• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Alfred E. Newman redux (global warming)

a_unique_person said:
As for the 'we're stuffed anyway so what does it matter' attitude, that's like saying we all may as well smoke two packs a day, since we'll die anyway. I think the quality of life is better under one scenario than the other, and as the recent tsunami showed, nature is capable of throwing up disasters of it's own making. If we are already in deep trouble of our own making, a disaster from nature is going to make it much worse than it originally would have been.
When you say "originally would have been" are you talking about the course the earth's climate has taken for the last few hundred million years or so, or only the last 11,000? If it's the former, I fail to see how having much of N. America, most of Europe, and northern Asia under several miles of ice is better than having the coastal areas under water.

The whole point of my previous post was that we're not really trying to "prevent global warming", but actually trying to stabilize the climate as it has never before been in the entire 4.5 billion years the Earth has existed. It's by far the most ambitious, extensive, and complicated undertaking ever in the history of mankind, IMHO.
 
Bikewer said:
McCain asked what would be the effect if the US signed on to the Kyoto protocol now. The fellow said rather simply, "it's too late."
This is exactly what happend in The Day After Torrow. Republicans had torpedoed the Kyoto Protocol and it was too late to do anything about it.

I guess we should expect tidal waves in New York anytime soon now.
 
WildCat said:
When you say "originally would have been" are you talking about the course the earth's climate has taken for the last few hundred million years or so, or only the last 11,000? If it's the former, I fail to see how having much of N. America, most of Europe, and northern Asia under several miles of ice is better than having the coastal areas under water.

The whole point of my previous post was that we're not really trying to "prevent global warming", but actually trying to stabilize the climate as it has never before been in the entire 4.5 billion years the Earth has existed. It's by far the most ambitious, extensive, and complicated undertaking ever in the history of mankind, IMHO.

According to the science, we have been undertaking an exercise in global climate change without even being aware of it till a few years ago. This has been a side effect of the most ambitious undertakings ever in human history, the creation of a global economy based on massive industrialisation. The question from my point of view is, do we try to understand what is going on, and manage it as best we can, or just hope for the best, hence the title of the thread. Wishful thinking is what many are advocation, eg, maybe the clouds will limit the warming. Maybe they will, they haven't done it yet.
 
“WildCat” made a point that has some merit, that is that what we’re trying to do is to stabilize the Earths climate. The climate is very dynamic, it has gone through hot and cold spells for eons. What we are attempting to do is to stop what may be a natural shift (with a little unnatural help from mankind) in the global climate. Politicians (primarily Republicans) have sometimes mentioned this, but take the stance that there isn’t anything we can do about it – so burn away! Many Environmentalists seem to take the stance that whatever is happening to the weather is all the doing of humankind (that without humans, the climate would be naturally stable). It seems (one would hope) that the two extremist camps could find some ground in the middle to negotiate, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon (so they continue to be extremely polarized).
 
WildCat said:
And why are'nt Canadians fighting for global warming anyway? As it stands now, 90% of their country is uninhabitable. ;)

DALE: I know what's wrong with your truck. It's your quote unquote pollution controls. I heard on talk radio you don't even need 'em, they're just an egghead government plot.
HANK: How is cutting down on pollution a government plot, Dale?
DALE: Open up your eyes, man. They're trying to control global warming. Get it? "Global?"
HANK: So what?
DALE: That's code for U.N. commissars telling Americans what the temperature's going to be in our outdoors. I say let the world warm up, let's see what Boutros Boutros Ghali Ghali has to say about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska!
HANK: Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas! It's already 110 in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I'm going to kick your a**!
 
RandFan said:
This is exactly what happend in The Day After Torrow. Republicans had torpedoed the Kyoto Protocol and it was too late to do anything about it.

I guess we should expect tidal waves in New York anytime soon now.

Except the torpedoeing of the Kyoto protocol was entirely bipartisan, with a 95-0 vote in the senate declaring that they would not ratify it as written. So democrats get to share the blame for the tidal waves :)
 
a_unique_person said:
The question from my point of view is, do we try to understand what is going on, and manage it as best we can, or just hope for the best, hence the title of the thread. Wishful thinking is what many are advocation, eg, maybe the clouds will limit the warming. Maybe they will, they haven't done it yet.

Funny you should mention clouds. As it happens, H2O is a more important "greenhouse" gas than CO2. But we have no historic record of H2O content in the upper atmosphere. We're blind to one of the main factors involved in all of this.

As for managing things, actually, that's rather a central point. If a country is economically prosperous, it CAN manage the effects of global warming. If it is poor, it will be ill-equiped to do so. Despite all the calls to "do something" about global warming, the best thing we can do about it may be to encourage economic development so that people can adapt.
 
Moon-Spinner said:
The climate is very dynamic, it has gone through hot and cold spells for eons. What we are attempting to do is to stop what may be a natural shift (with a little unnatural help from mankind) in the global climate.
So without so much as acknowledging the Scripps findings, you dismiss them out of hand?
 
a_unique_person said:
I would appreciate it if the anti-GW people would get their story straight. They have been telling us that there is no way humans could be affecting the climate, now it appears that we have been affecting it, but that was a good thing.
The claim that climate scientists in the 60's and 70's were predicting an imminent ice-age which didn't happen has long been used by denialists to discredit them. Now we're told such a claim was correct. Which is cute.

varwoche said:
So without so much as acknowledging the Scripps findings, you dismiss them out of hand?
See above. When you're in denial, nothing gets through. Either greenhouse warming isn't happening, or it is and it's a good thing, or it's a bad thing which might have happened anyway, or something, anything, to justify not changing how they live their lives.
 
It is of interest, if only from a peripheral standpoint, that the primary "losers" of a vastly-changed energy policy would appear to be the current energy industries, heavily involving oil and coal.
"Slowing growth" appears to be a big concern of folks who oppose changes in the energy policy, though pundits have pointed out that a corresponding growth might well take place in the fields of various alternative energy suppliers.

This might seem related to the current administration's close ties with the oil industry, and Vice-President Cheney's still-secret energy policy strategy session with top energy-company administrators.

The paranoid might well draw connections along the lines of protecting the existing energy industry, at least to the point that they can become invested in the new technologies.

It seems most of the current research into hydrogen involves extracting it from petroleum and natural gas, rather than from renewable sources like wind-driven electricity.
 
Bikewer said:
It seems most of the current research into hydrogen involves extracting it from petroleum and natural gas, rather than from renewable sources like wind-driven electricity.

Most of the research I've seen has involved fuel cells and storage - in other words, how to turn hydrogen into electricity without combustion, and how to carry around that hydrogen. These are absolute prerequisites to any widespread use of hydrogen fuel, they're tough problems, and we've got a long way to go on them. The reason you're not seeing research on producing hydrogen from wind-driven electricity is we ALREADY know how to do that. Hydrogen electrolysis is an old, well-understood technology. But since none of those technologies can contribute enough electricity to make significant impact on existing electrical grids (where no conversion is necessary), of COURSE they aren't going to be able to act as primary sources of hydrogen - they simply don't produce enough energy, and won't anytime soon.

But you're also missing something in this picture: IF we can get a hydrogen economy jumpstarted, then once the infrastructure is in place, once cars are running on hydrogen, and we've got a distribution system in place, then it becomes very easy to introduce alternative hydrogen production methods into the system. Let's say you've got a plot of land that's great for wind farms, but it's in some sparsely populated area, and the wind is irregular. Try to patch that into the electricity grid, and you're faced with the problem that you still need natural gas plants with capacity for full production because the wind isn't always blowing. So it's not very efficient, and the economic incentive goes down. Patch those into an EXISTING hydrogen economy, then you can produce hydrogen, build up a storage reserve so weather fluctuations don't matter, and sell the hydrogen at a steady clip. Much more efficient, and therefore much more likely to be economically viable. And it also doesn't matter if it's wind-driven, solar-driven, tide-driven, geothermal, you name it: if a hydrogen infrastructure is in place, then any alternative production method can easily be dropped into the production process. But to get that infrastructure in place, we need the fuel cell and storage technologies, AND we need guaranteed volume production which currently ONLY oil can possibly provide sufficient energy for.

I don't know if a hydrogen economy will work. There are serious challenges, and no guarantees we can overcome them. But if it CAN be done, then the way we're working on it (fuel cell and storage/transport first) is in fact the correct way to go about it.
 

Back
Top Bottom