Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends

Brother Apostate

Your words exactly: If humans stopped or vastly reduced all greenhouse gas (GHG) emmisions immediately- what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%? On the other hand, what if it turned out to be 20%, or even 50%?
Nothing taken out of context here. You very clearly were speaking about amounts of "manmade GHGs" vs "all greenhous gas (GHG)" or you were speaking very unclearly.
No, these were my words, in context, exactly:
If humans stopped or vastly reduced all greenhouse gas (GHG) emmisions immediately- what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%? On the other hand, what if it turned out to be 20%, or even 50%? Then ask yourself whether in the big picture GHGs even come close to periodic solar fluctuations or other natural sources in causing Global Warming. -BA

First, assign any number you believe to human GHG production, how does that compare to natural GHG production? The human contribution is small compared to GHGs released by natural sources. Now, as I said, compare GHGs (from all sources human and natural) and compare that percentage to other causes of Global Warming, and GHGs are again small compared to, for example, solar activity's effect on Global Warming. Sorry, 6of9, it looks as if your reading comprehension is not quite what you believe it to be.
The earth is in fact always warmed by a blanket of ghg's (one of which is water). Adding to the thickness of that blanket by adding ghg's to the atmosphere will increase that warming. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.
At best, the reference to a blanket is a bad metaphor. Blankets act primarily to suppress convection; the atmosphere acts to enable convection. To claim that the atmosphere acts a blanket, is to admit that you don't know how either one of them operates. It is precisely the amount of GHGs produced by mankind (that you refer to as thickness) that is currently under debate (see previous comment).
BA- Hates hasty conclusions and false aspersions.
Bryan

I've been avoiding this topic as I've watched it grow.
To think our planet does not possess a life of it's own, even a violent one, is to proverbially stuff your head in the sand.
I personally am thankful for the global warming. If not for global warming we would still be in an ice age.
Science shows there were "global" warming and cooling throughout earth's history. To think that we have created this monster alone is juvenile. Have we also, single handedly, cuased global warming on Mars?
Austin, TX was once a shallow sea. Egypt, one time, sported lush forests with tower trees. The world changes, with us, or without us.
We cannot stop global warming. We can, though, create a better home for ourselves by recycling and reducing emissions.
But we did not create global warming, nor can we stop it.
Bryan
SixofNine

Incidentally, care to guess what a replacement battery for a Prius costs?
Here is what Road and Track magazine wrote in response to a question about hybrid batteries and cost:
Quote:
Bob, your straightforward question turned out to have a surprisingly complex answer. Toyota warranties the Prius battery pack for eight years, “but the expectation is it will last much longer than that.” How much longer no one is willing to speculate, so we’ll guestimate a 10-year lifespan from the nickel/metal-hydride unit.
Even more confusing to our Casio 10-key calculator is that the Prius battery pack is priced at $4000 by Toyota public relations, $3420 by our local dealer and is expected to cost only $1000 in eight years (Toyota’s estimate) due to greater economies of scale as more vehicles require battery replacement. While that may sound too good to be true, Toyota is insistent on this point. They also expect the batteries to get lighter and more efficient. What’s more, it’s forecast that reconditioned battery packs will be part of the picture. (You’d likely replace your conventional 10-year-old car’s engine with a rebuilt one, right?)
So, which is more financially sound, gasoline or battery power? At $1000 for the battery and a lifespan of eight years or longer, the battery clearly wins any contest of the calculators. At a worst case of $3500 for a new battery pack, installed, along with $1.65 per gallon of gasoline, we find the battery pack is worth 2121 gallons of gasoline. Our Road Test Summary rates the (first-generation) Prius at 40.3 mpg, which would yield 85,476 miles of driving. That would be a bit over 4 cents a mile for the battery, and a financial dead heat given 10,684 miles per year of driving in eight years. Adding even a little to battery life or subtracting from its cost makes the battery a winner; and that’s not to mention any change in the price of gasoline, which is only going to go up.
Installation costs are not an issue; the battery pack is easily accessible by removing the back seat, à la VW Beetles and Piper Cherokees.
BrentR

Very well put!!!!!!
Brother Apostate

6of9,
Ok- what is not readily apparent, and what is not spoken about in R&T, is how these battery's ability to store a charge will degrade over time. I assume you have a cellphone? How often do you replace the battery because, while it technically "works", it just won't hold the charge you need to get you through the day anymore?
Same deal with the Prius battery, only worse- the efficiency that is commonly measured in mpg is increasingly reduced as the battery ages. Consumers will undoubtedly find that their actual mpg will decrease drastically well before the Toyota-projected "8 years plus life" of the battery. This changes the economical analysis presented by R&T, probably written for them by Toyota. Prius consumers will have to make the choice between paying for a new battery much sooner than 8 years, or filling their gas tanks much more often than they did when their Prius was new.
Think about your cell phone battery.
I use mine fairly heavily and replace it at least annually.
Toyota's doing a great job with their marketing spin!!!
BA- Reads between the lines.
Frank75

Brian
I've been avoiding this topic as I've watched it grow.
That is a shame as you seem to be able to say in one post what I have been arguing over 12 pages!. Thanks for weighing in.
Abaddon:
Did you not check the dates? Or did you not mention that you are quoting an older opinion of his as this isn't about facts for you?
You are a monkey! Of course I know which was said first and when. Do you not know what adjunct means? All of that crap you state above about Peisers admission in 2006 doesn't change his overall criticism of Oreskes, just acknowledges some meaningless discrepancies. He says just that you if you read in context you twit. Peiser's data was somewhat different, but essentially contained the same source material. He found 1117 articles and Oreskes reported on 998. He asked for the search criteria and acted on the information given to prepare his critique. If anything the addition of 120 more references from the data base Oreskes cited should have vindicated her consensus statements. The fact that they didn't implies that Oreskes left out information that was not favorable to her argument.
My argument above was that you have not proved there has been any "climb down" by means of the email to Media Watch in 2006.
As I explained above, I included *all* documents (i.e. 1247) whereas Oreskes only used "articles" (however, there are only 905 abstracts in the ISI databank)
> It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found that "reject or doubt the view that human activities > are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years" may not have been included in the 928 articles > randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?
Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.
Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm
He stands by his main contention so you can stop playing with the so called facts you are trying to use to paint me into a corner. It isn't working and it won't work.
Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active.
That "small" active community is just as large as the small active pro AGW community at the other end of the spectrum as shown in one survey Peiser noted. These findings by Bray point that out:
“To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicates “strongly disagree”. Countries, and number of responses from each country are as follows:
USA n = 372; Canada n = 14; Germany n = 56; Italy n = 14; Denmark n = 5; Netherlands n = 4; Sweden n = 5; France n = 5; U.K. n = 18; Australia n = 21; Norway n = 3; Finland n = 3; New Zealand n = 6; Austria n = 3; Ethiopia n = 1; South Africa n = 3; Poland n = 1 Switzerland n = 7; Mexico n = 3; Russia n = 1; Argentina n = 1; India n = 3; Spain n = 2 Japan n = 3; Brazil n = 1; Taiwan n = 1; Bulgaria n = 1
To the question posed above there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive statistics are as follows:
Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84; Variance = 3.386
Frequencies:
1 strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
2 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
3 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
4 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
5 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
6 60 (10.8% valid responses)
7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses)
Rather than being dogmatic like you the above survey illustrates that the number who are strongly convinced about AGW are balanced by an equal if not statistically larger number who strongly remain unconvinced.
The median results along with the undecided/ambivalent number prove you along with the IPCC and Oreskes to be liars or at least intellectually dishonest. My owning stock in Chevron does not invalidate this conclusion, it is the facts that do so.
Frank75
SixofNine

You are buying into the marketing hype.
lol, no I'm not buying into your psuedo-expertise, because I loathe psuedo-experts, especially psued- experts who argue against a given solution simply because said single solution doesn't fix an entire problem. Hybrids don't have to be the be-all-end-all solution to oil dependency in order for them to be a great, useful, much needed technology.
The words "Oil dependancy and hydrocarbons emissions" pretty much sums up our biggest energy and environmental challenges (and security to, for that matter), but the solution to "Oil dependancy and hydrocarbons emissions" will not likely come from one or two technologies, but rather hundreds of technologies, implemented by various countries and competing for commercial viability.

Look, what you miss is that batteries store energy produced by GHG producing energy sources, in a very inefficient manner.
"Inefficient" as compared to what? Walking while eating an apple? A clean burning modern 4cylinder turbo-diesel running on bio, or a big 8 cylinder petrol engine designed for too-heavy vehicles that could carry a soccer team but usually only carry a mom?
The conversion from one form of energy, to storage in a battery, to another form of energy for use in an automobile will always be less efficient than converting one form of energy, to another form of energy for use in an automobile.
Really? "Always"? Sure you want to stand by that statement? I could swear they've been able to improve gas mileage by about 20 to 30% in vehicles using small gas engines, electric motors, and regenerative capture. You know, "hybrid systems" I think they're calling them nowadays. ;)
I define "better", as a 30,000 foot view that takes into account the pros and cons, not just the marketing hype.
You say that, but so far you've said nothing to indicate you can see 30 feet ahead, no less 30,000 feet ahead. You keep talking about "cons", but so far you haven't really enumerated any "cons" that aren't A) far better than what is facing us with current energy sources, and B) manageable. Then again, you've been pretty short on specifics on the "cons". I get the idea from this conversation about hybrids that you think yourself a skeptic when you are really just a cynic.

And get over yourself about "marketing hype". I've said nothing to indicate I buy into "marketing hype" just because I call you on your hype. Hell, my solar powered TV won't even run for a third of the day! ;-)
Brother Apostate

lol, no I'm not buying into your psuedo-expertise, because I loathe psuedo-experts, especially psued- experts who argue against a given solution simply because said single solution doesn't fix an entire problem. Hybrids don't have to be the be-all-end-all solution to oil dependency in order for them to be a great, useful, much needed technology.
Yes, hybrids reduce oil dependancy. Not much in the long run, however, and they are more expensive in the long run. I have already pointed out other drawbacks. That doesn't mean I dissaprove of them, just that I can see past the hype.
The words "Oil dependancy and hydrocarbons emissions" pretty much sums up our biggest energy and environmental challenges (and security to, for that matter), but the solution to "Oil dependancy and hydrocarbons emissions" will not likely come from one or two technologies, but rather hundreds of technologies, implemented by various countries and competing for commercial viability.
I'd break them up into two issues: "Oil dependancy"- yes, a big energy challenge which must be dealt with, and "hydrocarbons emissions" which is not the biggest environmental challenge by any means. Lumping them together only confuses the real issues.
Look, what you miss is that batteries store energy produced by GHG producing energy sources, in a very inefficient manner.-BA
"Inefficient" as compared to what? Walking while eating an apple? A clean burning modern 4cylinder turbo-diesel running on bio, or a big 8 cylinder petrol engine designed for too-heavy vehicles that could carry a soccer team but usually only carry a mom?
Inefficient as I went on to elaborate:
The conversion from one form of energy, to storage in a battery, to another form of energy for use in an automobile will always be less efficient than converting one form of energy, to another form of energy for use in an automobile. -BA
Really? "Always"? Sure you want to stand by that statement? I could swear they've been able to improve gas mileage by about 20 to 30% in vehicles using small gas engines, electric motors, and regenerative capture. You know, "hybrid systems" I think they're calling them nowadays. ;)
Yes. Always. Without any exceptions, ever. Source>Battery>Consumer, will always be less efficient by orders of magnitude than Source>Consumer, period. You clearly don't understand the physics or the technology.
I define "better", as a 30,000 foot view that takes into account the pros and cons, not just the marketing hype. -BA
You say that, but so far you've said nothing to indicate you can see 30 feet ahead, no less 30,000 feet ahead. You keep talking about "cons", but so far you haven't really enumerated any "cons" that aren't A) far better than what is facing us with current energy sources, and B) manageable. Then again, you've been pretty short on specifics on the "cons". I get the idea from this conversation about hybrids that you think yourself a skeptic when you are really just a cynic.
The alternatives are simply that- alternatives. They are only "better" in some ways, and "worse" in others, as I have pointed out. The grass isn't greener, just a different shade of green.
And get over yourself about "marketing hype". I've said nothing to indicate I buy into "marketing hype" just because I call you on your hype. Hell, my solar powered TV won't even run for a third of the day! ;-)
You've said volumes, you still fail to see it, 'nuff said.
BA- Didn't intend to hijack the thread.
SixofNine

First, assign any number you believe to human GHG production, how does that compare to natural GHG production?
W/o looking up the actual number (I'm not into assigning "any number you believe to human GHG production".... the actual numbers matter), I'll say it is what it is. That should be sufficient. If you want to toss that number out there to make a point, do so.

The human contribution is small compared to GHGs released by natural sources.
Ah, your point, sort of. Well, lucky us for that, but.... so what? I mean, lol, GHG's warming the earth are a huge part of what make life on this planet as we know it possible. Do you not believe we have a balance here that allows for life as we know it? Does that in any way mean that it (human contribution) can't affect global temperatures?
I'm going to assume you agree there is a "balance", so just how not-delicate do you think that balance is?
Do you think that climate scientist aren't every bit as aware as yourself the percentages of ghg's in the earth's atmosphere? Just what exactly do you think is their concern, and why are you so sure you shouldn't share it?
Now, as I said, compare GHGs (from all sources human and natural) and compare that percentage to other causes of Global Warming, and GHGs are again small compared to, for example, solar activity's effect on Global Warming. Sorry, 6of9, it looks as if your reading comprehension is not quite what you believe it to be.
Well actually BA, you've phrased it quite differently here now haven't you? That said, your mention of "for example, solar activity's effect" was not missed by me before, I just didn't comment on it, I commented on the part that, even in context, seemed to be very clearly speaking about amounts of " manmade GHGs " vs "all greenhouse gas (GHG)".
So, about Solar flarings. That isn't what most climatologist believe. I wonder what you even mean by "other causes of Global Warming" and "for example, solar activity's effect...."??
Are you trying to lead the forum to believe that you have a whole host of Global Warming inducing physical effects up your sleeve to argue with? What substantive, potentially long-term temperature increasing "other causes of Global Warming" do you know about? Let's hear them.

If you're arguing for increased Solar activity being the cause of some or all global warming, well fine, but just say so. The scientific jury is certainly out on that; it's not what most climate scientist believe. But I'm not sure how that is an argument against the warming that man-made ghg's will produce?
IF Solar flares are causing some amount of global warming, then that is an argument that fairly screams for reducing man-made ghg's, as one of the effects of warming itself is believed by some scientist to be the increased release of natural C02, so all the more reason to try and mitigate.
You know what? Before I even go any farther debating this with you, let me ask you a couple of questions:
You seem to have a strong opinion that man-made GHG's don't/won't (can't?) cause global warming, right? Is there a level (over and above what humans now cause) of man-made GHG's that you feel would contribute to global temperature rise? If so, what level is that compared to current levels? If not, how do you figure, given what we know about GHG's in the upper atmosphere and global temperatures?
In fact, I'll ask you your own question: Indeed, what if the ratio of man-made to natural sources of GHG's were 20% or even 50%? No big deal?
SixofNine

Yes. Always. Without any exceptions, ever. Source>Battery>Consumer, will always be less efficient by orders of magnitude than Source>Consumer, period. You clearly don't understand the physics or the technology.
Man! did you catch your mom masturbating with a battery powered vibrating device or something when you where a kid? I've never seen someone with such a deep-seated hatred of batteries! And with battery technology just now coming into it's own, you're really going to be a wreck in a few years when batteries get really popular and your mom says "son, come take a look at the new car my boyfriend bought me"!
I suppose if "batteries" was the only part of the hybrid car equation, you might have a point. But that's not the case, and if you were anything other than a bloviating pseudo-expert you'd know that.
I'm trying to figure out how you reconcile the idea that "Yes, hybrids reduce oil dependancy" (even if "not much"), with "always be less efficient by orders of magnitude". Orders of magnitude? That must have been some dildo, dude!
Let's see; "source(s)": small, efficient gas engine for times when vehicle doesn't need a lot of torque (or, very small, efficient IC engine used only as a generator...but, no, let's skip that, cuz then you need more :shock: :horror: BATTERIES!!! :shriek:!!!), AND an efficient regenerative braking system to capture energy during braking > Batteries > powerful, efficient electric motor (possibly even built into the wheel hub in future models).
Them danged engineers sure are clever, hidin' them orders o' magnitude of inefficiency from us deluded-by-the-marketing-hype consumers. Somehow, this battery shit is costing us and the earth many times what infernal combustion cost us before, and we just can't see it!
"The alternatives are simply that- alternatives. They are only "better" in some ways, and "worse" in others, as I have pointed out. The grass isn't greener, just a different shade of green."
Wow! So nothing can ever be improved? Is a Prius better than a Pinto, or just a different shade of baby blue?

Global Warming Hysteria

Share this