On the heels of the New York Times questioning Al Gore's global warming hype, comes an interesting tale at the University of Washington from the Seattle Times. From all appearances, the state climatologist "fired" the assistant state climatologist for not adhering to the proverbial party line.
The lede of the story is an eye-catcher:
The number is eye-popping, and it was repeated so often it became gospel.The snowpack in the Cascades, it was said, shrank by 50 percent in the last half-century. It's been presented as glaring evidence of the cost exacted by global warming -- the drying up of a vital water source.
That statistic has been repeated in a government report, on environmental-advocacy Web sites and in media coverage. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels recently mentioned it in a guest column in The Seattle Times.
Here's the problem: The number is dead wrong.
Not only is the number dead wrong, check out the disparity between a 50% reduction and what dissenter Mark Albright said in an email questioning the statistic :
I believe a more accurate statement would be along the lines of:1) The average snowpack in the Cascades has increased over the past 30 years in spite of the steady upward trend in global temperature, or 2) Long term data indicates no significant trend in Cascade Mtns snowpack over the last 90 years, or 3) The snowpack (1997-2007) at Mt. Rainier Paradise has increased 11% since the 1940's.
Those descriptors are a far cry from the 30% reduction that was finally "agreed" upon.
All of this serves as a reminder that natural global weather patterns occur in cycles lasting hundreds of years. Hyperbolic predications based on a few decades of study over a mere portion of a given trend are not great tools for extrapolating long term expectations.
Natural, long-term global warming trend? Sure, makes sense. End of the world as we know it based on leading statements and inaccurate data? No thanks.
****
For those with some real time on their hands, I give you this documentary which has already been making the rounds. Happy viewing.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 15, 2007 07:20 AM | Email ThisRead this story about thye UW is involved in operpetuating the FRAUD and beating down dissent.
Posted by: JDH on March 15, 2007 07:57 AMRead this story about thye UW is involved in perpetuating the FRAUD and beating down dissent.
Posted by: JDH on March 15, 2007 07:57 AMAnybody else remember when you could ski at Paradise?
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2007 08:39 AMwarming in the future will likely affect snowpack, particularly at lower elevations.
Good, too many people can't drive in the snow anyway, I wish global warming was true, it sounds like there are some real benifits.
**Whatever that is
I have problems with both the hysterics and the antis who question whether there is or isn't. I just don't think there is enough knowledge to say one way or the other, except to say, "There is a God and the hysterics are not it".
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2007 09:17 AMThere can't possibly be just a few of us who are not fooled by the faux 'emergencies' that pop up every damned day in the MSM, perpetrated by the left.
While I truly cannot believe there there is a great cabal of lefty's planning all this, it sure does seem that everyday there is something else they are pounding us about. BUT... Why are the liberals so effective in riling up the masses?
Why aren't we?
One reason is that we don't exploit every situation. We solve problems and move on, rather than publicly moan and cry over every sprinkle on the mountain or errant mouse where one shouldn't be.
Sadly our problem solving gets lost amidst the mass hysteria the left incites so well, and to which we invariably react rather than ignore.
How do we change this habit?
Do WE change or do we change our reactions?
What can we do to effectively expose this highly successful addiction of and perpetrated by the left?
All these phony crises wear me out... and I think I'm pretty much a typical person going about my life.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 15, 2007 09:38 AMKind of reminds me of the "Global warming" groups dire prediction for our hurricane season last year.....Their buddies in Hollywood even made a chain of weather related disaster movies to cement the threat in the public's conscience...The only problem was...last year's hurricance season was uneventful....
Sigh...Unfortunately - this wont stop the likes of Gore and other's hell bent on a failed theory...
Posted by: Deborah on March 15, 2007 09:42 AMMore than 100 years ago you didn't have people camping out on top of Stevens Pass just to see how deep the snow was.
Posted by: mr rcguy on March 15, 2007 09:51 AMI thought about it for a second or two and then decided to do something about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming this very weekend, I am going to drive my 5,500 lbs of carbon spewing American iron down to the Tacoma Dome, sit on my overfed hind end in the grandstands drinking beer while watching a bunch of CO2 farting bovines topped by cowboys. And by God my contribution to the effort will do leave a smaller "carbon footprint" on the planet than whatever Al Gore is doing this weekend, ergo I care more than Fat Albert does about this issue.
Posted by: JDH on March 15, 2007 10:07 AMI had no idea that Maurice Strong was a co-conspirator with Gore in this Global warming fraud!.....No wonder...
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover092305.htm
http://www.nationalcenter.org/DossierStrong.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
"Maurice Strong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Maurice F. Strong, (his first name is pronounced "Morris"), PC, CC, OM (born April 29, 1929, in Oak Lake, Manitoba) is an industrialist and public servant who was the Secretary-General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), better known as the Earth Summit. Maurice Strong is currently in the People's Republic of China. Together with George Soros he is attempting to organize export of the Chery automobile. [1] He was a senior advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, although he has suspended his involvement while he is being investigated for financial ties to Tongsun Park, a lobbyist involved with the Iraq oil for food scandal.
Working in the background as an advisor to powerful world figures, Strong has been featured in a number of conspiracy theories [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. CBC reporter Ann-Marie McDonald described him as "a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli".
Strong became wealthy during his career in the oil and utlilities industry. He was President of Power Corporation until 1966. As such he was a mentor to Paul Martin giving him his first job and putting him in a position to become a powerful corporate executive.
Strong left Power Corporation to become head of what became the Canadian International Development Agency. In the early 1970s he was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. He then became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. In the early 1990s he was Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Hydro.
Strong was the UN's envoy to North Korea until July 2005. According to Associated Press his contract was not renewed "amid questions about his connection to a suspect in the UN oil-for-food scandal", Tongsun Park, as well as due to criticism that he gave his step-daughter a job at the UN contrary to UN staff regulations against hiring immediate family. [7]"
Posted by: Deborah on March 15, 2007 10:38 AMThat man is the primary cause of "Global Warming," or that a slight upward trend in temeprature is cause for panic, is one of the greatest shams ever foisted on the world. And like all shams, pyramid schemes, failed governments, and other bad ideas, it will soon collapse under its own weight.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 15, 2007 10:45 AMYou mean like Y2K?
Posted by: jimg on March 15, 2007 11:13 AM1) could it be the move to put intelligent design in science classes?
2) or how about this article regarding the adminstration's attempt to allow a lobbyist to rewrite scientific reports....
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2007-01-30T210856Z_01_N30346494_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-WARMING.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-newsOne-3
from the very article you cite:
"Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots."
it's your blog...but stuff like this puts your credibility at issue.
Posted by: dinesh on March 15, 2007 12:37 PMHe says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/
it's your blog...but stuff like this puts your credibility at issue.
____And you have credibilty Dinesh? ____
Damn that Pot & Kettle keep getting in the way.
Posted by: Aemy Medic/Vet on March 15, 2007 01:59 PMThis is all a political agenda to indoctrinate people that we as a nation are the cause of catastrophes that has a global effect. In other words, Americans are wicked so hate them.
I remember being in grade school in the 60’s when we were taught that the world was headed toward another ice age. What the heck happened?
We Pay For This.
back to my home natural coal stove & CO poisonings like the 3rd world "enlightened" folks moving here emit & who suffered here in the winter running generators in garages. and the poor kids in NY who did same--(i hope immigrants learn form this & assimilate)
but the liberal attitide is: forget assimilation to & learning about OUR new culture. if 32 people living in & (sadly) die in a single apartment flat from overloaded space heaters, well, that's OUR fault too, right?
i wonder how my neighbor will like my new (natural) composter toilet on my land just under his kitchen window.
let's adopt a literal SuperKyoto & be noble--imitating those who are EXEMPT from Kyoto will not help us, but will be fair & tolerant & inclusive. how liberal.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 15, 2007 02:46 PMYes, it was called the 'Ice Age', and the Earth has been gradually warming since then. And your point is?
dinesh: So you're saying that eric has no credibility with someone who has no credibility (you)? Do you realize that's a double-negative (a positive)?
Posted by: Larry on March 15, 2007 04:24 PMConservatives are very selective in their skepticism.
Undoubtedly, you people will continue your denial until denial becomes impossible.
There's no point in repeating all of these arguments ad naseum. Time itself will resolve the matter.
America won't reduce its pollution. China will soon surpass America in the realm of pollution. India's following this same path, too. Undoubtedly they will increase their pollution significantly over the next several decades.
Let's see how wonderful this world becomes circa 2050 A.D.
There's no point in dreaming about a solution. Humans aren't equipped to solve this problem. Our species will continue along this path until it reaches its ultimate conclusion.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 15, 2007 04:50 PMFor another opinion regarding climate change everyone is encouraged to read the recent special report by the Boston Globe:
Climate Change Along the 45th Parallel
Not that such information should make any difference to a conservative global warming denier.
Nor will this information make any difference even if conservatives were to become believers: Our government has drunken deeply the kool-aid of perpetual population and economic growth. Humankind cannot reduce pollution because all of the forces are arrayed against finding a solution.
Here is my prediction regarding the future: Humans will continue polluting and the population will continue exploding until these behaviors become impossible.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 15, 2007 05:06 PM> Hey, China and India can pollute all they want. All they have to do is purchase "carbon offsets" like Al Gore and John Edwards.
Undoubtedly, China, India and the United States of America are going to pollute "all that they want."
This is the path which humankind has chosen. This is the path which humankind cannot escape.
A day will come in which China, India and America won't pollute any longer. All three nations are dying in the grandest form possible.
I don't have any hope whatsoever for humankind to change its evil ways. Pollution will increase until Nature forces humankind to stop.
Nature will solve this problem. Humankind cannot.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 15, 2007 05:10 PMhttp://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/03/the_great_globa_1.html
> The feature is over one hour and concludes that this is the results of "sun spots" and gives proof that the earth has been warmer 1200 years ago ...
Now, HW, seriously ... do you really believe that pumping millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere has no impact upon the climate?
Also ... would you say that humankind's destruction of entire ecosystems (such as the Amazon Rain Forest) has no impact upon the climate at all?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 15, 2007 06:49 PMyour ignorance regarding climate is astounding. Climate changes daily and has nothing to do with polution or co2. man made co2 is one third of the .054% total co2.
Fact is that the governmwnts of the word pay for this myth and the USA government pays fools like your 4 billion dollars a year to spew your trash.
get educated on the subject and spend an hour then tell me you know it all.
> Climate changes daily and has nothing to do with polution or co2. man made co2 is one third of the .054% total co2.
Oh ... so the issue is settled?
HW, are you in favor of pollution?
Do you believe that pollution is good for the environment?
It is good that 2009 is coming quickly. Conservatism ran out of intellect, ideas and intellectual energy a long time ago.
From your writing you have not watched the post, give it an hour before you respond or are you on the payroll?
Posted by: HW on March 15, 2007 08:05 PM> Science is never settled.
Wisdom thy name is conservative.
Thanks for your insight, HW.
> From your writing you have not watched the post, give it an hour before you respond or are you on the payroll?
There is nothing new nor revelatory in the video. It is the same old denialist song & dance.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 15, 2007 08:11 PMI did not claim to watch the video. I have not watched the video. But I have read plenty of responses to the video already ... on all sides of this issue, too.
There is nothing new in the video. Nothing at all.
Nor is there anything new in either the original post or all the discussion which follows. At least there isn't a meteorological report ... snowflake here, snowflake there ... hey, it's winter!
There isn't any sort of global warming argument occurring here. The argument ended a long time ago.
So what are we arguing about?
How's the weather, HW?
Do you deny that the climate is changing, HW?
Is the Earth becoming hotter or cooler, HW?
If you want to have an argument, let's have an argument. Otherwise there isn't any need for us to argue.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 15, 2007 09:04 PMUniversity of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.
Mathews you are closed minded and didn't watch the post so what are you tlking about?
Posted by: HW on March 15, 2007 09:32 PMFor those who did not see the picture Smokie is referring to, click here.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 15, 2007 11:16 PM> It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth
Huh?
> He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
What?
This is silly, HW. You can do better than this.
If you think the world is going to end in the next 25 years, be our guess. But for many of us who have been around longer than you. This is just another worthless claim by people looking to control everyones lives. ___Stalin still lives amoung fools.
Go back to your hole or where ever you live and talk with your fellow moonbats. Because I have a feeling the only reason you come to this site is because everyone has kicked you out of theirs!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 16, 2007 07:07 AMI have never claimed that the world is going to come to an end in twenty-five years.
Do you have any sort of opinion regarding pollution, Army Medic? Or did you miss this subject in school?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 16, 2007 07:33 AMWhy do you rarely answer a question? My belief is that in your arrogance you believe everyone to be inferior to you. Often you don't answer an argument, you just make insulting statements, like Huh, or This is silly, HW. You can do better than this.
How is that type of response supposed to change anyone point of view. You don't offer a rebutal to the argument, you just insult.
You are a poor advocate for those who believe that global warming is a problem.
If you cannot make a reasonable comeback, perhaps you should just shut up until you can.
BTW, not everyone that posts is a conservative. That appears to be a lable you put on people when they don't agree with you. Once again an insulting non productive argument.
Posted by: REBEL on March 16, 2007 07:42 AMThe arguments brought up by HW merited those responses.
If the conservatives here really wanted to argue about global warming they wouldn't talk so much about the weather.
These consevatives are pleased to assert their own ignorance, so how can I engage in any sort of argument with them?
What these conservatives need -- more than anything else -- is a basic education in science.
Do you have an opinion about global warming, Rebel? I won't argue with anyone who doesn't have an opinion.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 16, 2007 07:59 AMWhat these conservatives need -- more than anything else -- is a basic education in science.
Bona fides, David? Do you have an education in science? Because if you do, you are doing a poor job of demonstrating it. You also are doing a poor job in logic. Have you had any education in that?
All your arguments basically boil down to "man is doomed and all you conservatives are too stupid to believe me."
What is missing from any of your arguments is logical explanations and facts and any real scietific understanding. Your understanding of science seems to consist of "the majority of politically oriented scientists say that man is causing global warming." Your basic premise consists in the fact that man is causing polution, polution is not natural, therefore, any polution is bad. Nothing scientific about it. you beg the question (hence your inability to understand ligoc) and come to the conclusion that since pollution is bad it must be the cuase of global warming.
Any time someone asks you to discuss specific points and back them up with facts, you can only reply with ad hominem attacks. Effectivly you call them scientifically illeterate and not worth the time to "educate." I think the reason you are unwillig to "educate" is that you are unable to. you have no facts. It certainly isn't because you have no time. You have time to post often and verbosely on this blog, but it is simply the repetition of the same factless assertions and personal insults.
Do yourself and all of us a favor, spend your time in a productive manner and use your time to start "educating" us. I think you won't because you cannot, and your only response to this post will be be to bluster as usual or ignor it. Prove me wrong using science and logic if you can becuse my logic and science education (liberal arts college where logic was a requirement, degree in physics) requires soemthing more substantial than you are currently providing.
Also, have you sold your car yet? Have you disconnected your air conditioner? If not, then your carbon footprint is probably bigger than mine and you may lack the moral authority to tell me how to live.
Posted by: eyago on March 16, 2007 09:12 AMWhat these conservatives need -- more than anything else -- is a basic education in science.
Bona fides, David? Do you have an education in science? Because if you do, you are doing a poor job of demonstrating it. You also are doing a poor job in logic. Have you had any education in that?
All your arguments basically boil down to "man is doomed and all you conservatives are too stupid to believe me."
What is missing from any of your arguments is logical explanations and facts and any real scietific understanding. Your understanding of science seems to consist of "the majority of politically oriented scientists say that man is causing global warming." Your basic premise consists in the fact that man is causing polution, polution is not natural, therefore, any polution is bad. Nothing scientific about it. you beg the question (hence your inability to understand ligoc) and come to the conclusion that since pollution is bad it must be the cuase of global warming.
Any time someone asks you to discuss specific points and back them up with facts, you can only reply with ad hominem attacks. Effectivly you call them scientifically illeterate and not worth the time to "educate." I think the reason you are unwillig to "educate" is that you are unable to. you have no facts. It certainly isn't because you have no time. You have time to post often and verbosely on this blog, but it is simply the repetition of the same factless assertions and personal insults.
Do yourself and all of us a favor, spend your time in a productive manner and use your time to start "educating" us. I think you won't because you cannot, and your only response to this post will be be to bluster as usual or ignor it. Prove me wrong using science and logic if you can becuse my logic and science education (liberal arts college where logic was a requirement, degree in physics) requires something more substantial than you are currently providing.
Also, have you sold your car yet? Have you disconnected your air conditioner? If not, then your carbon footprint is probably bigger than mine and you may lack the moral authority to tell me how to live.
Posted by: eyago on March 16, 2007 09:13 AMYes, I do have an opion on global warming, however, that is irrelevant, the science is what matters. There is too much controversy for me to wet my pants over this just yet. HW gives you quotes and source for his quotes from noted scientists, yet since that doesn't agree with your beliefs you give him sarcastic non-answers to rebut the claims of the source he quotes. It seems to me that if your claims are valid you would not have to resort to that type of argument. You still call everyone who doesn't agree with you a conservative. That is patently untrue. I am NOT a complete conservative. The reason I say that is that in some things I am Liberal, in some things, mostly where the government wants to interfere in my life, a conservative. Some people might call me a centrist. Beats me, I just have feelings about certain issues. By the way you always throw out the word conservative as though you are calling a name, I have to deduce that you are a stinking, died in the cloth, big government loving, socialist, liberal Son of a Bitch.
I have discovered that you libs are:
Closed minded.
Unable to learn new things.
Love to blame America first (this of course is due to an underlying hatred of America).
Most of the time you don't answer direct questions (you try to change the subject)
My opinion of Global warming is that there is not enough conclusive evidence that humans (meaning Americans) are the cause of global warming. I do see that it is occuring though. It just doesn't scare me like it does you.
Posted by: REBEL on March 16, 2007 09:29 AM
Posted by: David Mathews on March 15, 2007 07:57 PM
Is there one of your "prophesies" here DM? Because I for one am not interested in waiting until 2050 for proof positive that you're a loon.
The Global Warming Lobby is the same way. They have basically spread Global Warming into Global Climate Change, so that they can basically apply it to any weather pattern.
1) Active Hurricane season? Global Warming/Global Climate Change.
2) Inactive Hurricane seas? GW/GCC
3) Above average snowfall? GW/GCC
4) Below average snowfall? GW/GCC
5) Above average summer temps? GW/GCC
6) Below average summer temps? GW/GCC
7) Colder than average winter? GW/GCC
8) Warmer than average winter? GW/GCC
9) Above average forest fires? GW/GCC
10) Above average rainfall? GW/GCC
11) Shrinking glaciers? GW/GCC
12) Growing glaciers? GW/GCC
13) Drought? GW/GCC
14) Floods? GW/GCC
It's almost like Nostradamas predictions. They are so vague, that just about any prediction can be loosely related to some actual historical event.
The only difference is we don't have the media forcing the validity of Horoscopes or Nostradamas on us every day like we do the Global Warming Lobby.
And let's also be clear, there is the "Science of Global Warming", and there is the "Lobby of Global Warming". And they are two very different things. The science of global warming has evidence, but is inconclusive and impossible to draw anything more than speculation from. The Global Warming Lobby is more of a religion, or cult of sorts. It makes wild leaps of faith based loosely on inconclusive science (as the Intelligent Design Lobby is often accused of, ironically). If you have a differing view, you are mocked and shunned at best, viscously attacked at worst. The high priests of the Church of Global Warming are often like the high Clerics of Islam or high Pastors of TV Evangelists. They preach sacrafice to the masses, but live in the lap of luxurey themselves, on the dime of the masses. Yassir Arafat and Jim Baker both come to mind. Al Gore can take his place along side those two.
That said, I am all for conservation (ironically enough, "conservatives" should endorse "conservation"), fewer emissions in America, etc. Do what we can, without negitively impacting our economy to much. Obviously we know what polution does locally. Remember the all of the Smog alerts in LA in the 80's, or the Acid Rain in the Great Lakes area?
A buddy of mine just got back from China. He was over there for a month for his job. He was in an industrial city (I forget the name) for his project. HE said it was SOOO polluted with coal soot that visability was maybe 1/2 mile. One day the winds changed and blew the smog out of the city. He said from his hotel, there was this very large high-rise about 1 mile away. He had never seen it before. Not even at night, and it was all lit up at night.
I was watching "China's Mega Dam" on the History channel the other day. They said that something like 47% of the rain in China is acid rain!
Holy Cow!
So...I don't want to live in China, and I don't want the US to look like China. So I am all for less pollution. We can directly see and measure the negative effects of pollution. So lets stick to the facts, rather than the Church of Global Warming jumping to wild conclusions about the Global effects US emmissions and fuel consumption are having.
Besides, if the Church of Global Warming was REALLY concerned with anthropogenic global warming, they'd attack the area that's the most polluted, China. Why don't they put their resources into attacking the most glaring blight on the Earth? Oh yea...because the communists will put them into a deep, dark jail cell if they do...
Much more safe and comfortable to wage the war on Global Warming from your limousines, private jets, and mansions in the US, while attacking people you know can't actually get mad and jail you for it.
Gotcha...
America haters never (or rarely) actually move out to demonstrate walking the talk. wonder why?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 16, 2007 10:22 AMDave needs to go
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 16, 2007 10:37 AMHowever fun it is to call Gore a limousine liberal, (and he is), anthropogenic global climate change is happening. For 30 years our representatives have been aware of it while living in denial on their island of Hy-Brasil and sucking the tail pipes of the energy and transportation lobbies who want to make their yacht payments while they can. In 2006, a car's average fuel consumption is actually worse than that of a Model-T.
You really have to check your head if you are criticizing management of emissions from burning carbon fuels. Ask yourself what the benefits are from reducing them - investing in new technologies and creating less pollution. What's the argument against that? It costs money? So did all these satellites, hubs,and switches we take for granted while we post here.
Whether or not climate science is imperfect (as if that isn't freakin obvious to anyone who checks a weather forecast), if you are not into doing things better, then what are you into?
Not sure if you were replying to my post or not, but I did advocate conservation and reduction of pollutants. Let's just not lie about what's going on, and let's try not to break the economy in the process of continuing to burn cleaner and more efficiently. (Which I, and everyone should be for, within reason)
And I am not justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, merely saying that crusaders shouldn't be wasting their time slapping around the shop lifters when the murderers and rapists are running around free and unchallenged.
The China thing is not a canard. In raw numbers, we in the US still use a little more fossil fuels than China, and hence our "carbon output" is still a little larger (although they are closing that gap each year, and will overtake us soon). Carbon output is not my point at all, actual raw pollution is, and China has us beat in that by a LONG way.
When was the last time the US has 47% of it's rain acid? When was the last time we had rain acidic enough for concern? LA used to have smog warnings all the time in the 80's, now it's only occasionally.
When was the last time the pollution was so bad in a US city that you couldn't even see a high-rise building 1 mile away from your own high-rise?
I didn't even get into my freind's stories of the Chinese people urinating and defacating in the streets that he witnessed. That's another topic.
Maybe we have more carbon output than the average Chinese, but there are 3 times more of them, and it's the state that's doing all of the damage, not the individual Chinese citizen.
I am not really that concerned about our CO2 output in the terms of "carbon emmisions" I am more worried about CO, NOx, SO2, particulates, etc.
China produces several million more tones of SO2 per year than we do. Plus it's on the rise, while ours is 1/2 of what it was in 1970, and will fall off more with the increased use of Ultra-low sulfur diesels, biodiesel, and desulfurization of fuels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/08/04/2003321732
And a really great article that summs in up nicely.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008277
"Since 1970, carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S. are down 55%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate emissions are down nearly 80%, and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by half. Lead emissions have declined more than 98%. All of this has been accomplished despite a doubling of the number of cars on the road and a near-tripling of the number of miles driven, according to Steven Hayward of the Pacific Research Institute."
To put it another way, a 2007 Ford F150 puts out far less polutants than a 1968 VW Microbus with 250K miles today, even though the F150 uses more fuel. While the F150 produces more CO2 (non-toxic gas), the VW puts out more NOx & CO (both are toxic) as well as particulates due to it's lack of emission controls and it's inefficient combustion, and leaky seals as it billows smoke out the back as it limps down the road.
We're the 2007 F150, and China is the '68 Microbus blowing smoke out the back. Which one do you want driving through your neighborhood?
My point is there's a lot more to the equiation than just the raw fuel used. What that fuel gets turned into on the other side is hugely important.
Man does that say a bunch.
Were talking about warming here. If you heaven't read, China is having terible smog problems because the have no pollution controls. Not because of their carbon output. And bringing a model T into the talks is down right stupid!
I could go on & on, but why. Try reading the many post on GW. The UN and many goverment people (LIB's) want it to control us (USA) and others.
Why is it that CO takes such a long time to catch up to the warming of the planet. That alone blows the CO theory out the window.
Ah heck why even beat on this anymore. If you think CO is the boggy man of this world, be my guess. For the rest of us who really think about it, we don't buy it.
Let's keep in mind that the Model T had all of 20 HP, 45 MPH top speed, and absolutely no features.
Per Wikipedia, the Model T got about 13-21 MPG.
My Ford F150 with a 5.4 liter engine which has around 300 HP gets about 14 MPG around town and 17-18 MPG on the highway.
So, 15X the power, and I imagine far more than that times in torque. Plus it's probably at least 3X heavier, and can carry 6 people plus a load in the back. To top it off, I'll bet it produces less CO, NOx, and particulates than the Model T.
So let's stick to facts when comparing modern vehicals to the Model T, shall we?
If we wanted to compare Apples to Apples, we'd have to compare the Model T to the most basic econo-box there is today.
Let's take a look at the Model T vs. something like the Chevy Aveo.
Both can carry 4-5 passengers.
The Model T has 20 HP vs. the Aveo's 103 HP.
The Model T has a 2.9 L 4-cylinder, vs. the Aveo's 1.6 L 4-cylinder.
The Model T got 13-21 MPG at very best, the Aveo gets 26-35 MPG (manual tranny)
So, the Aveo has 5X the power, 50-100% better economy, 45% smaller engine, probably over 2X the top speed, all while still producing far fewer NOx, CO, CO2, and particulate emmissions. 5X the power for 50% fewer "carbon emissions".
And that doesn't even take into account comfort, reliability, longevity, and safety features.
If climate change predictions turn out totally overblown, is anyone going to complain about more efficiency, higher mileage, or fewer emissions?
Posted by: Acid Brain on March 16, 2007 12:39 PMIt's a technology frontier
And we are not? We produce the most food at a very low cost and a small use of land. We go to space all the time. We build the best planes in the world. GPS was started by us and the internet that we are using right now.
When fuel becomes a problem we will come up with another source.
That's the whole point of a market based, capitalist, free economy. Resources are a function of technology, supply is a function of demand. If there is no demand for new technology, then there won't be much new technology, and especially if resources are abundant for the current technology.
By many expert estimates, we've used up about 1/10 of the world's total oil reserves. And that's based on everything we know today. We might find even more oil in the future, and there are many places we have not allowed ourselves to look. Not to mention huge reserves of other fossil fuels such as natural gas. Oil is an excellent fuel, it has great energy density, and the costs as well as the infrastructure per gallon are in place now. There is an opportunity cost with any new technology, that will borne out when demand for oil rises to the point that cost are high. And that's not artificial cost, that's actual cost. As supply dwindles, and that changes with known supply, demand will be created for new technology, and that gap will be filled as it always has been.
Think back to even 25 years ago. Things we take for granted today, would have been shocking at the time. There is absolutely no reason to doubt continued innovation, and the role that will play in changing market supply and demand. History shows this to be true.
Anyone that thinks humanity is just going to sit by idly and run out of any given resource, and allow that to appreciably lower the basic quality of life that we know it, is just plain crazy. If folks are that deluded, they can easily subject themselves to that lower quality of life right now by moving to a third world country. But why would anyone choose to suffer in that manner? It's against human nature to settle for less once a better life is known.
And the incentive to innovate answers to today's problems is more than enough to fuel invention.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 16, 2007 01:32 PMGo to almost any other country, and short of nearly draconian legislation in some of the northern EU socialist countries, you will find the US to have far higher standards. The general higher cost of living in this country also has a positive effect of making our resources more valuable and thus much likelier to be protected. The value of the American worker for example, is at an all time high. We have much better safety in construction not only because of decent regulation, but also because due to the amplification of technology and heavy equipment, better knowledge, etc. the average worker is much more valuable today. We simply cannot afford to lose a good worker today. And farmland can't afford to be used without better crop rotation, etc.
Free market economies float the value of everything around them, and tend towards efficiency as a means to growth.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 16, 2007 01:51 PMUnderstood, thanks for the clarification. I've heard that analogy before when talking about fuel economy, and I just wanted to adress it in general.
On the subject of automobiles, many new models have such low emissions, they are virtually undetectable. Compare that with other countries who don't use as much energy, but use much more poluting devices such as older cars and raw, coal-fire plants. While the US is the largest user of energy in the world, it doesn't mean we are the biggest polluters. Far from it.
What I love is when you see some Hippy microbus driving down the road, spewing smoke out the back, when some anti-Bush/Pro-environmental sticker on the back. It's Hillarious because they are polluting more than that Hummer H2 that's passing them.
I am a fan of energy conservation and alternative fuels from a much more nationalistic point of view. I'd like to be energy independant.
I cringe with I see the far-right say things like, "Well, if we converted all of our crop land to corn, we couldn't produce enough ethanol to run all of our cars. So the whole ethanol thing is a dead end". That's stupid. Just because it's not the silver bullet, doesn't mean it's not one of several silver bullets.
Ethanol, Biodiesel, increased domestic drilling (ANWR, coastal, etc), Nuclear Power, BTL (Biomass to Liquid) diesel, etc. are parts of the solution. No one thing is the sole answer.
I come from farm country. We have a lot of land sitting idle in CRP. If you started to phase out CRP, while phasing in some temporary incentives to farmers to switch to new crops, you can get them off the Farm-welfare, by producing crops there is literally an INFINTE demand for.
Jeff B. made the point that we may have only used 1/10 of the world's oil reserves. And I agree with him about market supply and demand. But the fact is a lot of that other 9/10 (if that is accurate) is not in the US. It's in areas of the world that are often volitile and/or hostile to us like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela. Even Mexico can get honorary mention there at times it seems. OUr dependance on Mexican oil I feel has a large influence over DC's reluctance to reform immigration and secure our southern border.
So if we have to sell our soul out to get that oil, I think that's bad for America. Put farmers to work, but domestic oil fields to work. PUt oil shale reserves to work, but coal to work (gassification, clean coal, etc.) And importantly, but some brand new US Nuclear plants to work. And I am all for alternative power were feasable. Over in Central Washington, in the Columbia gorge near Vantage is a blighted high-desert area that gets a lot of wind. You aren't ruining any pristine coasts or anything. Put some big wind farms in there if you want. It's a great place for it. The problem with wind and solar power, is it's not dependable. What happens when you have high demand on a cloudy, windless day? You get a brown out. You can't store AC power. There is a technology called a "Flow Cell" which is a giant chemical battery. This would allow wind farms to store up energy during times of high wind, and them suppliment energy during times of low supply or high demand. But until that comes of age, you always have to have dependable backup power. I.e. Coal-fire, nuclear, hydro-electric, Natural gas, etc.
All alternative power can do right now is to reduce fuel consumption in dependable power generation, it can't actually replace anything on the grid. If it's night, and there's no wind in the US, and it's December, you need to be able to open up the flood gates, or turn up the NG, or lower some more fuel rods into the reactor to meet demand.
But, where feasable, I am all for alternative power. It just makes our coal, oil, water, Uranium, and NG reserves last longer than they would otherwise.
Whatever we can do to be energy indenpendant, and tell the Arabs and Chavez where they can stick their oil, I am for. :-)
Diesel cars. The real crime/incompetence in US policy and the environmentalist lobby has been the utter shunning and ignorance of diesel cars.
For example, Ford makes a diesel focus. But they don't sell it in the US. They sell it in the UK, and it gets around 45 MPG. About the same as a Prius. the difference is you don't have a complicated electrical system to maintain, or batteries to replace.
I am not sure why, but the US has had really screwed up views of diesels. I guess everyone remembers the VW Rabbits that were gutless and spewed black smoke out the back, or the old Chevy diesel which was an utter failure. But a modern VW TDI is quite clean and gets 45 MPG, which as much zip as any economical smaller car.
Why does every US Automaker not sell a diesel car and or light truck in the US? Ford also makes a Diesel Ranger they sell in Australia. Gets about 30-35 MPG. Why don't we have a mid sized diesel engine for SUV's and 1/2 trucks. You could have a Ford F150 or a Dodge RAM 1500 that gets 25 MPG highway, with all the torque of a 5.4 liter gasoline engine. Why not???
I agree that hybrids are a bit of a bandaid. I think we need to see more purely electric cars, and diesel cars. Pure electric cars for people who live in cities where they have a lot of short commuting. And R&D to make the batteries in those cars last much longer, rather than the old 100 year old lead-acid batteries most use.
And then diesel cars for those of us who have long commutes, or just drive enough that the range of an EV is not feasable.
Today's few EV's have a pretty short range, but what if you had an EV with a 200 mile range that could be charge from a 110V or 220V plug in in 4-6 hours. Suddenly it fits into a lot more peoples' driving habbits. Plus, no oil changes, no gasoline, no spark plugs, no tune ups, no mufflers to change, no warming them up on a cold day, no coolant to fill, no starter to go bad, no air filter or oil filter or fuel filter to change, no head gaskets to start leaking, etc. etc.
The problem with a hybrid, is you have the "best" of both worlds, but you have the worst too. You have all of the maintenance of a gasoline car, with all of the maintenance (batteries) of an electric car.
Ban DM!
Posted by: HW on March 16, 2007 03:38 PMFurther more, and this gets to the point Bill Cruchon made, it's portable. Yes, power for EV's doesn't magically spring from the ground. It has to be generated somewhere. However, we can generate electricity from a whole buffet of sources. Nuclear, Geo-thermal, Hydro-electric, NG, wind, solar, coal, oil, etc. But we are vary limited on what we can power our vehicals with. Electricity, liquid petroleum fuels (gasoline and diesel), Gasious petrolium fuels (propane, NG), biofuels, hydrogen gas, and hydrogen fuel cells.
And only a few of these fuels are supported by infrustructure at this point. Liquid petroleum fuels, biofuels, and electricity are about all we are set up to distribumet right now, so that limits our truely viable options.
You can't run your car off of a nuclear reactor, but you can run it off electricity from a nuclear reactor. Same with coal, geo-thermal, hydro-electic, etc. Not to mention, even fossil fuel power plants are more efficient on converting chemical energy to electricity than a car is in converting it to mechanical energy.
Electric motors convert electricity to mechanical power at well over 90% efficiency. So, you can basically turn a gallon of petrolium to mechanical energy at least as efficiently from a power plant to an EV as you can from your gasoline car, if not moreso. In addition, when you are converting fossil fuels into electricity in a power plant, the plant is a stationary location, not bound by weight. So they can put as much emission controls, scrubbers, and catalytic converters as you want, without it effecting the process. However, as you add those things to your car, it adds weight, which then reduces the efficiency of it, not to mention increases maintenance costs. The cleaner your car is, the less efficient it is. You bypass this with EV's.
I've heard these arguments a lot against EV's and ethanol. And these are the reasons I dispute them.
In fact I'll give another example. Pneumatics. I work in this industry. Take a lumber mill for example. Air compressors are horribly inefficient at converting electricity to mechanical energy via compressed air. It's about 10% efficient. An electric motor converts electricity to mechanical energy at over 90% efficiency. SO why doesn't a lumber mill use electric motors on all of the log skidders and saws rather than pneumatic ones? Two reasons. First, maintenance. You centralize the maintenance. You have some large air compressors, and you have a few guys who keep an eye on them and keep them running. They get to know them and get very efficient at maintaining them. Air tools and air motors are very simple and dependable, and don't require much supervision like electrical equipment does. Second, and more importantly, safety. Pneumatic motors don't produce any heat, and therefore, you elmininate the fire hazard of a hot electric motor getting full of sawdust.
So, to make a short story long, many places use pneumatecs rather than electricity or IC engines, even though it's horribly inefficient. But the advantages in other areas outweight the inefficiencies. And I view increased EV on the road as this same thing. Even though you have to generate that power somewhere, there are a lot of bonuses. Plus you have the option to make that electricity from something other than fossil fuels, or from fossil fuels you can't run your car on like coal or oil shale, or even from biomass.
The same with ethanol. While I still am not convinced it's a negative energy balance as some claim, it will become a moot point as we streamline it, and move to cellulosic ethanol. Don't put blinders on by looking at it so narrowly.
Not to mention how much you shorten up the supply line with biofuels. You don't need to drill it out of the ground half way around the world and them protect it as it makes the long, slow journey to the US. Biofuels never go ourside of our borders. Much more stable and secure. That fuel supply is uneffected by civil war in the middle east, a tanker being bombed or crashed, or a pipeline being blown up.
And most importantly, every dollar spend on biofuels goes to Americans, not rich Saudis.
I can see that the level of discourse hasn't improved a single bit. It appears that conservatives have run out of steam regarding this whole global warming issue.
There's no need to argue because nothing at all is going to change.
We'll just have to accept reality as-it-is and future generations will have no choice except to live with the consequences of our own bad decisions.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 16, 2007 06:55 PMQuite the contrary, the level of discourse was improving nicely until post #77 when you piped up with another drive by ad hominem, refusing to actually address an issue with facts and proving that I was right in my assessment in #53.
Posted by: Eyago on March 16, 2007 07:17 PMHere's a little morsel for your hungry ears.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, no friend of either Al Gore or the environment, has this to say about the present conditions of this world:
"Energy poverty is a scourge, shortening the lives and impairing the health of untold
millions of people around the globe. An estimated 1.6 billion people lack access to
electricity, and some 2.4 billion people still rely on traditional biomass—wood, crop
waste, and dung—for cooking and heating.84 Daily indoor air pollution for these people is
many times dirtier than outdoor in the world’s most polluted cities, and kills about 2.8
million people a year, most of them women and children.85 Reliance on traditional
biomass also takes a heavy toll on forests and wildlife habitat.
"The real inconvenient truth is that nobody knows how to meet current much less future
global energy needs with low- and non-emitting technologies.86 It is not moral to put an
energy-starved world on an energy diet."
Marlo Lewis, Jr.: A Skeptic’s Primer on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth
I watched this man on C-SPAN this afternoon and was not impressed with his "refutation" of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
So I visited the CEI website and read the above. Seems like this world is in really bad shape -- 2.4 billion impoverished, deprived people.
What should we Americans do for these people, Eyago?
Can't we sacrifice our excess for their sake?
Is that too much to ask?
Here's a little tidbit from this same Marlo Lewis, Jr. fellow who is a CEI proponent of fossil fuel usage and opponent of restricting pollution:
"AIT: Gore accuses Exxon Mobil and a �few other oil, coal, and utility companies� of
running a �disinformation campaign� designed to �reposition global warming as theory,
rather than fact.� He compares this �technique� to the tobacco lobby�s attempt to foster
public �doubt� about the link between smoking and lung cancer. (AIT, p. 263)
"Comment: Two clicks of the mouse reveals that Exxon Mobil acknowledges global warming as a fact,
takes the potential risks of climate change seriously, and invests considerable sums to improve its energy efficiency and develop low- and non-emitting energy technologies. By comparing non-alarmists to�tobacco scientists,� Gore in effect says that anyone who disagrees with him is a corporate shill whose views and motives do not deserve respect. If the media were to adopt this attitude, then Gore and his allies
would monopolize the public conversation on global warming. A more self-serving line of argument is hard to imagine."
(p. 111 of Al Gore's Science Fiction )
Well, it seems very much like the Competitive Enterprise Institution acknowledges that Global Warming is real, is happening, and is a byproduct of human pollution of the Earth.
ExxonMobil seems to agree with this conclusion, too.
I wonder why conservatives continue to deny those things which their leaders already concede?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 16, 2007 07:55 PMCan't we sacrifice our excess for their sake?
You can ask yourself that same qustion. I'll ask it for you. Have you sold your car? Have you disconnected your air conditioner? Are you planning on using the money saved from the above two sacrifices to help third world citizens have better energy?
My answers to those questions:
1. I work from home
2. my spouse uses public transportation
3. we have adopted three children with medical conditions from third world countries and are working on #4.
Difference between you and me:
I do what I believe and not try and force others.
you do NOT do what you believe but try and force others.
And you still have proven my point in #53.
Posted by: Eyago on March 16, 2007 11:54 PMPersonal sacrifice is commendable but this is a case in which national sacrifice is essential. The United States of America is not entitled to consume 25% of the world's resources and pump 25% of the pollution into the atmosphere.
The United States of America needs to make substantial sacrifices. What sort of sacrifices should the United States make on behalf of the billions of impoverished-deprived people of the world?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 17, 2007 04:44 AMThe problem with your approach is that everyone is looking for everyone ELSE to do something. Now, if all those limosine liberals and hollywood elites and rich politicians and people like you actually DID something, then the whole country would start to change. But all you can do is talk while spewing out your carbon emissions and then wonder why nothing is getting done. You think the problem is "America". No, the problem is that no one who acutally believes in something is willing to actually DO something.
Start with yourself. Convince all your buddies, who ALREADY believe that change is needed, to actualy change (it really should not be hard since they truly believe that doom is imminent without change), and then you can show the rest of the country, BY EXAMPLE, how wonderful your life is with such a low carbon foot print.
I can already do that, I installed a very expensive heating system in my house on purpose, an extra $10k out of my pocket so that I could use 1/2 the energy to heat my house as I might normally need. Of course, I'm not foolish. In the long run, they system I put in will pay for itself.
Any good program will work that way. Take mass transit. It WILL work, but only if those who really think it SHOULD be working will get out of their stupid cars and start creating the demand. But instead, they whine and moan about traffic while they sit in their singally occupied SUV and say that "America" has a problem. Nope, THEY have a problem. They are too...to put it in your terms...fat and greedy and self-indulgent to make a personal sacrifice. If everyone who believed in mass transit got out of their cars, mass transit would instantly be a success.
And finally, since I am on this particular soap box, if those same people who beleive in alternative energy invested their own personal money into companies that develop such things rather than in stockes for the sole purpose of getting rich then maybe there WOULD be enough capital invested to develop new energy sources. But instead, they buy cars and gas and luxuries all the while writting letters to the editor deploring the greed and wastefulness of everyone else.
I said it before, if you really want to change the world, you have to start with yourself. Be bold David, eschew the decadent, American, bourgios life-style and embrace the what you claim to believe. Then start showing your greenie buddies how to do it and start a grass-rots revolution (what a great day to begin a green crusade, St. Patricks day where everyone celebrates by wearing green). But until then, shut up. I really don't want to hear what should be done until I see you doing it better than I am.
Posted by: Eyago on March 17, 2007 10:12 AMHere's a couple of links that might explain it in more detail:
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
The long and the short of it, is it's simplier right now to produce ethanol from the sugary parts of certain plants like corn, sugar cane, soybeans, and sugar beats. However, humans can also consume these same parts and digest them, creating the "food vs. fuel" debate. The bulk of the plant is cellulose, the fibrous portion that some herbavours can eat, but we cannot. They would be the corn husks, (also called "stover", I misidentified it early as "talo"...my bad).
This basically means for every ton of agricultural product, you have far more actual material you can convert to ethanol. In addition, the ethanol you get appears to have at least a little bit higher energy content.
Cellulosic food stocks have a much wider range of products. From corn stover, to saw dust, to switchgrass. Switchgrass is good because it grows like a weed (which it sorta is), it's very hearty requiring very little water, and once planted, it doesn't need to be replanted. It's like hay, it grows and you take various cuttings from it each year. This means it could easily be farmed in arid areas that are too dry for regular food crops.
But this is where the real potential in ethanol is. It elinminates the question of having to chose between food and fuel from the same stalk of of corn, and it really opens up a lot of options for feedstock.
Right now, it's still in development, and it'll take a lot of refinement and streamlining to get the extra costs of the extra processes worked out.
HEre's an excerpt from one of the articles:
"Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstocks and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock, is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is fermented into ethanol.
Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining dry mass.
As with grains, processing cellulosic biomass aims to extract fermentable sugars from the feedstock. But the sugars in cellulose and hemicellulose are locked in complex carbohydrates called polysaccharides (long chains of monosaccharides or simple sugars). Separating these complex polymeric structures into fermentable sugars is essential to the efficient and economic production of cellulosic ethanol."
Posted by: Brent in Spokane on March 19, 2007 11:50 AM