Global "Warning"

[cheerfulgreek]

I was just watching a documentary on Hurricane Katrina's 135 mph winds, and it was saying that 2005 was the worse hurricane season on record in the North Atlantic. My question is why so many tropical storms now? The only thing that I could think of was global warming. I titled this thread Global "Warning" because I think we're now seeing the warning signs of more weather disasters yet to come, because of global warming.

What about our health? How is global warming effecting our health? I think it will eventually effect our health, but right now I think it's too soon to predict the specifics.

The bottom line is I think it's very much clear that the climate change we're experiencing is a serious threat to our planet that has to be addressed now. The longer we wait the worse it's going to get.

What are your thoughts on global warming? Do you think it's causing much of the climate change we are now experiencing?

[Kevin]

I haven't noticed a climate change.

Storms as bad as Katrina have hit the gulf before.

As to the effects or existence of global warming, the jury is out. I suppose it doesn't hurt to have cleaner air, etc. though.

[AKA_Monet]

I was just watching a documentary on Hurricane Katrina's 135 mph winds, and it was saying that 2005 was the worse hurricane season on record in the North Atlantic. My question is why so many tropical storms now? The only thing that I could think of was global warming. I titled this thread Global "Warning" because I think we're now seeing the warning signs of more weather disasters yet to come, because of global warming.

What about our health? How is global warming effecting our health? I think it will eventually effect our health, but right now I think it's too soon to predict the specifics.

The bottom line is I think it's very much clear that the climate change we're experiencing is a serious threat to our planet that has to be addressed now. The longer we wait the worse it's going to get.

What are your thoughts on global warming? Do you think it's causing much of the climate change we are now experiencing?

I think the scientists said that war in the Sudan is caused by global warming due to drought and lack of sustainable agriculture.

In fact the malaria build up in humid regions that are not using DTT to sustain the mosquitoes may be due to global warming.

I think the concept of reducing carbon emissions in our atmosphere is going to be a tough pill to swallow. Maybe until the aliens come with flying saucers? ;)

[cheerfulgreek]

I haven't noticed a climate change.

Storms as bad as Katrina have hit the gulf before.

As to the effects or existence of global warming, the jury is out. I suppose it doesn't hurt to have cleaner air, etc. though.
True, but these storms are no longer a once a season thing. There were 28 storms in 2005, but only five grew into hurricanes, one of them reaching Florida. The storms now are far more intense with heavier rainfalls than in the past.

I haven't noticed a climate change either, but people in other countries have.

[RACooper]

What are your thoughts on global warming? Do you think it's causing much of the climate change we are now experiencing?

Thoughts? That it's an issue that needs more attention on an international scale - hopefully things will change in '08 when Bush is gone, and Harper falls.

Is it causing climate change? Yes. Has been for years really, looking at the old cottage records... at the cottage my family would take daily lake temperature and clarity readings (either for fishing or swimming) every summer, and looking at the last 70 years it's easy to see some troubling spikes - aside from that visiting friends in the far north or in the rockies provides ample evidence with changes in weather patterns, the snow belt, permafrost melting, etc. Climate change is amplified the further from the equator one goes, and on the edges of ecosystems so it's been a far sight easier to notice up this way.

[AKA_Monet]

Climate change does not necessarily mean only the intensity of a storm... It also means increased aridness, or foul gases that are emitted from the ground that aid in the heating of our planet.

Global warming I thought also meant loss of one of the ionospheres causing more UV and Cosmic rays onto the Earth...

[cheerfulgreek]

In fact the malaria build up in humid regions that are not using DTT to sustain the mosquitoes may be due to global warming.

Scientist believe that with the warm weather and heavy rainfalls that the mosquito population will increase. I know Malaria kills about 1 million people each year, but I don't think this is due to global warming, as long as you focus on lowland areas, plus those regions already have a mosquito problem. Some insects that carry deadly diseases may not be able to survive hotter temperatures in the southwestern part of the U.S. anyway. I'm not saying this won't change in the future though. Malaria has risen since the 70s in highland cities, now, how much of that can be tied to temperature increases as opposed to population movement, lapses in mosquito control or the spread of drug resistent parasites pretty much is a matter of debate. I don't think really anyone, including scientists can predict any outbreak or anyone's death by saying this is due to climate change. I do know that good public health relies on a long list of factors, like the availability of doctors, effective medications, clean water, proper sanitation, ect ect. and even with that, people die every year of what should be preventable diseases. I think with global warming the death toll could increase.

[cheerfulgreek]

Climate change does not necessarily mean only the intensity of a storm... It also means increased aridness, or foul gases that are emitted from the ground that aid in the heating of our planet.

Global warming I thought also meant loss of one of the ionospheres causing more UV and Cosmic rays onto the Earth...
I agree. Global warming is related to melted icebergs, wild fires, drought, floods, ect. I can go on and on about all the related problems that are caused by global warming.

[AKA_Monet]

What I think we will and are seeing is increase old types of all infections, like a resurgence in smallpox, fungal outbreaks and other vectors we don't want to begin to discuss and don't have enough drugs for...

Also, there is a gross reduction in numerous fish and aquatic animal populations worldwide. You use to get large ton fish, not anymore. From sharks, marlins, etc. We have overfished. Same with tuna that are part of the food chain for other species.

We are going to have a problem within 5 years with some fish and animals...

[Kevin]

Thoughts? That it's an issue that needs more attention on an international scale - hopefully things will change in '08 when Bush is gone, and Harper falls.

Is it causing climate change? Yes. Has been for years really, looking at the old cottage records... at the cottage my family would take daily lake temperature and clarity readings (either for fishing or swimming) every summer, and looking at the last 70 years it's easy to see some troubling spikes - aside from that visiting friends in the far north or in the rockies provides ample evidence with changes in weather patterns, the snow belt, permafrost melting, etc. Climate change is amplified the further from the equator one goes, and on the edges of ecosystems so it's been a far sight easier to notice up this way.

What Bush/Harper do is basically going to do little/nothing so long as China gets to be exempt from Kyoto.

[cheerfulgreek]

What I think we will and are seeing is increase old types of all infections, like a resurgence in smallpox, fungal outbreaks and other vectors we don't want to begin to discuss and don't have enough drugs for...

Also, there is a gross reduction in numerous fish and aquatic animal populations worldwide. You use to get large ton fish, not anymore. From sharks, marlins, etc. We have overfished. Same with tuna that are part of the food chain for other species.

We are going to have a problem within 5 years with some fish and animals...
Some tuna are already considered to be endangered. I can't remember the specific name of the species though, but I know large quantities of it are consumed each year in Japan.

[AKA_Monet]

Some tuna are already considered to be endangered. I can't remember the specific name of the species though, but I know large quantities of it are consumed each year in Japan.

We see it in the salmonids... The babies are not getting to sea and it take 2-3 years to be an adult and they are not coming back...

Now, while the weather in my area is very pretty, it is abnormal when it does not rain in Seattle 9 months out of the year... And while we did have significant snow pack, we will be seeing increased flooding due to thaw and melt...

[cheerfulgreek]

Now, while the weather in my area is very pretty, it is abnormal when it does not rain in Seattle 9 months out of the year... And while we did have significant snow pack, we will be seeing increased flooding due to thaw and melt...
Who's to say that won't change? There are a lot of troubled spots all over the world from depleted forests to dying reefs. Some areas have more rainfall than normal, and some have less.

Even here, in the United States, excessive carbon emissions add to global warming, and the U.S. has a relatively clean environment.

[AKA_Monet]

Who's to say that won't change? There are a lot of troubled spots all over the world from depleted forests to dying reefs. Some areas have more rainfall than normal, and some have less.

Even here, in the United States, excessive carbon emissions add to global warming, and the U.S. has a relatively clean environment.

It won't change until humankind, meaning all of us, find something to do with our carbon emissions... Maybe a loss in food stuffs? Many countries, 2nd and 3rd world ones are switching to ethanol to drive their vehicles. Why the US is so resistant when we generated much of this technology is beyond me...

I dunno, I don't think US has a clean environment to be one of the most richest and industrialized nations in the world... And although, China is catching up quickly and will surpass us in 50 years with money and other things, they are doing more to switch than we are...

Making US back into the stone ages...

[PeppyGPhiB]

We see it in the salmonids... The babies are not getting to sea and it take 2-3 years to be an adult and they are not coming back...

Now, while the weather in my area is very pretty, it is abnormal when it does not rain in Seattle 9 months out of the year... And while we did have significant snow pack, we will be seeing increased flooding due to thaw and melt...

Yeah, Seattle's weather is becoming more extreme. Still mild compared to most of the country, but we've been getting more snow in the past few years than I can ever remember growing up here.

[cheerfulgreek]

It won't change until humankind, meaning all of us, find something to do with our carbon emissions... Maybe a loss in food stuffs? Many countries, 2nd and 3rd world ones are switching to ethanol to drive their vehicles. Why the US is so resistant when we generated much of this technology is beyond me...

I dunno, I don't think US has a clean environment to be one of the most richest and industrialized nations in the world... And although, China is catching up quickly and will surpass us in 50 years with money and other things, they are doing more to switch than we are...

Making US back into the stone ages...
I think the U.S. has a cleaner environment than most countries though. Yes, I agree. China is catching up to us with a lot of things, not just in regards to a clean environment.

Yes, ethanol is what we need to switch to. I think this will help dramatically. Turning plants into fuel is a growth industry, and I don't think any biofuel is coming on stronger than ethanol. I think it's imperative that we make the switch ASAP because it burns much more cleanly than ordinary gasoline, plus ethanol obviates the need for a widely used gas additive. It's a toxic substance called MTBE. I'm sure you've heard of this.

It also helps car engines run more smoothly, but the thing about MTBE is, I think it may pollute ground water though, but don't quote me on that.

[texas*princess]

I don't think global warming will significantly impact the weather in one area in a span of a year (it's more of a gradual thing, right?) but I did notice that this winter was a LOT milder than winters past.

Last year we were still wearing our big coats through March and part of April. Last spring/summer we also saw a lot of unusual rain. It pretty much rained every single day from April - mid August.

The rain was nice, because we definitely needed it, and we only had a handful of days with 100+ degree temps (2006 we had 60+ days in a row of those high temps), but it was definitely the weirdest thing I had seen up here, and I've lived here for awhile.

[Kevin]

I don't think global warming will significantly impact the weather in one area in a span of a year (it's more of a gradual thing, right?) but I did notice that this winter was a LOT milder than winters past.

Except that the Rockies experienced record snowfall and Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. had extremely cold winters.

Last year we were still wearing our big coats through March and part of April. Last spring/summer we also saw a lot of unusual rain. It pretty much rained every single day from April - mid August.

We also had a milder summer two years ago. I don't think we have anything to indicate a global warming trend, nor can it be shown that human activity could be responsible for such a thing. Mars has global warming for chrissakes.

The rain was nice, because we definitely needed it, and we only had a handful of days with 100+ degree temps (2006 we had 60+ days in a row of those high temps), but it was definitely the weirdest thing I had seen up here, and I've lived here for awhile.

That had about as much to do with global warming as the dust bowl did.

[shinerbock]

Katrina was nothing abnormal. Of course I have no scientific abilities, at all, this is just my opinion as someone who has spent his entire life in the deep south.

If Katrina had hit NW FL instead of NOLA, I don't think it would be so incessantly used in these arguments. There have been numerous comparable hurricanes in my lifetime.

[PhiGam]

I haven't been threatened by a Hurricane in two years though, they've been weaker since 2005.

[RACooper]

Not that I don't believe you, but as far as the global warming argument goes, all I have to do is look at a list of people who think it's real for me to know it's not.

Yeah... crazy science and environmental people, bunch of no-nothings when it comes to the science and the environment - all hail are glorious politicians! ;)

I could of course say the opposite since interestingly many of those who don't believe in Global Warming/Climate Change believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design - not exactly the hallmarks of rational thought when it comes to science (or reality really).

[shinerbock]

Yeah... crazy science and environmental people, bunch of no-nothings when it comes to the science and the environment - all hail are glorious politicians! ;)

I could of course say the opposite since interestingly many of those who don't believe in Global Warming/Climate Change believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design - not exactly the hallmarks of rational thought when it comes to science (or reality really).

I dunno, the idea that extreme complexity comes from nothing isn't a hallmark of "rationality" either.

[UGAalum94]

I think global warming from greenhouse gases and other human behavior is a real possibility or a likely reality.

But I think many of the current events pointed to as evidence of global warming are more likely to be the product of long term climate cycles than they are directly attributable to the human policies and behaviors that are frequently pointed to.

I think we'd be better off doing everything we can to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, partially because of how they may contribute to global warming, but even more because of the effects in making us less dependent on other countries for energy.

I don't think that the US should generally agree to international protocols that put US business and industry at a relative disadvantage.

[RACooper]

I really feel like academics, philosophers, and intellectuals, such as yourself, use "science" as an excuse to hide behind when there are no answers readily available.

I'd rather rely on science than political theory when it comes to understanding our impact on God's creation.


After all the earth has been through, you really believe that in the short time humans have been here- and in the even shorter amount of time that we've been industrialized- that we're responsible for changing the planet's climate? Give me a break.

Yes I believe we are, without a shadow of a doubt - simply because animals and nature aren't in the habit of producing complex artificial compounds and gases, compounds and gases that can be directly linked to environmental and climatic shifts and disasters.

[UGAalum94]

compounds and gases that can be directly linked to environmental and climatic shifts and disasters.

Can you provide some links that show this direct link to environment, climatic shifts, and disasters?

I'm not a global warming denier, but I haven't yet been convinced that we've shown these links directly, rather than established the possibility of links and the likelihood of acceleration.

[AKA_Monet]

Yes, ethanol is what we need to switch to. I think this will help dramatically. Turning plants into fuel is a growth industry, and I don't think any biofuel is coming on stronger than ethanol. I think it's imperative that we make the switch ASAP because it burns much more cleanly than ordinary gasoline, plus ethanol obviates the need for a widely used gas additive. It's a toxic substance called MTBE. I'm sure you've heard of this.

It also helps car engines run more smoothly, but the thing about MTBE is, I think it may pollute ground water though, but don't quote me on that.

Both Biofuels and Ethanol has pros and cons, from gasoline. Somewhere in the Seattle Times the issue with crude oil is we are about tapped out on the available areas and other areas require destruction of natural forest preserves or are too deep to drill in the ocean.

Aside from the reliance of other countries for our oil, it does not do right by our carbon emissions...

I think Ethanol burning does some things to public health in animals or insects. So, those options need to be weighed.

I have not heard anything yet about biofuels except that it is expensive to process an no one wants to pay $10 per gallon for it although you would be doing it once a month or less.

[AKA_Monet]

I don't think global warming will significantly impact the weather in one area in a span of a year (it's more of a gradual thing, right?) but I did notice that this winter was a LOT milder than winters past.

Last year we were still wearing our big coats through March and part of April. Last spring/summer we also saw a lot of unusual rain. It pretty much rained every single day from April - mid August.

The rain was nice, because we definitely needed it, and we only had a handful of days with 100+ degree temps (2006 we had 60+ days in a row of those high temps), but it was definitely the weirdest thing I had seen up here, and I've lived here for awhile.

I would call it climate change and it is global. One impacts the other... We have to get beyond political geographic lines when we talk about "global warming" or "carbon emissions" or hayle, "global health"...

The responsible authorities as well as those learning need to do what they can to live "green" life - no not tree hugging, but to reduce our consumptions because our planet may not be able to sustain it and it is about being good stewards to our planet...

[AKA_Monet]

Katrina was nothing abnormal. Of course I have no scientific abilities, at all, this is just my opinion as someone who has spent his entire life in the deep south.

If Katrina had hit NW FL instead of NOLA, I don't think it would be so incessantly used in these arguments. There have been numerous comparable hurricanes in my lifetime.

Shine-

I don't think Katrina was normal for NOLA. And even if it I switched to a different area, like the panhandle, those places could not sustain the kinds of damage or winds that Katrina packed... If you believe in that sort of thing, Katrina was the wakeup call for that region or a "pay the piper" kind of thing. NOLA knew in the 60's Betsy and 90's Georges for worst case scenarios what was going to happened and the "powers that be" failed to do anything about it (i.e. knowingly not reclamating the reef area).

Florida in 2004 have 4-8 various hurricanes going left and right across its peninsula. I know because my family lives there. Ever since Andrew, they had a very good action plan. But it took a loss like that for folks to get there crap together... Nearly 10-12 years.

Remember Katrina did not just bitch-slap NOLA, it took out Mississippi and parts of Alabama. So it will be the same for these suffering states.

[UGAalum94]

I would call it climate change and it is global. One impacts the other... We have to get beyond political geographic lines when we talk about "global warming" or "carbon emissions" or hayle, "global health"...

The responsible authorities as well as those learning need to do what they can to live "green" life - no not tree hugging, but to reduce our consumptions because our planet may not be able to sustain it and it is about being good stewards to our planet...

And I think that selling the issue as good stewardship would get everything so much further than the condemnation and smugness that can creep in about the choices other people are making.

The smugness happens on both sides. It's not just people who condemn SUV drivers with righteous superiority; think about the gleeful way people reacted to Laurie David taking private jets or the electricity used at the Gore's house.

[AKA_Monet]

And I think that selling the issue as good stewardship would get everything so much further than the condemnation and smugness that can creep in about the choices other people are making.

The smugness happens on both sides. It's not just people who condemn SUV drivers with righteous superiority; think about the gleeful way people reacted to Laurie David taking private jets or the electricity used at the Gore's house.

Yeah, I am really not trying to see folks homes from space with all their lights... When was the last electric or nuclear plant built in the US?

[cheerfulgreek]

Katrina was nothing abnormal. Of course I have no scientific abilities, at all, this is just my opinion as someone who has spent his entire life in the deep south.

If Katrina had hit NW FL instead of NOLA, I don't think it would be so incessantly used in these arguments. There have been numerous comparable hurricanes in my lifetime.
I don't think Katrina was abnormal, I was just saying that frequency is not the same as intensity. On the whole, the number of Category 1, 2 and 3 storms have fallen slightly, while the number of Categories 4 and 5 storms have climbed dramatically. Let's go back to the 1970s again. Back then, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes a year worldwide. Since the 90s, the annual number has almost doubled to 18. Overall, the big storms have grown from around 20% to about 35%. That's a big increase. So it's the frequency I was speaking of.

[UGAalum94]

I don't think Katrina was abnormal, I was just saying that frequency is not the same as intensity. On the whole, the number of Category 1, 2 and 3 storms have fallen slightly, while the number of Categories 4 and 5 storms have climbed dramatically. Let's go back to the 1970s again. Back then, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes a year worldwide. Since the 90s, the annual number has almost doubled to 18. Overall, the big storms have grown from around 20% to about 35%. That's a big increase. So it's the frequency I was speaking of.

Can we be 100% sure that some of this isn't tied to the degree to which we can/do measure things now versus how we did it in the 1970s?

[cheerfulgreek]

Both Biofuels and Ethanol has pros and cons, from gasoline. Somewhere in the Seattle Times the issue with crude oil is we are about tapped out on the available areas and other areas require destruction of natural forest preserves or are too deep to drill in the ocean.

Aside from the reliance of other countries for our oil, it does not do right by our carbon emissions...

I think Ethanol burning does some things to public health in animals or insects. So, those options need to be weighed.

I have not heard anything yet about biofuels except that it is expensive to process an no one wants to pay $10 per gallon for it although you would be doing it once a month or less.
I think corn based ethanol would be a good replacement for gasoline, once it's perfected. Right now, the use of ethanol as a fuel remains financially viable only because of a 51 cents/per gallon tax exemption granted by the Federal Government to refiners who produce a gasoline ethanol blend. Another problem with ethanol right now, is it has to be transported to refining plants by trucks and trains, burning emissions producing hydrocarbons in transit.

Personally, I do think we should make the switch ASAP, even though it's not the end all be all to America's fuel problems, but I think for the time being it would be a temporary fix, at least until it's perfected.

[cheerfulgreek]

Can we be 100% sure that some of this isn't tied to the degree to which we can/do measure things now versus how we did it in the 1970s?
Yes, because it's an average numbers comparison.

Also, if you look at the total number of hurricanes and their power measured by wind speed and duration, it's jumped 50% since the 1970s.

[AKA_Monet]

I think corn based ethanol would be a good replacement for gasoline, once it's perfected. Right now, the use of ethanol as a fuel remains financially viable only because of a 51 cents/per gallon tax exemption granted by the Federal Government to refiners who produce a gasoline ethanol blend. Another problem with ethanol right now, is it has to be transported to refining plants by trucks and trains, burning emissions producing hydrocarbons in transit.

Personally, I do think we should make the switch ASAP, even though it's not the end all be all to America's fuel problems, but I think for the time being it would be a temporary fix, at least until it's perfected.

It will take time to get the distribution across the US. Ethanol is a good option for certain areas of the country, not the entire country. Corn ethanol will not catch up to the level of demand--especially for my area. Most folks here sell biodiesel from used frying oil. There are other alternative fuels, like coal, some depleted nuclear materials and plenty of unused wood products.

[cheerfulgreek]

It will take time to get the distribution across the US. Ethanol is a good option for certain areas of the country, not the entire country. Corn ethanol will not catch up to the level of demand--especially for my area. Most folks here sell biodiesel from used frying oil. There are other alternative fuels, like coal, some depleted nuclear materials and plenty of unused wood products.
I agree, there are other alternatives of fuels, like hydrogen. It's in plain sight as we know it. It's everywhere we look, but it's almost always chemically locked in compunds like water, which binds hydrogen together with oxygen, and is sort of tricky to undo. I think our best way right now to get power from hydrogen is by burning oil, coal and natural gas. Their concentrated hydrogen content is what gives them energy in the 1st place. What causes the problems is the actual hydrocarbon.

Running a vehicle on hydrogen without using carbon involves using either hydrogen fuel cells or ordinary engines modified to burn hydrogen.

If you really look at it, this technology isn't really new. Over 100 years ago, the fuel cells combined hydrogen and oxygen, producing heat and water, the heat was used to create electricity, and the water was like a waste product. As in ethanol, fuel cells are still kind of pricey though.

Maybe engineers can retool a vehicle's engine to run on hydrogen. I'm not sure how expensive or complicated this would be though.

[AKA_Monet]

I agree, there are other alternatives of fuels, like hydrogen. It's in plain sight as we know it. It's everywhere we look, but it's almost always chemically locked in compunds like water, which binds hydrogen together with oxygen, and is sort of tricky to undo. I think our best way right now to get power from hydrogen is by burning oil, coal and natural gas. Their concentrated hydrogen content is what gives them energy in the 1st place. What causes the problems is the actual hydrocarbon.

Running a vehicle on hydrogen without using carbon involves using either hydrogen fuel cells or ordinary engines modified to burn hydrogen.

If you really look at it, this technology isn't really new. Over 100 years ago, the fuel cells combined hydrogen and oxygen, producing heat and water, the heat was used to create electricity, and the water was like a waste product. As in ethanol, fuel cells are still kind of pricey though.

Maybe engineers can retool a vehicle's engine to run on hydrogen. I'm not sure how expensive or complicated this would be though.

All I know is I have heard of the Hindenberg blimp and the way folks drive these days, I would be freaked out if there H2 fuel cells in them...

Well, there are several bonds that when broken will give several levels of energy. From what I remember from chem, is that H2O is an ionic bond with dipole moments on the oxygen. It is H-O--H that has resonance from one H to the other. When protonation occurs due to stronger ions, like salt, the furthest H+ or proton will leave. The only other way to break that bond is through a radical formation either by HOOH or HO(.) or a straight nuclide attack (fission). That is how I understand it, and I could be wrong...

When we use H2CCHOH, in a combustible system, because the m.p. is lower, even due to some level of evaporation, we burn steam. But the octane in gas is what gives us the power generation to put through the cylinders in the engine. Other oil products, besides gas, will still need to be used, such as motor oil, transmission, brake fluid, coolant, etc. Coolant is something else, I think--Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) they smart chemists have probably changed it now...

[cheerfulgreek]

All I know is I have heard of the Hindenberg blimp and the way folks drive these days, I would be freaked out if there H2 fuel cells in them...

Well, there are several bonds that when broken will give several levels of energy. From what I remember from chem, is that H2O is an ionic bond with dipole moments on the oxygen. It is H-O--H that has resonance from one H to the other. When protonation occurs due to stronger ions, like salt, the furthest H+ or proton will leave. The only other way to break that bond is through a radical formation either by HOOH or HO(.) or a straight nuclide attack (fission). That is how I understand it, and I could be wrong...

When we use H2CCHOH, in a combustible system, because the m.p. is lower, even due to some level of evaporation, we burn steam. But the octane in gas is what gives us the power generation to put through the cylinders in the engine. Other oil products, besides gas, will still need to be used, such as motor oil, transmission, brake fluid, coolant, etc. Coolant is something else, I think--Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) they smart chemists have probably changed it now...
It sounds dangerous, but if it's perfected I don't think it will be. Yes, this is true to an extent. If we were to use this method right now as we speak, yes, a lot of the additives we currently use in our engines would still have to be used, but that could also possibly change with technology. Hydrogen is a fuel we wouldn't run out of. It's the most abundant element in the universe, and it burns far more cleanly than fossil fuels.

[cheerfulgreek]

I don't think the concept of global warming is legitimate. I think that the earth goes through different heating and cooling patterns, and we're just experiencing one of the warmer cycles.
I disagree.

I think the Industrial Revolution has something to do with it. Though it was a great leap forward for mankind, as we began to harness the energy in fossil fuels to power new machinery and generate electricity, the waste matter in the process of doing this helped to trap heat in the planet's atmosphere.

[PhiGam]

The worst place in FL for a Hurricane to hit is not the panhandle- a storm that causes a surge in Tampa Bay would inundate all of downtown Tampa.
But there is no denying that Global Warming is occuring at a rate that is faster than it would be naturally but the increase is still not substantial.

[Kevin]

Someone please explain to me -- if man causes global warming, how come Mars is experiencing global warming as well?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[srmom]

An alarming article I read!!

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic

That's right!! Unanimous scientific opinions that the world is COOLING!! Of course, this article was written back in 1975 in Scientific American, back when they were telling us that we were going into another ice age.

Just wait a few years, and then lets see what is happening with Mother Earth.

[ISUKappa]

I think corn based ethanol would be a good replacement for gasoline, once it's perfected. Right now, the use of ethanol as a fuel remains financially viable only because of a 51 cents/per gallon tax exemption granted by the Federal Government to refiners who produce a gasoline ethanol blend. Another problem with ethanol right now, is it has to be transported to refining plants by trucks and trains, burning emissions producing hydrocarbons in transit.

Personally, I do think we should make the switch ASAP, even though it's not the end all be all to America's fuel problems, but I think for the time being it would be a temporary fix, at least until it's perfected.
I honestly don't think corn-based ethanol is the answer, and I live in the Midwest and have felt the direct benefit of the current ethanol boom. It is a highly inefficient way to create ethanol and the toll it takes on the natural resources (especially the water table) isn't worth it, IMO. We'd be better off focusing on switchgrass or other forms of cellulose.

[bluefish81]

I honestly don't think corn-based ethanol is the answer, and I live in the Midwest and have felt the direct benefit of the current ethanol boom. It is a highly inefficient way to create ethanol and the toll it takes on the natural resources (especially the water table) isn't worth it, IMO. We'd be better off focusing on switchgrass or other forms of cellulose.

I agree. I think that there has to be a better resource available besides corn-based ethanol, perhaps one that our society isn't so dependent upon for a food resource? The price of corn on a bushel basis has gone up significantly over the past few years, great for farmers selling the corn, not so good for consumer looking to buy a product that uses corn as its base. There's also a lot of farmers that are opting to plant corn instead of what they probably should be planting in their respective areas. So the quality of the product may not be as good because the soil where it's being planted may not be right for corn. Like trying to grow peaches in Nebraska, you'd probably just end up with crappy peaches.

Cheerfulgreek as far as your hurricane analogy regarding the present day intesity vs. the 70s. I think your comparison is both a frequency and severity concern. You're seeing stronger storms (severity) more often (frequency). Do I think that they're happening stronger and more often? Yes. Did we luck out in 2006 due to a weather system that was parked over FL and pushed everything back out to sea? Yes. And I'm very thankful for it. As far as last year I didn't watch the hurricane season as closely so I have no idea why there wasn't much activity.

[AGDee]

There was a good special on HBO a while back where they talked about all the things that they could be using to make ethanol that we just toss away now. They suggested things like: Having an ethanol production facility next to an orange juice production facility and using the orange peels that get tossed and things like that. I don't get why they're pushing corn so much either. It's not the best thing to be making ethanol from, from everything I've read.

There are many reasons to move to alternative fuels whether Global Warming is really happening or not. Wouldn't it be nice to be less dependent on foreign oil? Wouldn't it be nice to breathe cleaner air? Have asthma rates go down? Eliminate ozone action days?

Wind and solar is where I think we should really be focusing our attention.

[cheerfulgreek]

Someone please explain to me -- if man causes global warming, how come Mars is experiencing global warming as well?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
While this may very well be true, I don't think the sun is the main cause of Earth's global warming. Mars may be going through a slight climate change, but Mars is cold, dry and dead. The average surface temperature is below -50C, and often times it can get down below -150C. The atmosphere on Mars is mainly carbon dioxide and is less than 1% as thick as Earth's. Two different planets with two different weather and climate patterns. As I said in an earlier post, and let me add, with the atmosphere being as thick as it is on Earth, I believe the waste matter from the fossil fuels used to power new machinery and create electricity helped trap heat in Earth's atmosphere, which adds to global warming. Also in regards to the southern polar cap on Mars melting, this can't happen with a Martian temperature and thin atmosphere. It's surface would have to be warmed in order for this to happen.

[cheerfulgreek]

I honestly don't think corn-based ethanol is the answer, and I live in the Midwest and have felt the direct benefit of the current ethanol boom. It is a highly inefficient way to create ethanol and the toll it takes on the natural resources (especially the water table) isn't worth it, IMO. We'd be better off focusing on switchgrass or other forms of cellulose.
I never said it was the answer. I just said it was an alternative. Plus we wouldn't be able to survive on corn based ethanol alone, because even if we were to convert the entire U.S. corn crop to fuel, it would only offset about 10% of America's gasoline consumption, which is why I also mentioned hydrogen power as another alternative. This we have PLENTY of.

[cheerfulgreek]

I agree. I think that there has to be a better resource available besides corn-based ethanol, perhaps one that our society isn't so dependent upon for a food resource? The price of corn on a bushel basis has gone up significantly over the past few years, great for farmers selling the corn, not so good for consumer looking to buy a product that uses corn as its base. There's also a lot of farmers that are opting to plant corn instead of what they probably should be planting in their respective areas. So the quality of the product may not be as good because the soil where it's being planted may not be right for corn. Like trying to grow peaches in Nebraska, you'd probably just end up with crappy peaches.

Cheerfulgreek as far as your hurricane analogy regarding the present day intesity vs. the 70s. I think your comparison is both a frequency and severity concern. You're seeing stronger storms (severity) more often (frequency). Do I think that they're happening stronger and more often? Yes. Did we luck out in 2006 due to a weather system that was parked over FL and pushed everything back out to sea? Yes. And I'm very thankful for it. As far as last year I didn't watch the hurricane season as closely so I have no idea why there wasn't much activity.
Local events like this are not the same as global climate change, but they do appear to be apart of a larger trend. Since the 70s, ocean surface temperatures worlwide have risen about +1F. Those numbers have moved in sequence with global air temperatures, which have also risen up a degree. I think the warmest year ever recorded may have been in 2006, followed by 2005, with a few previous years close behind. Does this mean more hurricanes? Perhaps. Maybe not, which is why it's so hard to pin down these trends. Infact the past 10 stormy years in the North Atlantic were preceded by many quiet ones. This all happened the same time global temperatures were rising. I'll explain it this way. Worldwide, there's like an equilibrium. When the number of storms in the North Atlantic increases, there's usually a corresponding fall in the number of storms in other regions, but frequency is not the same as intensity. Also, I think I said earlier in a previous post that there have been two recent studies that demonstrate the difference and prove my point.

[Kevin]

While this may very well be true, I don't think the sun is the main cause of Earth's global warming. Mars may be going through a slight climate change, but Mars is cold, dry and dead. The average surface temperature is below -50C, and often times it can get down below -150C. The atmosphere on Mars is mainly carbon dioxide and is less than 1% as thick as Earth's. Two different planets with two different weather and climate patterns. As I said in an earlier post, and let me add, with the atmosphere being as thick as it is on Earth, I believe the waste matter from the fossil fuels used to power new machinery and create electricity helped trap heat in Earth's atmosphere, which adds to global warming. Also in regards to the southern polar cap on Mars melting, this can't happen with a Martian temperature and thin atmosphere. It's surface would have to be warmed in order for this to happen.

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

It seems like you're trying to jam the square peg of human activity causing global warming into a round hole.

Another explanation for GW is that in '79, we switched the paint used on monitoring stations. See the following transcript:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/6727/

Also, the linked blog, presents a general study of temperature monitoring stations. It shows (quite convincingly) that when many were originally placed, they were nowhere near human activity. Now, those same stations are located in parking lots, near air conditioning units and other sources of heat which interfere with their accurate readings. Here are quite a few documented cases.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

[cheerfulgreek]

I'm no astrophysicist
I know, I can tell.

[cheerfulgreek]

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

Just because a planet is closer to the sun does not necessarily make it warmer.

[Coramoor]

I think that any issue as highly politicized as Global Warming should be suspect.

For the record, I think it is just a gimmick to keep chicken littles occupied.

[srmom]

Just because a planet is closer to the sun does not necessarily make it warmer

Actually, this is incorrect, according to astrophysicists, Mercury (the closest planet to the sun) and Venus (2nd closest) are the hottest planets and it is because of their proximity to the sun.

Venus is thought to be the hottest planet, and one theory espoused by many scientists is that Venus, being closer to the sun, was subjected to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect, which caused any oceans to evaporate into the atmosphere.

Many scientists hold that: only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.

The role of water vapour in controlling our planet's temperature was hinted at almost 150 years ago by Irish scientist John Tyndall. Tyndall, who also provided an explanation as to why the sky is blue, explained the problem: "The strongest radiant heat absorber, is the most important gas controlling Earth's temperature. Without water vapour, he wrote, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost'." Thin clouds at high altitude allow sunlight to reach the earth's surface, but reflect back radiated heat, acting as an insulating greenhouse layer.

Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change', "Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, he says, "Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation."

[RACooper]

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

Not really, depends on atmospheric protection and retention of solar radiation - proximity to the Sun is only one factor. So to point at Mars being warmer and saying "it's the Sun stupid!" is faulty science and logic (particularly since the study dates and times tend to compare 'summer' and 'winter' orbits of Mars).

It seems like you're trying to jam the square peg of human activity causing global warming into a round hole.

Actually I'd argue that it's the dogmatic naysayers that are trying to make hole round so the peg don't fit ;)

Another explanation for GW is that in '79, we switched the paint used on monitoring stations. See the following transcript:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/6727/
Also, the linked blog, presents a general study of temperature monitoring stations. It shows (quite convincingly) that when many were originally placed, they were nowhere near human activity. Now, those same stations are located in parking lots, near air conditioning units and other sources of heat which interfere with their accurate readings. Here are quite a few documented cases.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Talk about useless arguments based on wildly faulty logic :D

Kevin I'm sure you'd even have to logically admit that A) one, two, or a hundred stations affected this way means squat given the thousands out there; B) there are far, far more stations that just those set-up or monitored by or in America.

It seems to me like Glenn Beck and the blog twit are trying to cite individual regional stations within the thousands of global stations to try and paint a picture discrediting the thousands that only the ardent anti-Climate Change or Global Warming skeptic believes.

[Kevin]

Thank you for posting this Kevin. I'm a fan of Glenn Beck's but somehow missed this interesting piece.


To add on to this- these VOLUNTEERS have not been able to check on every single temperature station yet because they don't have the resources to. Some of you can't possibly believe that the ones they've found so far with are the only stations with problems. Can you?

No problem. As far as I can tell, GW is a myth perpetrated by people who are guilty for living good lives in industrialized nations. They apparently seem to feel that by enjoying ourselves, we must be doing harm.

They're not so different from the flagellant monastic orders of old. It would be nice if they'd stick to the horsehair coats rather than suck us into their fantasies, however.

All they have is a documented (perhaps faultily so) increase in temperature over a century or so of a degree, maybe two? From that, they have one hypothesis -- that man's activities are responsible from this. Without proving that hypothesis, they're onto the next step -- peddling guilt (green offsets).

[bluefish81]

Local events like this are not the same as global climate change, but they do appear to be apart of a larger trend. Since the 70s, ocean surface temperatures worlwide have risen about +1F. Those numbers have moved in sequence with global air temperatures, which have also risen up a degree. I think the warmest year ever recorded may have been in 2006, followed by 2005, with a few previous years close behind. Does this mean more hurricanes? Perhaps. Maybe not, which is why it's so hard to pin down these trends. Infact the past 10 stormy years in the North Atlantic were preceded by many quiet ones. This all happened the same time global temperatures were rising. I'll explain it this way. Worldwide, there's like an equilibrium. When the number of storms in the North Atlantic increases, there's usually a corresponding fall in the number of storms in other regions, but frequency is not the same as intensity. Also, I think I said earlier in a previous post that there have been two recent studies that demonstrate the difference and prove my point.

I understand the difference between frequency and intensity. I wasn't correlating the two to mean the same thing. I was stating that the storms that occured in the early 2000s were stronger (severe) and there were more of them (frequency). That's why I used the word and to include both words. Many people in the industry that I work in find that hurricane patterns operate in ten year cycles - i.e. ten years of active storm years, ten years of quiet, ten years active, ten years quiet. They also still think that we're only about halfway through the current ten year cycle of active storms.

[RACooper]

No problem. As far as I can tell, GW is a myth perpetrated by people who are guilty for living good lives in industrialized nations. They apparently seem to feel that by enjoying ourselves, we must be doing harm.

If thats how you need to justify your skepticism in the face of evidence fine - like I said earlier it makes you no different than those who cling to Creationism or ID in the face of evidence... basically letting blind-belief overrule critical or rational examination of any evidence to draw conclusions (and again I'm still fascinated by the correlation of those opposed to GW and Evolution)


All they have is a documented (perhaps faultily so) increase in temperature over a century or so of a degree, maybe two?

Three centuries for some actually - the Royal Navy and French Navy took reams of atmospheric, oceanic, and weather readings over the centuries all over the globe.

From that, they have one hypothesis -- that man's activities are responsible from this. Without proving that hypothesis, they're onto the next step -- peddling guilt (green offsets).

Like I said what ever you need to keep telling yourself...

[cheerfulgreek]

Actually, this is incorrect, according to astrophysicists, Mercury (the closest planet to the sun) and Venus (2nd closest) are the hottest planets and it is because of their proximity to the sun.

Venus is thought to be the hottest planet, and one theory espoused by many scientists is that Venus, being closer to the sun, was subjected to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect, which caused any oceans to evaporate into the atmosphere.
Uhmm... o.k. Let me get this straight. My previous post said that planets closer to the sun don't necessarily mean they're warmer. You said that was incorrect, but yet you post that Venus is the 2nd closest planet to the sun, but it's the hottest.:confused: That was my point (duh).:rolleyes: Mercury is the closest to the sun but it is not the hottest.

The sun does have a major effect on the surface of the planets, but there are other factors involved. Mercury orbits around the sun every 88 days within about 29 million miles away from the sun, which causes 700 degree surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. At one time it was believed that Mercury had an identical day and year rotating once every time it completed an orbit around the sun so that it kept one side permanently facing the sun, somewhat like our moon as it orbits Earth. This is called synchronous rotation. Actually it's sort of strange, but Mercury's day is about two thirds of it's year which is about 50-60 Earth days (I think) so it actually rotates three times for every two trips around its orbit. This has an effect on the surface temperature because for the most parts of Mercury, the sun rises across it's sky once every two years, about 170-180 Earth days.

Venus's surface is hotter than Mercury's at over 850 degrees but yet it's further away from the sun than Mercury is (like you said). The reason why, is because Venus actually rotates once every 243 Earth days while it orbits the sun in 225 Earth days, so it's day is longer than it's year. Venus's slow rotation is also done in the opposite direction to almost every other planet in our solar system, it's also technically upside down on it's axis. All of this has an effect on sunrise to sunrise which effects it's surface temperature, and makes it warmer than Mercury.

Now, the information you posted about Venus having water at one time, is incorrect. Scientists thought this because there's about a 26 million mile difference between Venus and Earth's orbits. The 1st space probes to fly past Venus found that the atmosphere was pretty much carbon dioxide with clouds made of sulphuric acid. The probes also provided accurate information that the surface was made up of volcanic rock. Hardly a planet that could have had water running across its surface.

[cheerfulgreek]

I understand the difference between frequency and intensity. I wasn't correlating the two to mean the same thing. I was stating that the storms that occured in the early 2000s were stronger (severe) and there were more of them (frequency). That's why I used the word and to include both words. Many people in the industry that I work in find that hurricane patterns operate in ten year cycles - i.e. ten years of active storm years, ten years of quiet, ten years active, ten years quiet. They also still think that we're only about halfway through the current ten year cycle of active storms.
ok