Global Warming does not exist

[Ned]

It is interesting that the debate here mirrors the scientific debate I have been reading for years on the Internet. What seems to be happening in reality is uncertain. The evidence can be read in multiple ways: warmer, colder or no change.

What is clear is that the models have not predicted what is actually happening, indicating that they have not fully accounted for all of the factors. Further and continued research is required.

Also, both sides of the debate should tone it down just a bit.

I personally believe that in the short term, humans can moderately increase the temperatures on earth. But whatever we do is dwarfed by long term natural phenomena, such as sunspot activity, orbital eccentricities or something deus ex machina like a comet's tail we every now and then pass through. (There is an article on this I read some years ago.) Prudence dictates that we make choices to reduce greenhouse gasses assuming the models are correct.

However, think about this: We are at the end of the longest interglacial period in the last million years. We should be heading into another ice age. Perhaps CO2 emissions are holding it off. Do we know whether the any of the models have orbital eccentricities in their calculations?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
This was the best link I could find to answer your questions. Note: I did basically no actual looking

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/MN215596.DTL

That's exactly what I'm talking about in terms of the coverage.

Anybody got a link to the report?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

here you have British take on Bush administration agreeing that there is global warming but that we will have to adopt .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalwarming/story/0,7369,727202,00.html

[Ned]

One thing that we could do in the short-term is a simple regulatory change that would have dramatic effects. As I understand it now, if one builds a solar collector on one's home, for example, that generates more power than it consumes over a given billing, the owner is not given credit for the excess. Imagine, though, what would happen if there rules were changed and the homeowner or business were paid for the net power they input into the system combined with a tax credit for construction of solar collectors. A lot more solar collectors would be built because they would become cost-effective.

[TCO]

Yes, if you subsidize something you will get more of it. Any more brilliant insights?

[Ecthy]

Come on GP. Ned's a bit behind the rest of us in common sense and ability to think logically. So that's actualyl a milestone in the development of his mind. Let's not bee too sarcastic about that

[monolith94]

Pollution is bad.

[Ecthy]

No. Volcanos are bad. And because there can be no proof that human-caused "pollution" causes a significant amount of warming in comparison to natural warming, we should look after our economies first and just go on.

[monolith94]

my honors chem teacher from last year installed solar panels into his house when they got tax credited for them, and he says they worked marvelously in heating his house, cut down his energy needs tremendously.

[Sava]

Global Warming is occuring, there shouldn't be any question about that. Unfortunately, its becoming an "evolution vs creationism" debate. Smart people on the left vs idiots on the right (no political pun intended).

The questions we should be asking are:

How much is the global warming a natural trend, how much of it is due to humanity?

Is global warming going to be harmful to humanity, or helpful? In the context of lands becoming drier/wetter, of course its bad if coastal cities get flooded.

If it is humanity's doing, and if it is harmful, can we reverse it?

Personally, I think on average, global warming is occuring, but the lack of ozone actually creates a greater range of extreme temperature zones due to heat escaping and entering the atmosphere with greater ease. The envelope of greenhouse gases around cities (smog) helps keep the temperatures from hitting those large extremes.

[if I were dictator of the world rant mode]

I would create a controlled temperature environment on the planet with seperate zones as follows (in Fahrenheit):

Tropical (75-100 degrees - high humidity/rainfall
Temperate Zones (55 - 80 degrees - light humidity/light rainfall
Cool Zones (25-55 degrees - moderate precip)
Paradise Zones (75-90 degrees low humidity - little precip)

If people really wanted anything above 100 degrees, or below 25 degrees, I'd put them in a space ship to the sun and pluto, respectively.

[/if I were dictator of the world rant mode]

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Come on GP. Ned's a bit behind the rest of us in common sense and ability to think logically. So that's actualyl a milestone in the development of his mind. Let's not bee too sarcastic about that

Thanks for the kind words, Ecthelion.

GP, actually, if you think about what I said for a couple of seconds more, the regulatory change will simple eliminate a free ride by the utililities. They now do not have to pay for the excess power put into the system by homeowners. Eliminating this free ride by private companies is not a subsidy.

The tax break is intended to incent homeowners to build solar colectors rather than diesel generators to generate home power.

[Dis]

Didn't the middle east used to be a paradise? Obviously the weather conditions do not remain stagnant over time.

I'm sure global warming is occuring. But are humans the cause? And what if we are the cause? It surely isn't worse than us cutting down the rain forest. Either way species will die. As for humans, we will adapt. We always do. We are very versatile.

As for the extinct species? Well I mourn their loss, for it is a loss of a part of us.

but I still don't think that we have done enough in the time since oil was discovered as an energy source to permanently damage the global weather patterns. And eventually the oil will run out. Problem solved!!! (although we have enough coal to last a very long time- same with natural gas). I'm not one of these alarmist who think if we don't stop emission in 2 years the world will come to an end. The weather patterns may change, but then they will change again. Species will adapt. The ones that don't will die off. Simple as that.

As long as those whales that send signals to alien species galaxies away don't die off we will be O.K.

[Dis]

by the way from a post above.

The ozone layer doesn't affect global warming. That is a separate problem regaring ultra violet radiation and those ever-pale Australians . Err I mean chloroflorocarbons. Such stuff as Halon also poses problems to the ozone layer.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ned


Thanks for the kind words, Ecthelion.

GP, actually, if you think about what I said for a couple of seconds more, the regulatory change will simple eliminate a free ride by the utililities. They now do not have to pay for the excess power put into the system by homeowners. Eliminating this free ride by private companies is not a subsidy.

The tax break is intended to incent homeowners to build solar colectors rather than diesel generators to generate home power.

I understand the concept!!

It's just going to increase solar cell usage via a subsidy. Obviously more if excess power is required to be purchased by utilities. (I thought it already was...but that's another story.)

[Ned]

GP, Not in California anyway. A lot of us looked into building solar collectors during the power crisis only to find that if you put net power into the system you got no money back. This changed the calculus just enough so that solar collectors made no economic sense.