the Global Warming debate

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

steven, you need to change your personal title to "vj's eco-warrior"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The vast majority of Co2 is natural. The amount that humans make is just a tiny fraction. What we put into the atmosphere does nothing to change the ballance.

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Gary, simply posting websites that state something doesn't make it factual. Again, it's peculiar that you're accepting these websites as legitimate science, while dismissing Global Warming. That webpage says it was made by Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb. Who are they? The above statement is unsupported by any scientific data. We can accurately measure the amount of CO2 emitted by automobiles, and other fossil fuel burning industries. Then it's a matter of multiplication ....the number of automobiles X the average amount of CO2 emitted. See below...

The recent CO2 increase—280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005—is accompanied by three phenomena that completely rule out ocean warming as the main cause:

* Parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. Strictly speaking, this is the "Suess effect," first observed, and correctly interpreted, by Hans Suess of the University of California, San Diego, in the early 1950s. The Suess effect occurs because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil—much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.

* Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.

* Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.

Nonspecialists will not easily be impressed by model calculations and complex budgets that contain often large uncertainties. Moreover, I have seen dishonest skeptics using "old hat" arguments such as ocean CO2 outgassing to refute the responsibility of human activities in the recent CO2 increase and the forthcoming large global warming.

Known CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation largely exceed (by about a factor of two) what remains in the atmosphere. Hence, if warming were the cause of the CO2 increase, how would we account for the hundreds of gigatons of carbon generated by human activity?

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, I know you're sleeping right now...but I did some research into just who this Monte Hieb is and here's what I found...

CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emmissions at less than 1%

The precise figure is around a 0.27% contribution from mankind.

It's usually considered good form to cite the quote, so we can see who said it and what evidence they had for the claim. As it is, the power of google comes to the rescue and I find the original source for your above quote is Wikipedia::Global_warming_controversy which in turn links to Monte Hieb's personal website [geocraft.com].

Well, that's OK, a personal website isn't necessarily a bad source of information. We shouldn't be concerned that Mr Hieb has no education in climatology, isn't a scientist nor a doctor, doesn't have any peer reviewed papers, doesn't do research nor experiments, and isn't cited by anybody except the enthusiastic gunslingers of the "global warmin

g is a myth" brigade. All of those details are irrelevant if Mr Hieb gets his facts right. Unfortunately he hasn't got his facts right either. If you google his name the first hit is somebody ripping apart Mr Hieb's claims. You immediately find out that Mr Hieb redefines existing scientific terminology. Tut tut, that's not a good sign.

Here the authors redefine "global warming". While the term usually refers to human caused warming, they use the term to include natural changes as well. A similar redefinition has been used with other environmental problems such as ozone depletion and acid rain. ("Global warming" has been increasingly replaced by the more accurate and inclusive "climate change"). -- http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm [info-pollution.com]

That page goes on further to refute the "facts" asserted by Monte Hieb. Somebody once tried to get Mr Hieb's claims into other pages on Wikipedia but those attempts were ... uhhh... rejected. Here's a comment that accompanied one such rejection.

But to turn to the GHG page, which is what this is really about. C says: objects and deletes all sources and documentation that state anything he disagrees with. This in turn is a ref to him trying to insert a dubious value of 95% for the greenhouse effect of water vapour, based upon this source: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenho use_data.html [clearlight.com]. That page isn't a source: its just some bods pet page. The numbers on it are wrong. All this has been, is being, discussed on the talk page of greenhouse gas. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_fo r_comment/William_M._Connolley [wikipedia.org]

That 95% figure (which is intrinsically linked to your 0.27% figure) isn't supported by the data. The best guess figures are between 60% and 70%. If you continue to google Mr Hieb's name you'll find that pattern repeated over and over; Mr Hieb uses incorrect values, redefines terminology and eventually arrives at incorrect conclusions. But who is Monte Hieb?

Assessment: This example is the crux of the matter, IMO, because it reveals the source of Cortonin's information. The website referenced is the personal website of Monte Hieb. A quick review of Hieb's credentials reveals that he has worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner's Safety. He has done some geological survey work on fossils. There are extensive links from Free Republic's website to Hieb's. WMC refers to him as "just some bod," but clearly he is a bod with a political axe to grind. Now there is nothing whatsoever wrong with having a website to put forward a political POV. However, should Wikipedia reproduce a political POV in a scientific article? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_fo r_comment/William_M._Connolley [wikipedia.org]

So it turns out he's a mining engineer. Not a bad job but a little bit removed from the environment and education you need to study climatology. That page linked above goes into a bit more detail. I think the phrase they use to classify Mr Hieb's claims is "junk science".

Interestingly enough Mr Hieb gets a lot of attention in the blogosphere. It's interesting because he doesn't have any weight to what he says; he just says what people want to hear. People such as yourself. You want humanity to have had no effect on global warming so you selectively quote people who say what you wish were true. It doesn't matter who they are, or how wrong they are, as long as they say exactly what you want to hear.

It's almost like a religion.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si...mp;cid=14117683

[dalegg 143]

Auto manufacturers can produce cars with more efficient engines - but they don't because it cuts oil profits.

Well, wait a minute. Auto manufacturers are already producing cars with more efficient engines. There are autos sold right now that get 60 miles to the gallon, and they aren't sold on the black market. They are well advertised. I don't see how just producing any automobile is going to stop global warming anyway. There is at least one other thing attached to that that has to happen first.

No, but its one step amongst many we can do to reduce pollution.

I should have been more specific then- What specific thing would be the most effective thing the U.S. could do to help stop global warming that isn't already being done?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Auto manufacturers can produce cars with more efficient engines - but they don't because it cuts oil profits.

Well, wait a minute. Auto manufacturers are already producing cars with more efficient engines. There are autos sold right now that get 60 miles to the gallon, and they aren't sold on the black market. They are well advertised. I don't see how just producing any automobile is going to stop global warming anyway. There is at least one other thing attached to that that has to happen first.

No, but its one step amongst many we can do to reduce pollution.

I should have been more specific then- What specific thing would be the most effective thing the U.S. could do to help stop global warming that isn't already being done?

Abandoning coal entirely (which is significantly dirtier than oil BTW) - move to a greater reliance on nuclear and LNG fired power stations.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Auto manufacturers can produce cars with more efficient engines - but they don't because it cuts oil profits.

Well, wait a minute. Auto manufacturers are already producing cars with more efficient engines. There are autos sold right now that get 60 miles to the gallon, and they aren't sold on the black market. They are well advertised. I don't see how just producing any automobile is going to stop global warming anyway. There is at least one other thing attached to that that has to happen first.

No, but its one step amongst many we can do to reduce pollution.

I should have been more specific then- What specific thing would be the most effective thing the U.S. could do to help stop global warming that isn't already being done?

Abandoning coal entirely (which is significantly dirtier than oil BTW) - move to a greater reliance on nuclear and LNG fired power stations.

Invest in more windpower, geothermal energy, and photovoltaic (solar) energy. Converting homes and businesses to run partially and in some cases totally on solar power is technologically feasible and economically feasible if you consider how much each home or business pays the utility companies for electricity.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Invest in more windpower, geothermal energy, and photovoltaic (solar) energy. Converting homes and businesses to run partially and in some cases totally on solar power is technologically feasible and economically feasible if you consider how much each home or business pays the utility companies for electricity.

great idea but.........solar power don't work too great the further north you go.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Auto manufacturers can produce cars with more efficient engines - but they don't because it cuts oil profits.

Well, wait a minute. Auto manufacturers are already producing cars with more efficient engines. There are autos sold right now that get 60 miles to the gallon, and they aren't sold on the black market. They are well advertised. I don't see how just producing any automobile is going to stop global warming anyway. There is at least one other thing attached to that that has to happen first.

No, but its one step amongst many we can do to reduce pollution.

I should have been more specific then- What specific thing would be the most effective thing the U.S. could do to help stop global warming that isn't already being done?

Abandoning coal entirely (which is significantly dirtier than oil BTW) - move to a greater reliance on nuclear and LNG fired power stations.

Invest in more windpower, geothermal energy, and photovoltaic (solar) energy. Converting homes and businesses to run partially and in some cases totally on solar power is technologically feasible and economically feasible if you consider how much each home or business pays the utility companies for electricity.

You can certainly do that - fuel efficient homes that generate their own renewable electricity are certainly viable - however commercial solar, windfarms and geothermal programmes are currently little more than pet science projects. The UK has large scale windfarms around the country - but they don't generate anything like the level of power that would match demand.

On a short term, or even medium term basis - it simply isn't economically viable to abandon oil. We can certainly abandon coal however and move towards LNG, and nuclear - which do have their own environmental issues, but to a lesser degree than conventional fossil fuels.

[dalegg 143]

I should have been more specific then- What specific thing would be the most effective thing the U.S. could do to help stop global warming that isn't already being done?

Abandoning coal entirely (which is significantly dirtier than oil BTW) - move to a greater reliance on nuclear and LNG fired power stations.

The nuclear option does seem viable, but the global warming debate is largely between environmental groups and conservative groups. Do you think enough Democratic Lawmakers who answer to anti-nuke groups would sign on to this? Have we actually discovered a safe way to deal with the nuclear waste material?

Do we have enough natural gas available to sustain LNG fired power stations?

Invest in more windpower, geothermal energy, and photovoltaic (solar) energy. Converting homes and businesses to run partially and in some cases totally on solar power is technologically feasible and economically feasible if you consider how much each home or business pays the utility companies for electricity.

I like these too, but isn't windpower and solar energy basically free? If we start using free energy sources aren't a lot of major companies going to lose a lot of money? How do we make up for the hit to the economy? You may have answered this already but I am lazy.

Not to mention what Fishy just said above..

Edited August 24, 2006 by dalegg

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I should have been more specific then- What specific thing would be the most effective thing the U.S. could do to help stop global warming that isn't already being done?

Abandoning coal entirely (which is significantly dirtier than oil BTW) - move to a greater reliance on nuclear and LNG fired power stations.

The nuclear option does seem viable, but the global warming debate is largely between environmental groups and conservative groups. Do you think enough Democratic Lawmakers who answer to anti-nuke groups would sign on to this? Have we actually discovered a safe way to deal with the nuclear waste material?

Do we have enough natural gas available to sustain LNG fired power stations?

Invest in more windpower, geothermal energy, and photovoltaic (solar) energy. Converting homes and businesses to run partially and in some cases totally on solar power is technologically feasible and economically feasible if you consider how much each home or business pays the utility companies for electricity.

I like these too, but isn't windpower and solar energy basically free? If we start using free energy sources aren't a lot of major companies going to lose a lot of money? How do we make up for the hit to the economy? You may have answered this already but I am lazy.

Not to mention what Fishy just said above..

* Canada could reasonably meet 20% of its total energy needs with wind power.

* As of June 2006 Canada’s installed wind energy capacity was 1,049 MW - already powering over 315,000 homes and businesses in a clean, reliable and efficient manner.

* The global wind energy potential, even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, is roughly five times current global electricity use.

http://www.canwea.ca/en/QuickFacts.html

That's just windpower alone... It's not going to 'hit' our economy, but shift the economic power from one industry (oil) to more evenly distributed among other sources. This is why the Oil Companies fight against policy changes that invest in alternative energy because it means they would lose their monopoly on energy.

I'll find some info on geothermal and solar energy.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is why the Oil Companies fight against policy changes that invest in alternative energy because it means they would lose their monopoly on energy.

That's not strictly true. I worked for BP back in the UK and I know for one thing that oil companies are the most significant in alternative energy research.

The nuclear option does seem viable, but the global warming debate is largely between environmental groups and conservative groups. Do you think enough Democratic Lawmakers who answer to anti-nuke groups would sign on to this? Have we actually discovered a safe way to deal with the nuclear waste material?

Do we have enough natural gas available to sustain LNG fired power stations?

Good questions. But what you have to ask yourself - is the global economy going to change overnight? We're simply not going to be in a position to switch entirely to renewable energy within 10 or even 20 years.

[dalegg 143]

That's just windpower alone... It's not going to 'hit' our economy, but shift the economic power from one industry (oil) to more evenly distributed among other sources. This is why the Oil Companies fight against policy changes that invest in alternative energy because it means they would lose their monopoly on energy.

I'll find some info on geothermal and solar energy.

Oil? What about coal? Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S., so why are we attacking oil? Replace all coal power plants with Solar panels and windmills. What happens to the tens of thousands of employees directly employed by the Coal Industry? Do you think there would be enough jobs created maintaining windmills and solar panels to replace that?

[mmmbop1976 1]

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powe...tems/cleancoal/

http://www.careenergy.com/cleaner_environm...-technology.asp

an excerpt from that 2nd link...

The U.S. Department of Energy has announced a Presidential initiative to build "FutureGen," a $1 billion project that will lead to the world's first emission-free plant to produce electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing greenhouse gases.

.....this is all being done without our economy being constrained by the social engineering goals of the kyoto treaty. president clinton was right not to sign kyoto. and btw steve, ur previous post taken in context with your whole topic here, ur carte blanche statement certainly gives the impression that u feel industry has that right now. i know there are different ways that statement could be intrepreted, but given the context of ur arguments, that was the impression i got.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's just windpower alone... It's not going to 'hit' our economy, but shift the economic power from one industry (oil) to more evenly distributed among other sources. This is why the Oil Companies fight against policy changes that invest in alternative energy because it means they would lose their monopoly on energy.

I'll find some info on geothermal and solar energy.

Oil? What about coal? Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S., so why are we attacking oil? Replace all coal power plants with Solar panels and windmills. What happens to the tens of thousands of employees directly employed by the Coal Industry? Do you think there would be enough jobs created maintaining windmills and solar panels to replace that?

Yes, any fossil fuel burning industries need to dramatically be reduced or phased out. CO2 happens to be the biggest contributor to Global Warming and it is the automobile industry that we need to be targeting with higher fuel effeciency standards as well as zero emissions goals.

Our economy cannot be tethered by industries that no longer seem feasible for a sustainable future, nor is it necessary for economic strength. Our economic strength should be to built on pushing forward new technologies that improve the overall quality of life for us. If that means that we ween ourselves off of certain industries and shift to new ones, that's not doomsday. Did you worry about all those VHS employees when DVD players replaced them? Or when digital cameras took over the market over film cameras? You're being shortsighted to think we must hold onto industries just for fear of job loss. Job loss is bad, but not when we're replacing old jobs with new ones.

[dalegg 143]

Yes, any fossil fuel burning industries need to dramatically be reduced or phased out. CO2 happens to be the biggest contributor to Global Warming and it is the automobile industry that we need to be targeting with higher fuel effeciency standards as well as zero emissions goals.

Okay, I thought it was the power plants we were going after when we were talking about wind power and solar power alternatives, but are you suggesting that we need to start dramatically converting automobiles to solar power or something like that?

Our economy cannot be tethered by industries that no longer seem feasible for a sustainable future, nor is it necessary for economic strength. Our economic strength should be to built on pushing forward new technologies that improve the overall quality of life for us. If that means that we ween ourselves off of certain industries and shift to new ones, that's not doomsday. Did you worry about all those VHS employees when DVD players replaced them? Or when digital cameras took over the market over film cameras?

No, because usually the same companies that make DVD players and digital cameras are the ones that made VHS players and film cameras, and there are more people buying cameras and dvd players now so it's the same employees, maybe even more or them.

You're being shortsighted to think we must hold onto industries just for fear of job loss. Job loss is bad, but not when we're replacing old jobs with new ones.

Well I am shortsided. I cannot see where the tens of thousands of jobs that would be needed to replace the coal workers for example would come from. Solar and wind power are fairly self sustaining. There is maintenance needed, but unless we deliberately created systems to fail, I don't think we could ever create enough jobs.