I guess you consider the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, the councils of the American Geophysical Society and the American Meteorological Society, and the editors of the two most prestigious general science journals (Science and Nature) to be “a bunch of lefty, socialist, knee-jerk, jump-to-conclusion scientists.”
Hell, even BP, Shell, and Ford accept the basic science of anthropogenic climate change and the very real potential danger it poses. In fact, BP has already met…8 years ahead of schedule…aggressive greenhouse emission reduction targets (basically equivalent to Kyoto) and they say they are saving hundreds of millions of dollar in the process. Of course, BP (being something like the 7th or 11th largest corporation on the planet, I forget which) is no doubt in cahoots with…or duped by… the lefty socialists too.
It is time that we take our heads out of the sand and get serious about addressing this issue and the related issue of energy in a real and unified way.
This topic is a hijack of the thread and a detailed discussion on climate change has been done before here; it is easy enough to look up the threads on the topic.
Looks like a great business opportunity for you then. Go into the oil/gas business and undercut the “gougers”. You can make a tidy profit and do a service* to mankind at the same time. What’s stopping you, or anyone else like you for that matter?
*of course many people will argue that cheap gas is no service, what with the environmental impact and all.
So far the best solution, to me, seems to be clean fuel -cell or hydrogen power. It may be more costly now but I assume with more research and development it could be made cheaper. This would be better for the environment. Alternative engergy-powered cars are in their early stages now, but they could be made much more practical with a little time and further development.
The government should do as much as it can to encourage the development of alternative fuel power.
Of course America is not in good shape for public transportation now. But it wasn’t in good shape for cars a hundred years ago. We can change, and eventually we must change. Owning a car isn’t getting any more affordable and the population isn’t getting any smaller. There is only one way for things to go. Your right in that there is no way out of the oil situation without some major lifestyle changes. But lifestyle changes are not the end of the world. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again.
Oh, and the difference between real scientists and people like you, Leaffan, who go about spotting optimistic platitudes with little or no basis in fact is that real scientists actually study the ice ages to understand how and why climate changes have occurred in the past and infer how sensitive the climate system is to the known perturbation (“forcing”) that we are putting on it with rising CO2 concentrations.
As for volcanoes, if you were at all up on this, you would know that their main climate effect is the injection of sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere which leads to short term cooling on the timescale of months to a couple of years (until these particles rain out). The release of CO2 from forest fires is also a small amount of CO2 relative to man…but more importantly…it is part of a cycle of uptake and release of CO2 as organic matters grows and dies. What we are doing with fossil fuels is taking a source of carbon that has long been locked away and releasing it into the atmosphere on a timescale very fast compared to the timescales of the various processes that equilibrate it. As a result, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are now at the highest levels they have been in the last ~700,000 years (for which we have excellent data from ice cores) and likely the last 20 million years. [The ice age – interglacial cycles that the earth has been experiencing for the last few million years are currently on an ~100,000 year time scale, by the way.]
I still think cars have become too big a part of our culture for the average person to abandon them. I mean, there is such a cult of cars in today’s society - it’s a complete obsession for a lot of people, we love movies about cars, we write sentimental songs about cars, we love races, we love admiring cars we could never afford…it’s too entrenched in the American mind-set. There is a wide-open highway system in this country and people want to go where they want. They want to be in control of where they are going.
It’s easy for people who aren’t “car people” to forget, or not realize, how many folks are. We’re just way too into cars to give them up. We have to make them cleaner, and more efficient.
Look, I’d like to buy a newer and more efficient car. I can’t. I probably won’t be able to do so for a long time. When I bought my car gas was $.87/gallon. Now it’s $2.70. Yeah, it’s a problem.
Right now I only use my car to buy groceries or to travel to the nearest city which is ~20 miles away on the near side. Most other places are bikeable. When winter hits, I won’t be able to bike because there will be snow and sub-freezing temperatures. Then I’ll have to drive.
When I was in Dallas the public transportation was pretty useable, but we don’t even have a taxi service here in BG. In London, like D.C., you can get by without a car because the subway is the best method of getting around. In a larger area this just doesn’t work.
According to the CIA world fact book the entirety of the UK is “slightly smaller than Oregon.” Maybe some of you folks don’t realize that driving is necessary in most places in the US. It’s like my grandfather from Vermont who suggested we just “hop on over” to El Paso from Houston. It’s ~12 hour drive. This is why when you suggest that we Americans just drive too much and we should stop you meet with a stare of disbelief.
that’s the ticket. Go after a solid, long-term solution to the problem that has promise of succeeding in the relatively near future. This is something we SHOULD have done back in the 70s when OPEC fired the first shot across our bows.
There are plenty of sentimental songs about horses, too. People may want to be in control of where they are going, but people want a lot of stuff that isn’t really all that doable.
Here, for Leaffan’s benefit is a thread on global warming with a link back to other threads.
As for the article that you linked to: It talks about one of the thousands of articles published each year in peer-reviewed journals on climate change. One can always cherrypick a few that agree with any point of view. That article has been widely discredited; in fact, its publication provoked the resignation of several of the editors (including the editor-in-chief) of that journal in protest because they said that the editorial standards at the journal were too weak and proposed changes that the publisher did not accept. Even the publisher, while defending the editorial standards in general, admitted that the process had failed in the case of that particular paper because it had serious problems that should have prevented it from being published.
By the way, you seem to have inserted the link okay. The syntax is [fred=http://www.google.com]name I give to link[/fred] where one substitutes “url” for “fred” in both cases.
By the way, here is a PDF file containing the text of an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that provides the fullest account of the whole debacle with the Soon and Baliunas paper that I referred to above. In full disclosure, it should be noted that von Storch himself went on to publish his own paper critiquing Mann et al. on another point, and that is currently being hashed out in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
However, the basic conclusion that the warmth of the late 20th century is likely higher than anything seen in the last 1000-2000 years at least is common to several other proxy reconstructions. And, in turn, this conclusion is but one of many independent lines of evidence (and probably the most indirect one) that supports the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.
Of course we realize that. But we’re not sure that you realize that you can make a hundreds-of-miles journey in safety and comfort in a car that returns 30-40mpg. Over here multi-litre engines are so rare that we talk of capacity in cc’s, not litres, rather more often than not. My first beater of a car was a 1300 and I covered 'prox 80,000 miles in it over five years; I’ve never owned anything bigger than a 2-litre and our present family car is an 1800, with auto transmission, aircon, and airbags.
No problem. Glad to help. This Board is truly dedicated to “fighting ignorance” and there are various people who are quite knowledgeable on various different topics who one can learn a lot from. (I’ll admit that I myself am not a climate scientist, but I am a physicist and have spent considerable time and energy at least trying to keep up with the peer-reviewed literature on climate change as a “hobby”.)
Someone who still owes $15-20K on a 3-year-old super-size SUV (or ridiculously overweight crew cab truck that really can’t carry anything because the box is only 4 feet long) probably can’t get the bank to add another $22K to the note for a new Prius.
The nation’s auto fleet turned over faster in the '70s because most people financed cars for only 2 or 3 years and the cars back then were junk.
It was easier to justify taking a $1000 beating at the Datsun or Toyota dealer on a 3-year-old car you’d just finished paying for and that was going to need shocks, tires, and an exhaust system to pass the next state inspection. The paint was starting to fade and the upholstery starting to look shabby.
Today’s 3-year-old SUV is “still new”. It still has a good deal of tread on the tires.
Unless the owner has ridden the brakes a lot, there’s still lining left. Today’s stainless steel exhaust systems go 7 years plus (nothing more than light surface rust on the components of my 7-year-old Ranger). Most 3-year-old vehicle interiors still look near-new. Aside form ridiculously flimsy bumpers, today’s cars and trucks are far better than '70s stuff.
It’s hard to take $15,000 beating on a vehicle that still looks good and drives well.
As a nation, we’ve really done it to ourselves this time!
A long term solution that can succeed in the near future? Sounds great, but wouldn’t that make it a near term solution?
Here’s a great downloadable PBS Nova ScienceNow episode on Hydrogen Fuel cells. I encourage everyone to watch it, especially those who think this is a success just waiting to happen and is only being thwarted by lack of federal financing.
Also, keep in mind that the US isn’t the only country in the world with scientists. Europeans have been paying thru the nose for gasoline for decades, and yet European scientists have not cracked the Hydrogen Fuel Cell problem yet. I’m not saying it’s an intractable problem, but there seems to be this assumption that all the worlds problem start and end in the US. T’ain’t so.
It is funny on the conspiracy theory side that Big Auto & Big Oil can keep China from developing these technologies also. In almost any other area if you implied such a theory, people would look for your tinfoil hat.
Something to watch out for, for real. China is stepping up a government supported effort to get 1,000,000 Hybrid on the road for government use.
This could give them a huge step up on the competition in this area and they could be the next Japan superseding our Auto companies. Doesn’t guarantee anything, but I remember pre oil crisis all the jokes at the expense of the early US Honda’s. They looked silly next to LTD Station Wagons and Camaro’s but then suddenly Ford, GM & Chrysler were scrambling to catch up.
That’s exactly right. This is deja vu “all over again”. Back in the 70s, Japanese cars were flying off the lots as people opted for high mileage vehicles. Detroit got caught with its collective pants down, and never really caught up… except when we got complacent after gas prices leveled off and many of us started buying gas guzzlers again. High gas prices are nothing new, we just didn’t learn the lesson the first time around.
As to whether or not we need a Manhattan Project type effort to develop alternative fuels, that’s something that can be debated. With the enormous profits that could be gotten from a workable alternative to gasoline, I don’t see why private industry can’t lead the way. And the fact that it hasn’t makes me wonder just how viable these alternative fuels really are. One thing’s for sure, though, that as the price of gas keep climbing and the output of petroleum seems worrisome, these alternative fuels become more and more competitive. I suspect that the government is more inclinded to solving yesterday’s problems than today’s. Witness the lastest backward thinking stax break for buyers of hybrid cars-- a product with long waiting lists that is currently supply constrained, not demand constrained. Tax breaks for hybrids solves the problem we had 3-5 years ago when no one wanted one.
If you have evidence that oil production on the North Slope is damaging the caribou herd, I’d like to see it. Until then, it is clear that caribou and oil drilling can coexist and even prosper.
