Cancun Climate Summit on Global Warming.

No kidding. Because CO2 isn't the only thing that affects climate. In this case, increased amounts of aerosol emissions due to industrial activity are largely to blame for the cooling. Pollution controls in the '70s cleared this up and temperatures spiked.

The rest of the arguments in your post are also similarly flawed and missing the bigger picture.

 

My point was that there is a lot of misinformed people (myself included) and misinformation out there.

I now know that the EPA, NOAA, and USGS are great places to start seeking the facts.

Conservative type guys at work, dismiss global warming. Search around the internet. Many people don't believe in it. Don't worry about me. I seek answers from authoritative sources. Worry about those who'd rather keep spewing false information from the media, etc...

 

That's really the problem, cycledrum. You're willing to do a bit of work. This is a massively complex issue. No one has all the answers, but most people want to be told what to believe and they will generally accept information that confirms their worldview. Humans are not rational creatures, even the most logical people are governed by their emotions. That does NOT mean that we're not capable of accepting and assimilating new information/ideas. However, most people just want to be told what to think, and they will listen to the voices that tell them what they want to hear.

 

They could (intelligently) discuss various economic or political motivations for taking or avoiding actions concerning increasing CO2 releases. That is needed, even if various types get upset or strongly support a specific action.

The tactic of calling every single individual who does environmental studies part of a big global warming hoax is looney. It's just like when I hear a right wing commentator state that the Prius is a worthless vehicle. I'm conservative by nature, but stupidity is not a value I want associated with conservative politics.

 

No - I've held that position for a long time (I do drive a Prius for a reason) but still think the global warming issue is blown vastly, vastly, out of proportion. Unfortunately, from an environmental perspective, it has pretty much sucked all the oxygen out of the room to the extent that truly significant environmental issues (such as habitat loss and species decline) get little attention.

 

Unless we curb global warming - the result will drastically increase habitat loss (look at how fast corals are bleaching due to record warm ocean temps, for one example) and species decline.

 

Was reading Wiki about electric cars today. They say, in the US, an electric car would emits 30% less CO2 than a conventional, on average, which is ok, but we'd like to see better of course. That must be an overall cradle to down the road assesment (sp?!)

anyhow, I'll keep my eye on the big dogs - the EPA, NOAA, etc... I'm not going to say they and the world authorities are a conspiracy, no way.

 

The nice thing about electric cars is they have a massive upside from an emissions point of view. The current problem is that the grid isn't very clean, thus the poor emissions ratings for EVs. However, the grid is getting cleaner and it's already possible for someone to produce the electricity need to power their car. The later will get more and more common over time.

 

I think it extremely rude to edit someone else's post(s) to reflect your own opinion, especially when it changes the entire context of that quote!

If you don't have the intellectual capacity to form your own thoughts and commit them to writing, don't take my words and twist them around so say (and or imply) that they mean something entirely under the guise of "editing for clarification!"

I would appreciate it if you would either delete your post, or at the very least, fashion your own argument to justify your opinion!

Thanking you in advance!

Icarus

 

Electric cars have a number of potential ways to reduce emissions beyond the obvious. One big way is the potential to have two way commerce in electricity. For example, we buy ~15 million cars a year. If 1/2 of the were plug ins, after 5 years we would have ~35 million electric cars. Each of these cars would of course buy from the grid, but in fact as most cars sit 22/7, they could be plugged into the grid during nearly all time. This disaggregated series of cars would/could then act as a large battery bank that could serve a couple of functions, both of which reduce emissions. The first is that they could store solar/wind/hydro energy that otherwise might not have a market and various points during the day. Second, and perhaps more importantly, these cars could sell their battery reserve power back to the grid at time(s) of peak demand, allowing the utility to reduce the idle, spinning capacity that always has to be available for the next light bulb to be turned on. This is perhaps the most wasteful, and the most emission intense energy of all, because nearly all of it is going to was, not being used at all. It is like an idling taxi, waiting for the next fair.

While this seems like pie in the sky scenarios, all the technology currently exists, (inverters/meters etc) The car could be programed for example to do the following scenario. I want to drive 30 miles home tonight so reserve me enough battery to do so. I will then, sell power to the grid when it will pay me say $.15/kwh when I have the extra power to sell. Buy power back from the grid to top up my battery when the grid price is say $.10 kwh.

In the time between now and when I go home, the grid might require power for a total (random times ) of say 60 minutes. The grid might have excess capacity for say 120 minutes. I might get a full battery, and have a net cost of that energy to me, of $0.

This way every one wins. The utility gets peak capacity without having to invest in it, or keep it running, I get cheap flexible energy, and the planet wins by cutting down on net emissions.

Icarus

 

My humble apologies. I will delete.

I would like to say though that you really ought to stick with what you know and have seen. Unlike most on here, you have seen first hand the effects of warming on the Arctic. There is no need to get caught up in the theatrics, sensationalism and name calling. Leave that to the other dweebs.

Love always,
spiderman.

 

No harm no foul, thank you!

I am not sure what you are referring to as, "theatrics, sensationalism, and name calling"

I stand by my opinion of above. Calling an idea or a campaign "moronic" is not name calling, it is opining. If I call some one "a moron" it would indeed be name calling. Calling ones ideas as moronic or idiotic, (or even smart) is sort of name calling.

Icarus

 

Youre taking advice from someone ,who cant bring himself to actually watch the film?
Chogan's self imposed ignorance is appalling.
Its not scientific to ignore any evidence which doesnt fit the hypothesis.
Yet hes willing to dismiss the most eminent scientists in the world,interviewed in the film.
Pier Corbyn the astrophysicist has been in the news recently.
It appears his theory of predicting weather and climate by analyzing the Sun ,has been extremely accurate(compared to mainstream science).The UK Met completely missed any forecast of the recent record cold in the UK.
Corbyn predicted record lows 6 months ago.
His accuracy has been 85%.
The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game - Telegraph
"Piers Corbyn believes that the last three winters could be the harbinger of a mini ice age that could be upon us by 2035, and that it could start to be colder than at any time in the last 200 years. He goes on to speculate that a genuine ice age might then settle in, since an ice age is now cyclically overdue."

 

You mistake efficiency for ignorance. But that's just me. I like to know what I'm talking about. For example, I would never tout some guy as being a super-accurate weather forecaster without at least bothering to ping the Wikipedia. You know, maybe, check whether or not that is true? The sections on 2007 and 2008 forecast accuracy are particularly risible.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn"]Piers Corbyn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Oddly, while the newspaper article focuses on how bad the British Met's long-range seasonal forecast is, the British Met seems to say that ... they don't make a long-range seasonal forecast. October 2010, they went out of their way to say that they hadn't made a winter forecast, and reports to the contrary were wrong.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2010/probability-forecast
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100305b.html

I'm not ignorant, I just check facts to the extent necessary.

 

If you ignore the film you are IGNORANT.
Theres no 2 ways about it.
Youve prejudged your conclusion.
Yes Ill follow up on your links.
If hes wrong in the past then I want to know about it.
But presently hes right and mainstream science is wrong.
Your quote sounds like what the church said to Galileo.

 

The UK Met was incorrect in their forecast ,so now they no longer make long term(a few months) forecasts?
But the IPCC presumes to forecast 100 years into the future.
Corbyn does make forecasts and is more accurate than conventional science.
So whom should we believe?

Basically the links you provide are an admission that conventional science cannot predict weather beyond 5 days ,if that.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/rel...ility-forecast
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20100305b.html

 

Deleted. I am now following Darelldd's edict.

 

mojo - please do your own research and try to understand the difference between weather and climate. When you're done, come back and let us know what you think of your quote above.

I believe that chogan2 has come to the realization that it's not worth his time arguing with someone about weather/climate/ignorance who does not understand the difference.

 

Climate is what youre supposed to get ,weather is what you end up with.

Corbyn is saying both are determined by the Sun,not CO2.
IPCC Dessler says warming must be caused by CO2 "because theres no other explanation."
Corbyn has another explanation,and the brilliant minds here choose to ignore.
Im not saying Corbyn is correct,his predictions may be pure coincidence.
My point is if you ignore him and others ,you are not embracing science.You are simply perpetuating mythology.
Plain and simple.

 

Britain was hoping for warming, but ended up with the coldest winter in 1,000 years!

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: News :: Winter may be coldest in 1000 years