Global Warming Discussion

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

It's a forum. People pipe in and out, that's how it works.

I don't think you're wrong that education (in your context of the word) is important to advance a cause. That said, I think my point in claiming that your "education" attempts here are a waste of time was also really valid and should be read by all supporters of this cause as such.

For your last point, my viewpoint is outnumbered here. It's not some "feeling", it's reality. And that's OK, I'm still here, aren't I? But, to pretend that it's not, is silly. I've said it before, this place is not a sample of the real world. It's heavily tilted to one side. Those who think otherwise are lying to themselves.

dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...

and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...

and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

We didn't know soda was bad for you? Then why did they bother inventing DIET Coke? Seems like a colosal marketing misstep. We didn't know fast food was bad for you?

These fact were widely known. And the problem is getting worse. Not better. And, to me this is a bigger problem than the other stuff. Who cares if the planet exists if we're all sitting around like the folks on The Axiom (the mother ship from Wall-E)? How can you expect people to care for the environment when they don't even care for themselves?

after time ... similar to cigarettes ... we didn't know as consumers originally that smoking was bad and that eating bad food was harmful ... it took time ... they didn't release diet coke at the same time as coke ... and we didn't start putting labels on cigarettes until much later ... global warming has to go thru the same learning process ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...

and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...

and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...

OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.

bitterness won't get you anywhere ... haha ... embrace this forum for what it is ... an exchange of thoughts and beliefs ... no one is gonna change the world here ... we're just talking ... nothing wrong with that ...

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Jeanwah, you make a good point here I've hesitated to state outright:

"I'm convinced that the deniers simply insist on spending their time on the argument, rather than admitting they could do things that would not only help the environment but also save themselves energy and money."

I think the same thing sometimes and I hope I'm wrong because if this is just a practice in arguing we're wasting our time. For those of you who have differing opinions on global warming than mine I want you to know this: I'm not here just to argue. This isn't about ego for me and I do not have a personal bias against you. I am against global warming and the powers that continue to ignore the problem but I am not against you personally. Just last night my wife and I had dinner with a friend who told me for the hundreth time, "global warming is a farce- yes "farce"- that was her word. We may never agree on this issue but I would never turn my back on her- ever. She is one of my very best friends.

Let's get off the endless debate. If you really don't believe the earth is warming at least give those of us who do credit for trying to do something to clean up the planet so your kids and grandkids will have a planet worth living on rather than a hot stinking junk yard of a planet gasping for air. Every good thing you do for this earth will help.

I believe me and another member of the board have been the ones making the point - who cares about the global warming argument, let's just find a way to stop the obvious damage whether it's causing global warming or not. Yet, you 2 continue that argument and go further saying WE want the argument. Too funny. You should read yourself sometime. It's quite amusing.

I appreciate very much your view that it is important to find ways to "stop the obvious damage". But I'm sorry you think I'm being a commedian here. I mean it when I say I'm through arguing with you or anyone else about global warming. Like I said earlier- the lines seem to have been drawn. I always hope to be able to convince people that gloabl warming is real and we are responsible for the majority of it but I see no reason to argue that point endlessly with the same people. At this point, I want to move on and discuss ways in which we can, as you say, stop the damage. Rather than join in on that discussion, you chose to make another personal attack on me- not that this hurts my feelings or anything- I just find it vindictive and a waste of all our time. I'm done with this arguemnt.

OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...

and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...

and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...

OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.

What rubbish, man. You haven't got the slightest idea how much work I do OFF the computer to do what I can to decrease my impact on global warming, educate myself on the topic and work with other on this issue. This is just another bating, childish attack. Can't you find something more constructive to do with your time?

JonnyPistachio

brianlux wrote:

OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?

Other than renewable energy, I'm not sure what else to do. But I find it exciting to see new advances in many fields like wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power.

Also, I recall learning about some of these things in school, but it was never taken seriously back in the 80's and 90's. It will be very important that we educate kids these days about these things and get them interested in careers in science and engineering. I hope that a push for these things creates some new jobs and successful companies. I know here in Florida, there is a lot of research going into hydroelectric power from the gulf stream, which could be a huge potential for our state (we need a lot of a/c here!). Also growing algae for fuel is starting to take off all over florida.

I have done a few interviews with people in these fields for an educational science series that I produce, and we have received a lot of great feedback from teachers all over the country. Our focus is to get kids interested in the sciences... and renewable energy (although not in a lot of school curriculums), definitely holds their attention.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/200 ... -the-gate/

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...

and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...

and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...

OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.

What rubbish, man. You haven't got the slightest idea how much work I do OFF the computer to do what I can to decrease my impact on global warming, educate myself on the topic and work with other on this issue. This is just another bating, childish attack. Can't you find something more constructive to do with your time?

Just because I disagree with you, does not make my point of view rubbish, man.

What I do know is what you do ON the computer here at this forum. You're right, I don't know what you do off the computer. But, I know you spend a lot of time hear preaching (to what I consider) the choir, which doesn't seem "constructive" way to spend your time (to quote you). I think you could do more for this cause by getting off of the device that, according to you, is contributing to global warming.

P.S. PM'ing me about ignoring my posts because I disagree with you... is childish, and supports my underlying point. Some here are certainly not tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Instead, they just want conversate with a select few that think exactly like them, and may be able to deal with several who don't confront them, when they step into their hypocritical bubble.

P.P.S. If you want to ignore someones posts, just do it. Don't PM them about it.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I believe me and another member of the board have been the ones making the point - who cares about the global warming argument, let's just find a way to stop the obvious damage whether it's causing global warming or not. Yet, you 2 continue that argument and go further saying WE want the argument. Too funny. You should read yourself sometime. It's quite amusing.

I appreciate very much your view that it is important to find ways to "stop the obvious damage". But I'm sorry you think I'm being a commedian here. I mean it when I say I'm through arguing with you or anyone else about global warming. Like I said earlier- the lines seem to have been drawn. I always hope to be able to convince people that gloabl warming is real and we are responsible for the majority of it but I see no reason to argue that point endlessly with the same people. At this point, I want to move on and discuss ways in which we can, as you say, stop the damage. Rather than join in on that discussion, you chose to make another personal attack on me- not that this hurts my feelings or anything- I just find it vindictive and a waste of all our time. I'm done with this arguemnt.

OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?

I do not mean any of it as a personal attack. I am sorry I came across that way. My last point is for effect - there's irony in what you are saying. The last 2 sentences are meant to highlight that in a different way. I definitely see how one can feel attacked by that, and I'm sorry. When I'm talking amongst friends (I realize quite a leap here) that is how we speak. It's taken for what it's meant to be. But, we don't know each other, and I apologize for not editing myself as such.

However, I have been joining in the discussion, those small phrases aside. We are basically agreeing about intent and disagreeing on how to go about it.

polaris_x

brianlux ... leave these two guys to me ... hahahaha ... they think reagan was great - so, it's always gonna be an uphill battle ...

polaris_x

JonnyPistachio wrote:

brianlux wrote:

OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?

Other than renewable energy, I'm not sure what else to do. But I find it exciting to see new advances in many fields like wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power.

Also, I recall learning about some of these things in school, but it was never taken seriously back in the 80's and 90's. It will be very important that we educate kids these days about these things and get them interested in careers in science and engineering. I hope that a push for these things creates some new jobs and successful companies. I know here in Florida, there is a lot of research going into hydroelectric power from the gulf stream, which could be a huge potential for our state (we need a lot of a/c here!). Also growing algae for fuel is starting to take off all over florida.

I have done a few interviews with people in these fields for an educational science series that I produce, and we have received a lot of great feedback from teachers all over the country. Our focus is to get kids interested in the sciences... and renewable energy (although not in a lot of school curriculums), definitely holds their attention.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/200 ... -the-gate/

algae is definitely worth investigating some more ... i guess there isn't a huge corporate algae lobby - otherwise, we'd have huge subsidies and tax breaks for it ...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

brianlux ... leave these two guys to me ... hahahaha ... they think reagan was great - so, it's always gonna be an uphill battle ...

You see the difference is everyone knows deep down Reagan did great things for the country and the world (Mr. Gorbachev - tear down that wall). Wish I could say the same for your guys' religion.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

brianlux ... leave these two guys to me ... hahahaha ... they think reagan was great - so, it's always gonna be an uphill battle ...

You see the difference is everyone knows deep down Reagan did great things for the country and the world (Mr. Gorbachev - tear down that wall). Wish I could say the same for your guys' religion.

right ... trickle down economics ... :?

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

brianlux ... leave these two guys to me ... hahahaha ... they think reagan was great - so, it's always gonna be an uphill battle ...

You see the difference is everyone knows deep down Reagan did great things for the country and the world (Mr. Gorbachev - tear down that wall). Wish I could say the same for your guys' religion.

right ... trickle down economics ... :?

We've totally derailed this thread. But, how could that theory be proven OR debunked when 4 years later the policies changed? Was the middle class doing better in 1988 or 2011?

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

We've totally derailed this thread. But, how could that theory be proven OR debunked when 4 years later the policies changed? Was the middle class doing better in 1988 or 2011?

yeah ... feel free to make your case in the reagan thread ...

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I believe me and another member of the board have been the ones making the point - who cares about the global warming argument, let's just find a way to stop the obvious damage whether it's causing global warming or not. Yet, you 2 continue that argument and go further saying WE want the argument. Too funny. You should read yourself sometime. It's quite amusing.

I appreciate very much your view that it is important to find ways to "stop the obvious damage". But I'm sorry you think I'm being a commedian here. I mean it when I say I'm through arguing with you or anyone else about global warming. Like I said earlier- the lines seem to have been drawn. I always hope to be able to convince people that gloabl warming is real and we are responsible for the majority of it but I see no reason to argue that point endlessly with the same people. At this point, I want to move on and discuss ways in which we can, as you say, stop the damage. Rather than join in on that discussion, you chose to make another personal attack on me- not that this hurts my feelings or anything- I just find it vindictive and a waste of all our time. I'm done with this arguemnt.

OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?

I do not mean any of it as a personal attack. I am sorry I came across that way. My last point is for effect - there's irony in what you are saying. The last 2 sentences are meant to highlight that in a different way. I definitely see how one can feel attacked by that, and I'm sorry. When I'm talking amongst friends (I realize quite a leap here) that is how we speak. It's taken for what it's meant to be. But, we don't know each other, and I apologize for not editing myself as such.

However, I have been joining in the discussion, those small phrases aside. We are basically agreeing about intent and disagreeing on how to go about it.

Thank you for clarification! I'm sorry I mis-understood. Discussing is so much better than arguing and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful post here.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

Thank you for clarification! I'm sorry I mis-understood. Discussing is so much better than arguing and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful post here.

What a nice way to end a Friday. Let's go have a beer. I'll hate you again on Tuesday (Monday's a holiday).

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Thank you for clarification! I'm sorry I mis-understood. Discussing is so much better than arguing and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful post here.

What a nice way to end a Friday. Let's go have a beer. I'll hate you again on Tuesday (Monday's a holiday).

A toast... *clink* ...!! :thumbup: Thanks, man, that's great!

But watch yer back Tuesday!!

By the way, what are drinking? I'm having my latest favorite, one o' them yuppy beers, Fat Tire!

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Thank you for clarification! I'm sorry I mis-understood. Discussing is so much better than arguing and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful post here.

What a nice way to end a Friday. Let's go have a beer. I'll hate you again on Tuesday (Monday's a holiday).

A toast... *clink* ...!! :thumbup: Thanks, man, that's great!

But watch yer back Tuesday!!

By the way, what are drinking? I'm having my latest favorite, one o' them yuppy beers, Fat Tire!

Brooklyn Pennant Ale '55 or as Jay Z would say Bolyn :?

brianlux

Just posted on realclimate.org is this particularly insightful yet, I afraid, rather disturbing article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -inaction/

The high cost of inaction
Filed under: Greenhouse gases— Jim @ 14 October 2011
In 2004 Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow published a paper in Science in which they argued that a pragmatic, but still difficult, way of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels over the long term was via the implementation of seven “stabilization wedges” over the next 50 years. The idea was very simple: each wedge represented one in-hand technology or societal practice that could be implemented, relatively slowly at first and increasing linearly with time, to make a small but growing dent in the rise in CO2 emissions, stabilizing them at 2004 levels (about 7 Gigatons C/Year) over the next 50 years (see figure below).

These seven wedges would be chosen from among a larger set of fifteen possibilities that included standard mitigation approaches such as increased energy efficiencies in vehicles and buildings, carbon capture at coal plants, nuclear power increases, and reduced deforestation and agricultural tillage-based losses. These practices would collectively buy time while larger scale transformations to renewable energies on a global scale could be developed and implemented that would drive emissions to zero over the following 50 years. This drastic emissions drop in the second 50 year period requires an immediate start on the research needed to develop and implement these technologies five to ten decades out, and the wedges themselves require a deliberate and committed effort, starting now.

A couple of weeks ago, Socolow updated this work in a brief commentary piece to show where we are seven years later. The results are not encouraging. First, and most significant, rather than decreasing the emissions rate, the lack of implementation of these strategies has been accompanied by an accelerated rate of emissions, such that annual CO2 output is now just under 9 Gt C/yr, a 2 Gt/yr increase. Accounting for natural sequestration, this represents an increase of about 13-14 ppm CO2 over that time. But this is not the full story by any means. As Socolow notes, if we re-set the clock to 2011 and start the wedge strategy implementation now, it would now take nine wedges implemented at the proposed rate of the original seven, to accomplish the same goal (keeping emission rates constant over the next 50 years).


The stabilization wedge concept, circa 2004 vs 2011
Here is the real kicker however. Even if we were to do so, starting today, with stable emissions for 50 years and then falling gradually from there to zero emissions over the following 50 years, an additional ~50 ppm of CO2 would be added to the atmosphere by 2111, relative to what would have been added had the seven wedge strategy been initiated in 2004. This equates to a roughly 0.5 W/sq m forcing increase, and a ~0.4 degree C global temperature increase, assuming an equilibrium sensitivity of 3 deg C per CO2 doubling and that the additional 50 ppm is added on top of the increase that would have occurred even if the 2004 wedge strategy had in fact been initiated. In other words, seven years of inaction, even if we immediately begin implementing the strategy now and fully carry it out over the next century, have larger climatic consequences over the next century than one might expect.

So are we ready to begin that now, and the research needed for the drastic drops from 2061 to 2111 that the strategy requires, or will we be repeating this same story in 2018, with a couple more wedges required, and another 50 ppm or more likely in the pipeline and no commitment to the needed advanced technologies?

You can read more about it, and commentary on it from some influential folks, here, here, and here.