UK Coal Train - Hijacked

[Anonymous]

Throwing fewer pollutants into the air is a good thing, but is CO2 a pollutant?  We exhale it.  We know that man's use of fossil fuels creates CO2, which is added to the atmosphere.  Volcanoes do the same.  Plants consume CO2 and reduce its total atmospheric quantity.  And an increase in CO2 causes the growth of more plants that want to consume it. 

Most of the world's CO2 is a component of ocean water.  A natural warming cycle warms the oceans, which releases additional CO2 from ocean water into the atmosphere, so how do we know whether the CO2 is increasing because of what man is adding and thus causing warming; or whether natural warming is causing the oceans to release CO2, which then shows as an atmospheric increase?

Considering this ever changing, complex system of CO2 production and consumption, do we really know the total quantity of CO2 in the earth's ecosystem and whether it is increasing or decreasing?

[Paul Milenkovic]

My employer consumes up to five 100 ton hopper carloads of coal per day in a district heating plant, and I am told as much as 70 percent of that goes to the makeup air in lab fume hoods, you know, the kind analytical chemists rely on so they are not poisoned by their workplace.  The "greens" are in an uproar that this dirty, profligate use of coal must stop, but it does many useful things, like work on effective treatment for childhood cancers, discovery of the next generation of antibiotics, the study of stem cells to treat degenerative diseases and yes, provide office, lab space, and cooling of computers for internationally-renowned atmospheric scientists at the forefront of global warming.  Of course many people fail to see the connection from that ugly central heating plant, with the Wisconsin and Southern blocking their drive home switching blocks of coal hopper cars, and all of the wonderous "discovery and knowledge industry" things taking place here.

Funny thing, our Faculty Senate has organized a Gaia Project for the whole faculty to get involved on all levels on the Global Warming problem.  I was on an unrelated tour of a new research building and noticed unused lab fume hoods with doors partially open.  If it were me, I would have big signs plastered all over the place, "Thou Shalt Close the Glass Doors on the Fume Hood When Not in Use So We Don't Pollute the Biosphere with the Coal Smoke Used to Heat the Warm Air Going Up Out the Vent on the Roof of the Building."  I asked the scientist hosting the tour about this, politely as it were, being that I am just a dumb engineer and I am

seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.

. 

This scientist didn't know the right way to leave fume hood doors when the hoods were not in use.  I bounced this off the head person of the Gaia Project (remember, the 500 tons of coal per day that Wisconsin and Southern switches to our district heating plant), was refered to the head guy of facilities, and haven't gotten a response in 6 months.

The problem of the coal usage will probably get "solved" by a mass natural gas conversion, the State of Wisconsin taxpayers will foot the fuel bill, and homeowners like me who work at conserving will take it on the chin with yet more expensive gas owing to higher demand.

Yes, outline the state of uncertainty in global warming, an I get called

seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.

.

Engage in the practice of leaving the doors wide open on idle fume hoods, with no one among this vast collection of PhDs being able to answer about the proper state doors on fume hoods not in use (what do I know, maybe they need to be open a crack for circulation for residual fumes, but no one seems to know), and you get called a leading research university with scientists leading the consensus on global warming.

[J. Edgar]

 

.

 

Something I have never understood is why this discussion and debate on climate change is divided along political lines.  For me, that is troubling because someone is probably really wrong.  And I for one will trust a Nobel Prize winning scientist over a politician any day, anytime.  

Wayne 

 

so...Al Gore getting a Nobel ...counts him as an award winning scientist?

Come on, I wasn't speaking about Al Gore and you know it.  I was referencing respected scientists and not retired politicians.  But if I were you I'd be very reluctant quoting from the likes James Inoke and John Coleman.

Mr. Inoke is a Senator from Oklahoma with extreme views on most anything relating to scientific research.  He is an ardent supporter of creationism (aka: Intelligent Design) and would like to revisit the dark ages by banning the teaching of evolution in schools.   

And your favorite weatherman John Coleman is just that, a weatherman.  A weatherman in San Diego where predicting weather is something even I could do.   Yes, he was the founder of the Weather Channel but has no credentials on long term studies of global climate change.  I would love to see Mr. Coleman, or you, reference just one peer review article refuting what most main stream scientists feel about climate change.  To add insult to injury, John Coleman has been refuted by the organization he belongs to, "The American Meteorological Society."  This organization has , on more than one occasion, stated that "The evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."   

So, I'm not asking for much...just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I've mentioned in this thread.  Not something you may have read on a blog, or something a friend may have told you, or something you may have heard on a talk show somewhere.  The name of the article, the Journal and the date of publication would be fine.

Wayne 

 

like its been said....you can believe want you want and i can believe what i want....the "politician" i quoted from the Senate floor 2006 DID use facts from various Gov'n studies.....and stood in front of the country and called it a hoax....do i trust politicians? no.....do i trust "scientists" that really on gov'n grants to do their studies? no.....can i explain "global warming"? no.....can i explain UFO's?....no....can i explain bad airline food?.....no.....do i care about my childrens future?...yes.....can i explain the difference between Baker gear and Joy gear?...yes...and i agree with others here....this thread had gotten way outa hand and way to "political" for a respected and wonderful RR forum.....at the risk of sounding redundant.....so whats up with airline food...that stuff is heartburn in styrofoam....oopps...no stryofoam allowed...it depletes the OMGzone

one final thought though.....i do relish the fact we CAN express our personal views and look forward to sharing ideas and thoughts with you all in the future....now im going to increase my "carbon footprint" before im told to turn off the AC

[sfcouple]

So this is now a global warming post....

And what ever happened to the hole in the Ozone layer?

 

Unfortunately it is still there; however, the science studies for 2007 show that the hole has actually shrunk in size from 2006, which is a bit of good news.    Perhaps the reduction in use of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) has helped.

Wayne    

[Paul Milenkovic]

However the small energy conservation measures (often called tips on being green) are indeed knickknack remedies when compared to the size of the goal,

As you indicated by the 24" of fiberglas in your walls, reduction in heating needs are hard to achieve without either drastic remodeling of existing houses or change from house-based to tenement-apartment based living patterns.

Even the tips for "green driving" are perhaps of marginal, maybe 10 or 20 percent saving for the most conscientious practitioner. 

But my tips for reducing electric use -- I have demonstrated electric use of about one third of a median value -- these are perhaps knick-knacky things, but they really work.  Some of the things, like weighing baskets of clothes to determine optimal dryer settings, constant monitoring of indoor and outdoor humidity gauges to control the A/C, constant monitoring of dehumidifiers to see that their humidistats are working and that the units are not stuck in constant on until they become blocks of ice, hacking the microprocessor on a high-efficiency furnace to make sure it is high electric efficiency, these are engineering freak things today that will become standard features on appliances tomorrow.

In the face of this, I support increase in electric transmission and coal-fired generation capacity to the displeasure of my "green" compatriots.  We are in a crisis situation with regard to oil, and affordable electric power is a direct substitute for sky-high oil in home heating.  The current "green" agenda is to drive electric conservation with ever higher electric rates.

[selector]

Well, I think it is good that we can have these discussions.  I don't think any of us, or many of us, would disagree that it is important enough to get a solid handle on the matter...even if it is just to laugh at the end and say we had it all wrong.  The fact is that we are all in it together, and we'll all experience what comes to pass.  So, we should try to be kind to one another and think hard and learn all we can.  It would be better for everyone of us if we have a large core of "doers" who help us to overcome whatever problems befall civilization.  If it it to be global warming and its after-effects, then let's work together, not at cross purposes.

I do worry, seriously, about getting locked into a mindset.  If any of you are interested, go to  http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/ and look for this Wednesday's episode of "How to think about science".  The entire series, now several months long, is devoted to interviewing luminaries who have cautioned us to question where science is going these days.  For this week, Leo Smolin of the Pyramid Institue for Theoretical Physics worries, quite articulately, that we seem to be towing a familiar, perhaps facile, line in physics these days, and that we seem to be quelling the iconoclasts who actually further our understanding.  It gets campy, once politics drives something, to talk a certain talk, but it shuts out the great leaps of vision that Einstein had over Newton for example.  Any great advance we have made has some from a lone voice that gets it, not from the legions of naysayers.

To all of you, even though this thread has taken an off-topic cant, it doesn't have to go bad, or get personal.  Let's be courteous and enjoy some banter, maybe some real education from someone with the learning, and try to keep it friendly and ongoing.  I don't want to have to be a participant and a bug squasher at the same time.  It is uncomfortable for me.  And as much as it may seem silly to say it, I like all of you.  Based on what I read in this thread, you are a lot of nice, interested, interesting, and learned people.  We, on each side of this, have some real fears.  Lets try to help each other out.

-Crandell

[Anonymous]

So this is now a global warming post....

When I was a kid growing up in Western New York in the 1980s and 1990s, we had snow that would stay. I could build a snow fort with my dad that would last a month and get taller by the end of March.

 In 1985 or 1986, all the snow melted for a day and it turned 80 degrees, in MARCH!

 In 1995, I didn't have any snow in my backyard for three weeks in January. It only rained.

 In 2005, I could walk through my neighborhood with only a light jacket, on Christmas Day.

 This year, one week in February was as cold as I could ever remember -- four days with single digits and sub-zero windchill.

 In the 1660s there was a mini Ice Age in which the Swiss thought their homes would be swept away by glaciers and many important food crops failed. 

 In the 1930s, the Great Plains of the U.S. faced the longest, dryest period in the past 200 years, we had the "Great Dustbowl."

And what ever happened to the hole in the Ozone layer?

 You know, this is all anecdotal evidence. No one is going to be able to prove or disprove global warming or its causes any more than the same team of scientists can prove the existence of God. It will take decades to accumulate the evidence to "prove" anything.

I'm not saying it isn't so, I'm just saying it does sure seem different out there and I don't know why. 

[zugmann]

 All the changes that are propsed are all GOOD things in and of themselves (global warming or not).  Using less electricty (through knickknack lights and more green homes and buildings) and saving money is good.  Throwing less pollutants into the air is good.  Can anyone argue with that? 

As far as the weather channel?  They are just prostitues to their advertisers.   Of course they'll say global warming is a myth - either that or risk losing sponsors like Chrylser and their Dodge Rams....

[Anonymous]

Looks like Wayne and I are in the minority...

I may be wrong, but I seem to be the only person here (unless there are any other teens) who'll live long enough to see any of these changes affect the world. Call it what you like; but even if global warming isn't actually caused by humans, it still doesn't mean we should just keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if it's not causing all of the glabal warming, it certainly isn't "good", is it?

That's my final post on this thread; it's doomed to be locked/deleted soon anyway...

[Paul Milenkovic]

And yes sir, the chemistry of global warming is rock solid whether you want to believe it or not.  And no sir, my last paragraph does not need re-wording.  However, you are seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.

What was in my post that suggested in any way that I had any doubt that the "chemistry of global warming is rock solid", that is, that the mechanism by which increases in the amount of atmospheric CO2 at the current levels of concentration indeed increase the amount of heat input to the climate system?  I referred to those who had doubts about this mechanism as being "on the fringes."  What makes you say that I am believing or even agnostic about that view?

I also wrote that the computer models were forcasting much larger increases in temperature for years forward than the amount of temperature increase observed to date, and that the computer model forecasts were based on the hypothesis of one or more positive feedback mechanisms amplifying the effect of CO2 alone in trapping heat. 

These feedback mechanisms relating to changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover, I had reasoned, were more speculative than the "rock solid" science of CO2 radiation bands.  In the past two years, in fact, I had attended a seminar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in Atmospheric Sciences, where the speaker addressed these feedback mechanisms, presented a "back of the envelope" atmospheric model based on the Hadley tropical, temperate, and polar circulation bands, and presented evidence that the amount of 21st century warming could be at the low end of the prevalent forecasts, and what warming would occur would be tempered by increased wind circulation transfering that heat to higher latitudes.  This talk was received in a friendly spirit from a small classroom full of weather and climate scientists.

So when I speak of uncertainty in the assumptions regarding fluid mechanics, cloud formation, and water vapor saturation in the tropical zone, how is it that I am outside the mainstream of scientific knowledge on this matter? 

You claim that your last paragraph that the world oil economy is "treating the planet as a giant garbage pit" does not require rewording.  This is a popular forum, and I was speaking to the separation between the more free discussion here and the more carefully-worded discourse of scientific publication.  Do the editors and reviewers of the journals you publish in allow sweeping, emotionally-laden generalizations to go unchallenged?  Have you published anything of a scholarly nature where you were not politely, or even forcefully, been asked to change the wording of anything?

My response on this forum indicated I was "seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology."  What fallacy of logic or fact did I make?  You suggest I need remedial courses in biology and ecology.  Why?  The global warming concern is largely based on the "rock solid" foundation of physical chemistry, something on which we are in agreement.  You are by your assertion an analytic chemist and missing from your list is that I need remedial courses in physical chemistry, thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics, which are at the foundation of scientific understanding of global warming.

I did make a remark that had relied on biology and ecology, and I was referencing Freeman Dyson's recent remarks that the peak rate of CO2 uptake by the biosphere was large compared to the rate of fossil fuel and other emission, and that Dr. Dyson was of the opinion that there was hope that CO2 emissions were not overwhelming the Earth's carrying capacity.  Freeman Dyson is a mere mathematician with some reputation for performing derivations in support of theories of the electron that merited other scientists the Nobel Prize.  I don't know if he actually received a Nobel Prize, and his mathematics was in support of work in physics recognized that way.

He is not a biologist, ecologist, or atmospheric scientist, although he had spent part of his career working on the global warming problem by his admission at Oak Ridge some years before it became fashionable.  You made a remark about how statistics can be manipulated.  They can also be interpreted, and Dr. Dyson showed genius as a young man in service of his British government, determining that the Germans had a type of weapon to down British planes, purely by force of statistical inference.  It was only many years later it was revealed to him that the Germans had an angled gun mount on their fighters named "Slant Music", the German word for Jazz, that allowed attack of the British planes from their blind spot.  The same man is an octagenarian scientist drawing on a lifetime of scientific, mathematical, and statistical experience to express the hope that the global warming problem is not as grim as some believe. 

Is Freeman Dyson disqualified from expressing such views owing to lack of qualifications or political bias?  Does the same critique apply to Paul Milenkovic, an electrical engineer who has taken personal action to demonstrate that drastic reductions in household electric power are possible, yet supports coal fired electric power plants as an interim step to allow people to stay warm in their houses in the face of high oil prices?

[sfcouple]

 

.

 

Something I have never understood is why this discussion and debate on climate change is divided along political lines.  For me, that is troubling because someone is probably really wrong.  And I for one will trust a Nobel Prize winning scientist over a politician any day, anytime.  

Wayne 

 

so...Al Gore getting a Nobel ...counts him as an award winning scientist?

Come on, I wasn't speaking about Al Gore and you know it.  I was referencing respected scientists and not retired politicians.  But if I were you I'd be very reluctant quoting from the likes James Inoke and John Coleman.

Mr. Inoke is a Senator from Oklahoma with extreme views on most anything relating to scientific research.  He is an ardent supporter of creationism (aka: Intelligent Design) and would like to revisit the dark ages by banning the teaching of evolution in schools.   

And your favorite weatherman John Coleman is just that, a weatherman.  A weatherman in San Diego where predicting weather is something even I could do.   Yes, he was the founder of the Weather Channel but has no credentials on long term studies of global climate change.  I would love to see Mr. Coleman, or you, reference just one peer review article refuting what most main stream scientists feel about climate change.  To add insult to injury, John Coleman has been refuted by the organization he belongs to, "The American Meteorological Society."  This organization has , on more than one occasion, stated that "The evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."   

So, I'm not asking for much...just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I've mentioned in this thread.  Not something you may have read on a blog, or something a friend may have told you, or something you may have heard on a talk show somewhere.  The name of the article, the Journal and the date of publication would be fine.

Wayne 

 

[canoncityxp]

Let's see......coal power pollutes the air & water, atomic plants are dangerous, wind turbines offend the NIMBY's as unsightly & noisy , natural gas electric plants will kill your budget and hydro-dams destroy the habitats of the yellow-pimpled bog frog.  I give up.  I'm moving my track outside ( to use the natural sunlight ) and I'm going to convert all my engines to spring wound, hand crank prime movers.  Not going to catch me wasting energy !  Are any "green" model railroaders with me ?  Or was that a collective ....NOW WAIT JUST A MINUTE.!!....I heard from the Al Gore fan club ?  Al Gore....the hypocrite that burns more electricity in his compound than a small town.

[Anonymous]

Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory.   Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge.  

... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).

Wayne  

Yes, but not this theory.  If somebody comes forward with new information that challenges this theory, they will be told that the debate is over.

Not necessarily, at least in the scientific community.  Theories are always being challenged, modified and changed---it is the very essence of scientific research.  Wayne 

I hear what you are saying about the discipline of science.  And maybe the scientific community is as open-minded as that discipline demands.  But nearly all news media and politicians are telling us that the debate is over.  I have heard it a hundred times.  They tell us that it is settled science or a scientific consensus, and therefore, there can be no challenge to the theory.  They brand skeptics as deniers, hoping to stigmatize them with all the sinister baggage that word implies.  That does not sound like science to me.

You say the theory of MMGW has been challenged and always been shown to be correct.  But is it shown to be correct based on a scientific refutation of the challenge, or is it shown to be correct by the declaration that it is beyond questioning?    

[J. Edgar]

but realy folks....how bout that airline food......

[J. Edgar]

 

.

 

Something I have never understood is why this discussion and debate on climate change is divided along political lines.  For me, that is troubling because someone is probably really wrong.  And I for one will trust a Nobel Prize winning scientist over a politician any day, anytime.  

Wayne 

 

so...Al Gore getting a Nobel ...counts him as an award winning scientist?

[sfcouple]

Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory.   Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge.  

... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).

Wayne  

Yes, but not this theory.  If somebody comes forward with new information that challenges this theory, they will be told that the debate is over.

Not necessarily, at least in the scientific community.  Theories are always being challenged, modified and changed---it is the very essence of scientific research.  Einstein challenged Newton's theory of Gravity and as a result we have a new understanding of our universe.  And there are times when this is not just an intellectual exercise: Einstein's theory of relativity is needed everytime one uses a GPS system.

What needs to be kept in mind regarding the theory of climate change is that it has been challenged and has always been shown to be correct.  A true scientific study is a very rigorous exercise with many checks and balances.  Is this current theory of global warming absolutely 100% correct?  Of course not.  But instead of quoting politicians how about naming a scientific study, that has refuted the current theory?  A scientific study that has withstood the pressure of peer review, that has made verifiable predictions, and that has the capacity to be proven false.  It is one thing to have opinions, but we all have to deal with the same set of facts.

Let's all try to imagine what our country would be like if we had no air pollution laws in effect.  If cars had no pollution controls of any kind, if industries could discharge anything they wanted into the air and into our drinking water supplies.  In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote a book "Silent Spring" vividly demonstrating how indiscriminate use of DDT can have a disastrous effect on our environment.  She was right then, and those who study climate changes are probably right today.        

Something I have never understood is why this discussion and debate on climate change is divided along political lines.  For me, that is troubling because someone is probably really wrong.  And I for one will trust a Nobel Prize winning scientist over a politician any day, anytime.  

Wayne 

 

[Mailman56701]

  Morons.  Hope they get max penalites allowed by law.

  Global warming ?  pffffft.  Same "world is ending" hysteria clowns that screamed y2k would be the end of the world, have latched onto this gem.

  I wonder what they'll come up with next, when the global warming balloon bursts.

[Anonymous]

Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory.   Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge.  

... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).

Wayne  

Yes, but not this theory.  If somebody comes forward with new information that challenges this theory, they will be told that the debate is over.

[Anonymous]

There is a huge disconnect between the sacrifice of nearly eliminating CO2 output, and the little knickknack remedies such as changing light bulbs and keeping your tires properly inflated. Saying over and over, "We just need to do a lot of little things" does not make it true.

Tire inflation is perhaps a percent or two difference in your car gas consumption, and if you are using electricity for a main source of heat, such as domestic hot water or space heating, whether through resistance or heat pump, there is not much you can do in a cold climate unless you want to risk freezing to death (hypothermia, and this will be a real concern for those having trouble this coming winter paying for $4+/gallon home heating oil and may be dialing thermostats way down because they lack the money).

But there is enormous potential for cutting way back on home electricity consumption by the combined influence of "knickknack remedies such as changing light bulbs."

Our local power company Madison Gas and Electric has a Web site where you can find the electric and gas usage of anyone in their service area if you know the street address.  I compiled my own list of monthly electric usage of members of the faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, leaving off some newly hired assistant professors living in apartments or with unlisted home addresses -- the entries on my list are all for stand-alone houses.

The low was 236 kWHr/month, the median 729 kWHr/month.  The high of 3789 kWHr a month was for the outgoing UW Chancelor, who happens to be a faculty member of ECE.  You can excuse the Chancelor living in the Chancelor's residence because it is this massive old structure, and I suppose the Chancelor has to leave lights on a lot because numerous official receptions and other hostings of university visitors takes place in that residence.  But it may say something about the UW, being at the forefront of the IPCC and the climate debate but being an electricity scofflaw with its own buildings.

The low of 236 kWHr/month, by the way, is for a suburban stand-alone house as mentioned in a Northern climate where heat and hot water comes from natural gas, but this household has an electric range and oven, electric clothes dryer, the house is air conditioned with the basement dehumidified all summer, and it has forced-air heat requiring an electric blower to distribute the heated air. 

The collection of "knicknack remedies" include 1) extensive use of motion detector lights and fluorescent lights, 2) not leaving lights on all of the time and using low wattage fluorescent of night lights for lights that must be left on, 3) use of the clothes dryer in timed mode -- the automatic setting runs and runs and often dries clothes more than needed, 4) control of the AC and dehumidifiers and switching to open windows by monitoring humidity gauges, 5) an EnergyStar refrigerator and high efficiency (13 SEER) central air, 6) a variable-speed DC-motor furnace blower (Carrier Infinity) along with some homeowner programming of the settings following instructions in the owners manual to restrict the unit to the 56,000 BTU/hr low heat mode, to operate at only 600 CFMs in the continuous blower mode, and to operate at 1000 CFMs matched to the 30,000 BTUs of air conditioner capacity.

The 246 kWHr/month electric usage has the carbon impact of driving 4700 miles/year.  The median electric usage of 729 kWHr/month is the equivalent of driving 14500 miles/year.  The electric use of the chancelor's residence is the equivalent of driving 76000 miles/year.  The next-highest electric usage in the department is 1907 kWHr/month, the equivalent of driving 38000 miles/year.

When a low energy use, achieved by taking some common sense steps, is one third the median use, that suggests that there is potential more than shaving a couple percent in electric use savings in the residential application.  Perhaps the most labor intensive part is adjusting airconditioner and dehumidifer settings based on humidity gauges (it really is the humidity and not the heat that affects comfort).  All that can be automated -- Carrier now has residential HVAC systems that switch from A/C to outside air automatically.

I still count myself in the camp of those supporting the construction of more electric transmission lines and coal as well as nuclear power plants. 

I concur that continued exponential growth in the use of coal and other fossil fuels will result in large amounts of CO2 that threaten multi-degree C increases in global temperature and serious problems, but the .5 to 1 degree C in global temperature of the 20th century is not inconvertible evidence that this process is already happening on account of the natural background of variations.  That I believe the computer models that there will be serious problems following unrestricted growth in coal usage is not saying that I believe the hype that the current "climate signal" is unmistakable.  A lot of the hype is for public consumption outside the scientific community where it is believed that the public cannot understand the hedges, qualifiers, and probabilities expressed in the dry scientific discourse, essentially the difference in language from the body of IPCC and the Executive Summary statement that gets all of the press, and this hyped version is doing the scientific community a grave disservice.

I also believe, as I mentioned above, that there is enormous potential to use electricity more efficiently and to conserve without reducing our comfort.  But we are facing a near-term crisis of people not being able to stay warm in their homes at current oil prices, and there is not much conservation can do there apart from massive home rebuilding, and the ability to substitute electric heat for oil would provide much economic relief to people and help stabilize oil prices.

Paul, 

My reference to knickknack remedies had nothing to do with valid measures to reduce energy consumption for either economic or environmental reasons.  I have got 24" of fiberglass insulation in my walls, so I am all for reducing energy consumption.  However the small energy conservation measures (often called tips on being green) are indeed knickknack remedies when compared to the size of the goal, which the proponents of manmade global warming insist must be realized within ten years if we are to prevent runaway climate change that will shortly destroy the planet. 

I am speaking of the goal declared by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% worldwide within ten years, and their stipulation that the most developed manufacturing countries may have to reduce their CO2 by 100% in order to meet the 80% objective worldwide because China and India will probably not make the 80% objective.  And that stated ten-year period to accomplish this goal is probably about eight years by now. 

[sfcouple]

They must be handling science differently these days.  When I went to school, the scientist of integrity didn't claim to have a complete understanding of anything.  They tried to work with hypotheses and theories, but they certainly didn't claim to have a firm grasp on an absolute.  Yet, the global warming proponents insist they have it down pat, and that the rest of us should darn well catch up. 

-Crandell

Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory.   Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge.  One of the three requirements for a scientific theory is the capacity to make predictions that can be tested and validated.  (The other two are: a Theory has to explain the observations in question and secondly, a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).

The chemistry behind global warming is rock solid, the theory about climate change is just that: a theory.   Gravity is just a theory, but it is certainly reliable.  The theory regarding climate change was presented decades ago and exactly predicted what is happening today.  This same theory is predicting what will happen in the next few decades.  Are scientists absolutely correct?  Of course not.  I just think it is foolish and short sighted to have an attitude of doing nothing today and just wait and see what happens 30 years from now.  That is not a world I want to leave my daughter. 

Wayne  

[J. Edgar]

just to fuel the fire.....

from News With Views.com 

Hundreds of scientists reject global warming. December 21, 2007. A new U.S.
Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists - experts in dozens of
fields of study worldwide - who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of
nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.
"Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling - all part of the
natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years,
caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," said research
physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments for
atmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and NASA."

from Icecap.us

Weather Channel Founder:  Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History'    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/ Intro by Joe D'Aleo, Icecap, CCM
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time.  John currently works with *** in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment. I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, I.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.  See John's full blog story here.. See John's forecast blog on the *** site here.

from the US Senate Speeches archives at www.thomas.loc.gov....Library of Congress\Thomas Legislative Library 

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006

I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change.

Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time speaking about the facts regarding global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Last year, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.

During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.

SUMMARY OF LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING HOCKEY STICK

First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the "smoking gun" of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called ‘hockey stick' temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.

This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his "Hockey Stick" come under severe scrutiny.

The "hockey stick" was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the "hockey stick." http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort. Dr. Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." When the "Hockey Stick" first appeared in 1998, it did just that.

END OF LITTLE ICE AGE MEANS WARMING

The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

[J. Edgar]

They must be handling science differently these days.  When I went to school, the scientist of integrity didn't claim to have a complete understanding of anything.  They tried to work with hypotheses and theories, but they certainly didn't claim to have a firm grasp on an absolute.  Yet, the global warming proponents insist they have it down pat, and that the rest of us should darn well catch up. 

Run away.  Run far away.  Their dogma is dogma still.

BTW, was it not announced that 31K scientists around the globe had signed on to a petition to kill the global warming agenda?  Why are astrophysicists not chiming in with the notion that our star, a flare star, goes through 22 year cycles, and then cycles of other orders that impose their own climatic variation?  Or is that just a less well understood theory not worthy of more conjecture?

Why have others calculated that the oceans and swamps and lakes produce quantities of CO2 that dwarf, by orders of magnitude, what are known as anthropocentric derivations?

So many good questions, but for sure we need to get millions of acres into corn production so that we can produce more CO2.  I guess that passes for logic in schools these days.

-Crandell

 on a similar note....."they" are saying in 50 years the icecaps will melt......when was the last time "they" predicted next weeks weather correctly??....and yes 31,000 scientist (9,000 of which hold Masters degres in Physics) from around the world did inded sign a petition stating, on their reputations, that "global warming\climate change" was a hoax a phalicy a piece of doo-doo.....and again the "mainstream media" dismiss that.....yet they give "quack" scientist air time to tell ya...."yup global warming is true......and the world isnt round.....its shaped like a burrito"

[Railway Man]

Crandell, all due respect, but while your masonry work on that wall you're building might be according to Hoyle (even if I don't like the pattern or the color), it's a wall that's not on the blueprints for this building.

RWM

[sfcouple]

Paul,

My reference to being pseudo-scientist was in reference to another posting.  I am a retired analytical chemist and know full well that green plants use carbon dioxide in their normal metabolic processes.  And yes sir, the chemistry of global warming is rock solid whether you want to believe it or not.  And no sir, my last paragraph does not need re-wording.  However, you are seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.  

Wayne 

[selector]

They must be handling science differently these days.  When I went to school, the scientist of integrity didn't claim to have a complete understanding of anything.  They tried to work with hypotheses and theories, but they certainly didn't claim to have a firm grasp on an absolute.  Yet, the global warming proponents insist they have it down pat, and that the rest of us should darn well catch up. 

Run away.  Run far away.  Their dogma is dogma still.

BTW, was it not announced that 31K scientists around the globe had signed on to a petition to kill the global warming agenda?  Why are astrophysicists not chiming in with the notion that our star, a flare star, goes through 22 year cycles, and then cycles of other orders that impose their own climatic variation?  Or is that just a less well understood theory not worthy of more conjecture?

Why have others calculated that the oceans and swamps and lakes produce quantities of CO2 that dwarf, by orders of magnitude, what are known as anthropocentric derivations?

So many good questions, but for sure we need to get millions of acres into corn production so that we can produce more CO2.  I guess that passes for logic in schools these days.

-Crandell

[Paul Milenkovic]

To get this thread back on track, how many tons per hour was a "tallowpot" expected to feed into a "hand bomber."  This may be a good metric on how many able-bodied young people to bring to your Global Warming protest to unload a hopper car before the police take them away.

[Anonymous]

I'm definetely what some might call a "green freak", I know global warming is real, and it is a serious problem. I am all for the protection of the enviroment, it's not man's world to do what we want with; we just happen to live on it along with a ton of other animals.

What these people are doing isn't exactly very smart though; first of all, it's dangerous, and second of all, it's seriously putting a bad face on us "enviromentalists" to the general public. 

[Paul Milenkovic]

Norman,

I am one of thoe pseudo-scientists you make reference to.  I am now retired and no longer involved in any kind of scientific studies; however, the chemistry behind global warming is rock solid.  Statistics can be used to support just about anything, but you should know that this period of climate change is not just some cyclic event that is repeating itself.  

If you would like to do something interesting, research how many barrels of oil are burned on our planet every single day, 365 days a year.  Hint: the answer will be in the millions and there are 42 gallons of crude oil per barrel.  And then ask yourself, can we really do this for decades and decades without any consequence?  Think about it and use some common sense and logic and ask yourself how long can we continue to use this planet as a garbage pit.

Wayne

Norman,

I am one of thoe pseudo-scientists you make reference to.  I am now retired and no longer involved in any kind of scientific studies; however, the chemistry behind global warming is rock solid.  Statistics can be used to support just about anything, but you should know that this period of climate change is not just some cyclic event that is repeating itself.  

If you would like to do something interesting, research how many barrels of oil are burned on our planet every single day, 365 days a year.  Hint: the answer will be in the millions and there are 42 gallons of crude oil per barrel.  And then ask yourself, can we really do this for decades and decades without any consequence?  Think about it and use some common sense and logic and ask yourself how long can we continue to use this planet as a garbage pit.

Wayne

I am not sure what a "pseudo-scientist" is -- what journals do they publish in?  And if such a person submits a manuscript, what does the review feedback look like?  Maybe something like this.

Reviewer 1: 

The chemistry behind AGW may be "rock solid" -- that increases in CO2 from present concentrations increase atmospheric absorption of ground-radiated infrared and hence increase net "solar forcing" of global temperature is a well accepted principle apart from some writings on the fringe of science attempting to dispute that aspect of physical chemistry and thermodynamics of atmospheric heat transfer.  On the other hand, the dangerously large forecasts for increase in global temperature are derived from computer models, where small increases in heat from increased CO2 are assumed to result in a positive feedback effect on water vapor and cloud formation, which provide the dominant effect on heat balance.  These positive feedbacks are based on best interpretation of available data, but to describe those assumptions as being as "rock solid" as the basic mechanisms of CO2 heat absorption will need to be addressed.

As to World production of oil, the number of about 85 million barrels per day of which around 10-12 million barrels per day come from Saudi Arabia and about 5 million barrels per day comes from one supergiant oil field name Ghawar is something discussed every day on a Web site called The Oil Drum along with inferences on the limits to oil production and evidence regarding if those limits have been reached.  Burning all of the oil releases into the environment water vapor, water being an abundant substance in the biosphere in all three phases, and it releases CO2, a naturally occuring substance of which the natural abundance in the atmosphere is quite low, but all plant life derives its structure and sustenance by converting that low concentration of CO2, about .03 percent by volume in the air, converting that carbon into the bulk of what you see -- grassy fields, tree trunks, corn stalks, and so on.  CO2 is far from a toxic substance to the biosphere at the concentrations in question, and it is only a pollutant inasmuch as it produces an adverse impact on climate.

Burning 85 MBPD is just a number, and whether the resulting emissions of H2O, an abundant substance in the biosphere, and CO2, also an abundant substance but at low concentrations in the atmosphere, but of continued benefit to plant life and tolerable by animal life at foreseeable increased concentrations, constitutes "treating the planet as a garbage pit" requires clarification.  Freeman Dyson recently reasoned that the yearly oscillations observed in atmospheric CO2 are the result of update by plants followed by the release of CO2 from the seasonal shedding and decay of leaves and other plant material, but the fact that there are cleanly observable oscillations indicates that the peak rate of CO2 uptake by plants is large compared to what is emitted by fossile fuel burning, cement making, and logging. 

The last paragraph thus needs rewording to discuss the toxicity or lack thereof of the putative pollutant and to place its emission in context with natural processes.  The author may want to reconsider whether "garbage pit" is an appropriate objective description of the impact of fossil fuel burning on the biosphere.

[Anonymous]

Weather has always behaved by moving from one extreme to another.  From these extremes, you can calculate the average, which by definition has no extremes.  So, although you can calculate an average, that does not mean that weather should be average.  In reality, it seldom is behaving at its average. 

To help advance the climate change agenda, however, the meaning of average weather has been hijacked to mean normal weather, as though any departure from the average is abnormal or even extreme.  This concept of extreme weather is then used to advance the premise that it is evidence of man's impact on the climate.  And of course, since weather is seldom average, this new definition of terms makes for a lot of extreme weather.  So, just because ABC, CBS, and NBC spend 15 minutes each night whipping up hysteria over extreme, wild, wicked, and whacky weather, it does not prove that anything is any different today than any other time in the history of weather. 

[J. Edgar]

just another quicky....things are bad in Iowa and other places...our thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected.....but what about '93?...same weather pattern then....now 15 years later another .....and during the inbetween years?....things were pretty "normal"......who here has lived in Iowa since say....1850....and can say "yup things were way different then i tell ya....we never had tornadas and the rainfall was perrrrfect fer mah crops".....so what is realy "normal" for the area?....