is like saying that the earth being round is a liberal agenda.

And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.

Yeah, that sucks that nobody is taking the time to Google crap that you can Google yourself. STOP DODGING RG'S SIMPLE GOOGLE QUESTIONS EVERYONE! SO RUDE!

It looks like El Nina might be the cause of the fluctuation that you are obsessing over (a routine fluctuation).



What really matters is the average increase in temperature over the past 50 years. An increase of 0.7-0.8 degrees C is a HUGE change over that span of time!

RG, PLEASE take a moment and check out this site. It is awesome!

[tallsteve]

Ok so, what is the solution to GW then if it is indeed man made or exacerbated by man burning fossil fuels? My carbon footprint is already pretty low and I have a hard time even listening to the Al Gore's of the world who's carbon footprint is 1,000 times greater than mine (or more!). I don't hear a lot of reasonable solutions. I have a couple of pretty smart scientist friends who have been constantly complaining on social media lately about our local inversion and the Utah State governments lack of doing anything about it. When I ask what solutions they have to solve the problem, all I get is crickets or the standard, "Well, the government should figure it out" or, the oldy but goody comment, "Governor Herbert is only concerned about big business and doesn't care". What are the solutions?

[Slot Machine]

Ok so, what is the solution to GW then if it is indeed man made or exacerbated by man burning fossil fuels? My carbon footprint is already pretty low and I have a hard time even listening to the Al Gore's of the world who's carbon footprint is 1,000 times greater than mine (or more!). I don't hear a lot of reasonable solutions. I have a couple of pretty smart scientist friends who have been constantly complaining on social media lately about our local inversion and the Utah State governments lack of doing anything about it. When I ask what solutions they have to solve the problem, all I get is crickets or the standard, "Well, the government should figure it out" or, the oldy but goody comment, "Governor Herbert is only concerned about big business and doesn't care". What are the solutions?

The world is round. GW is caused by humans. There is no if.

What can you do?

1. Don't have any more kids.
2. Live only in the space that you need.
3. Drive a smaller and more efficient vehicle.
4. Live closer to work.
5. Recycle.
6. Eat a vegan diet. If you eat meat, avoid beef. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-...footprint-diet
7. Don't burn coal or truck tires in your fireplace.

We used to live in 4,000 sq feet, now we live in 1,100. We did not downsize specifically to decrease our footprint, but it has decreased our use of energy substantially. I eat a vegan diet, but was unaware of the footprint of meat until last year. On the negative side, I drive a awesome SUV that gets 15 mpg, and have no interest in giving that up. I'll give myself a 'B' on the green report card.

What can government do? *throwing out a few obvious ideas*

1. Create policies that move us away from coal/oil, and toward natural gas.
2. Create policies that encourage the development and use of alternative energy.
3. Create policies for cleaner burning cars.

And... ?

[Iceaxe]

GW is caused by humans. There is no if.

Wow! You start right off with a statement that is impossible to prove and is actually the heart of the debate.

There is actually lots of 'if'. Not to mention numerous variations of 'if'.

Wasn't it just a few posts ago where you were admonishing folks for mixing facts with bullshit to try and sway the ignorant?