Interesting take on global warming from a moderate

[Soonerman 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...789.html?sub=AR

[Korben Dallas 0]

Excellent article Sooner.

 

My only thoughts are this...

 

Perhaps if the petrol industry and the GOP would stop creating dishonest debate on its existance and focus on the engineering part of the issue, we'd have more than 5 or 6 options.

[Soonerman 0]

Excellent article Sooner.

 

My only thoughts are this...

 

Perhaps if the petrol industry and the GOP would stop creating dishonest debate on its existance and focus on the engineering part of the issue, we'd have more than 5 or 6 options.

 

Samuelson is a guy than can be consistently be counted on to frame issues in a different way than the usual left/right paradigm.

 

Thought question for you.

 

What if global warming were real, but was a totally natural phenomenon? Should we attempt to engineer the climate to keep it at it's current state just because it's convenient for us?

[Bigtraine 24]

Very good article. I, unfortunately, agree completely.

[torridjoe 0]

Samuelson is a guy than can be consistently be counted on to frame issues in a different way than the usual left/right paradigm.

 

Thought question for you.

 

What if global warming were real, but was a totally natural phenomenon? Should we attempt to engineer the climate to keep it at it's current state just because it's convenient for us?

 

 

Good thing we know it's not in this case, and we can sanely address those human factors which are affecting it.

 

Samuelson's got a flawed premise: that you can't reduce emissions when growth and population occur. Portland has experienced rapid population and economic growth, yet their emissions are THE SAME as they were in 1990.

[Toro 1]

Good thing we know it's not in this case, and we can sanely address those human factors which are affecting it.

 

Samuelson's got a flawed premise: that you can't reduce emissions when growth and population occur. Portland has experienced rapid population and economic growth, yet their emissions are THE SAME as they were in 1990.

 

:fartsinownfaceandsniffs:

 

Ahhhhhh....

 

Too much smug in Portland.

[Bigtraine 24]

Thought question for you.

 

What if global warming were real, but was a totally natural phenomenon? Should we attempt to engineer the climate to keep it at it's current state just because it's convenient for us?

 

Yes, if it is extreme. If it's going to put millions of lives at risk, or cause another Ice Age, then of course you do.

 

 

Portland has experienced rapid population and economic growth, yet their emissions are THE SAME as they were in 1990.

 

For all practical purposes, do you believe the same can be done in developing nations?

[torridjoe 0]

Too much smug in Portland.

 

That was a hilarious episode, I have to say. "Thaaaaaanks!"

 

Note that nobody is forcing Oregonians to buy hybrids. They just do, because they understand that cars are a major source of harmful emissions leading to warming. Are they the only? No. Will it fix the problem entirely? No. But just because the brakes on your car fail, doesn't mean you let go of the steering wheel.

[Bert 1,098]

Good thing we know it's not in this case, and we can sanely address those human factors which are affecting it.

 

Torrid,

 

You seem to have done alot of research on the issue. I heard in all the noise surrounding this issue that they earth is the warmest it has been in 400 years. Can you confirm or deny this statement?

[Korben Dallas 0]

Samuelson is a guy than can be consistently be counted on to frame issues in a different way than the usual left/right paradigm.

 

Thought question for you.

 

What if global warming were real, but was a totally natural phenomenon? Should we attempt to engineer the climate to keep it at it's current state just because it's convenient for us?

 

Well, if it were-then no. Thankfully, if you read my other warming post of the day, a consensus has been reached that it is not a totally natural phenomenon. Humans have a direct impact.

 

Samuelson has made a couple of points, we probably need to finally start taking the engineering of renewable and non-warming fuel sources much more seriously and quit screwing around with the oil industry position. or we need to start engineering how we are going to adapt to a different world structure.

 

Especially the US, since we've been globally blessed by climate and conditions. I'd hate the to change.

[Toro 1]

That was a hilarious episode, I have to say. "Thaaaaaanks!"

 

Note that nobody is forcing Oregonians to buy hybrids. They just do, because they understand that cars are a major source of harmful emissions leading to warming. Are they the only? No. Will it fix the problem entirely? No. But just because the brakes on your car fail, doesn't mean you let go of the steering wheel.

 

Portland has a great public transportation system too, correct?

[Vikings4ever 496]

Torrid,

 

You seem to have done alot of research on the issue. I heard in all the noise surrounding this issue that they earth is the warmest it has been in 400 years. Can you confirm or deny this statement?

The latest word is that the earth is warmer than it has been in 2000 years.

 

And since global warming is caused by humans, it's obvious that Greeks and Romans were burning lots of fossil fuels.

[torridjoe 0]

Torrid,

 

You seem to have done alot of research on the issue. I heard in all the noise surrounding this issue that they earth is the warmest it has been in 400 years. Can you confirm or deny this statement?

 

I can confirm that I seem to recall hearing that as well. I have not done a lot of personal research, but I understand a scientific consensus when I see one. I haven't done any serious research into vaccinations either, but I accept the scientific consensus and give them to my kids despite the vocal minority claiming they cause autism...

[VikesNation 0]

But just because the brakes on your car fail, doesn't mean you let go of the steering wheel.

Unless you're Doug McKenzie.

[torridjoe 0]

Portland has a great public transportation system too, correct?

 

Pretty good, yes. Certainly better than most US cities. That has helped a lot, too.

 

Unless you're Doug McKenzie.

 

Nice pickup!

[surferskin 30]

The latest word is that the earth is warmer than it has been in 2000 years.

 

And since global warming is caused by humans, it's obvious that Greeks and Romans were burning lots of fossil fuels.

those irresponsible romans...hadn't they ever thought of inventing hybrid charriots?

[Bert 1,098]

I can confirm that I seem to recall hearing that as well. I have not done a lot of personal research, but I understand a scientific consensus when I see one. I haven't done any serious research into vaccinations either, but I accept the scientific consensus and give them to my kids despite the vocal minority claiming they cause autism...

 

I wasn't calling you out it just appears that you have paid more attention than I have and I wanted some confirmation on that number.

 

What confuses me is Soonerman made the comment, "What if global warming were real, but was a totally natural phenomenon?" to which you responded "Good thing we know it's not in this case..."

 

Well what human factors caused the global warming in 1606?

[Soonerman 0]

Good thing we know it's not in this case, and we can sanely address those human factors which are affecting it.

 

Samuelson's got a flawed premise: that you can't reduce emissions when growth and population occur. Portland has experienced rapid population and economic growth, yet their emissions are THE SAME as they were in 1990.

 

Do you have a link to a good article about how this was done? Are the actions taken by Portland readily available to India/China?

 

And of course, even holding emissions steady at 1990 levels really doesn't do much for the prospects of global warming.

[torridjoe 0]

I wasn't calling you out it just appears that you have paid more attention than I have and I wanted some confirmation on that number.

 

What confuses me is Soonerman made the comment, "What if global warming were real, but was a totally natural phenomenon?" to which you responded "Good thing we know it's not in this case..."

 

Well what human factors caused the global warming in 1606?

 

as I said, I haven't done research to answer that question. But we do know that today's warming is occurring, is advancing, and is caused at least in part by human activity.

 

Do you have a link to a good article about how this was done? Are the actions taken by Portland readily available to India/China?

 

And of course, even holding emissions steady at 1990 levels really doesn't do much for the prospects of global warming.

 

What India or China do, has no bearing on what the current #1 producer of warming agents is able to do.

 

And of course, holding emissions at 1990 levels is the Kyoto standard, which means you don't know what you're talking about again.

[Bert 1,098]

as I said, I haven't done research to answer that question. But we do know that today's warming is occurring, is advancing, and is caused at least in part by human activity.

What India or China do, has no bearing on what the current #1 producer of warming agents is able to do.

 

And of course, holding emissions at 1990 levels is the Kyoto standard, which means you don't know what you're talking about again.

 

Fair enough.

 

But it is safe to say it wasn't the automobile that caused the Global warming in 1606.

[Soonerman 0]

What India or China do, has no bearing on what the current #1 producer of warming agents is able to do.

 

And of course, holding emissions at 1990 levels is the Kyoto standard, which means you don't know what you're talking about again.

 

I was asking an honest question and was interested in the information. You are a total ass.

[Birdseed 1]

And of course, holding emissions at 1990 levels is the Kyoto standard, which means you don't know what you're talking about again.

 

I think the point Soonerman was making went over your large head. If we hold emmisions to 1990 levels (Kyoto standard), will global warming level off, or become nonexistent?

 

TIA

[torridjoe 0]

Fair enough.

 

But it is safe to say it wasn't the automobile that caused the Global warming in 1606.

 

Pretty safe.

 

No one's saying warming doesn't occur naturally. What's being said is that the warming occuring now is due in part to human activity, and the warming is the worst seen in thousands of years, natural or no.

 

I was asking an honest question and was interested in the information. You are a total ass.

 

Yeah, all you do is ask me honest questions.

 

 

 

I think the point Soonerman was making went over your large head. If we hold emmisions to 1990 levels (Kyoto standard), will global warming level off, or become nonexistent?

 

TIA

 

I don't understand the point of the question, given that if we DON'T hold near those levels we're in for much bigger trouble. Soonerman's question is like asking, "Should I make do with what I have to stop the bleeding on this cut in my forehead, or throw up my hands and bleed to death?"

[The Elevator Killer 497]

What if global warming were real, but was a totally natural phenomenon? Should we attempt to engineer the climate to keep it at it's current state just because it's convenient for us?

 

The same could be asked about the life ending comet hitting the earth. It's a natural occurance, so should we try to divert it to save the Earth? The answer is oh course.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Pretty safe.

 

No one's saying warming doesn't occur naturally. What's being said is that the warming occuring now is due in part to human activity, and the warming is the worst seen in thousands of years, natural or no.

Yeah, all you do is ask me honest questions.

 

 

A common misconception, and one of the hottest debates in the climate world:

 

The warming was gradual, followed by a increasing spike as the industrial age began. How big of a spike is the debate.

[Soonerman 0]

The same could be asked about the life ending comet hitting the earth. It's a natural occurance, so should we try to divert it to save the Earth? The answer is oh course.

 

Uh, the difference would be that not many are saying global warming will lead to human extinction. There would be winners and losers from global warming. So the question is, is the current climate optimal? How would we know? What justifies intentional climate engineering?

 

 

 

Yeah, all you do is ask me honest questions.

 

Hey, I get my shots in, no doubt. I don't see how what I asked could be interpreted that way though.

[gocolts 300]

Humans have a direct impact.

 

It is arrogant to think that humans can effect the temp. of the earth.

 

That thing in the sky called the Sun is what effects the Earth temp.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Uh, the difference would be that not many are saying global warming will lead to human extinction. There would be winners and losers from global warming. So the question is, is the current climate optimal? How would we know? What justifies intentional climate engineering?

 

 

There are a few that say that extinction is an option, so don't throw that off the table just yet.

 

But the loser and bigger loser is the more likely scenario. But you've jumped to your assumption when asking your loaded question.

 

What justifies intentional climate engineering? Since that is exactly what we are doing right now, I'd say greed, lack of incentive to change and of course the need for energy. We are engineering our climate today with a massive infusion of warming gases. The debate is if we stop the ramp up or slow it, can nature recover to its original course. Is the current climate optimal, if I'm an American it sure is...but if I'm a African, not so much...

[The Elevator Killer 497]

Uh, the difference would be that not many are saying global warming will lead to human extinction. There would be winners and losers from global warming. So the question is, is the current climate optimal? How would we know? What justifies intentional climate engineering?

 

The fact that we have learned from the Earths past what happens when the climate changes. Or we could become fossels.

[Korben Dallas 0]

It is arrogant to think that humans can effect the temp. of the earth.

 

That thing in the sky called the Sun is what effects the Earth temp.

 

Go away, or respond to the butt whipping you got in your own climate thread.

 

At least Sooner engages in intelligent debate.

[Soonerman 0]

There are a few that say that extinction is an option, so don't throw that off the table just yet.

 

But the loser and bigger loser is the more likely scenario. But you've jumped to your assumption when asking your loaded question.

 

What justifies intentional climate engineering? Since that is exactly what we are doing right now, I'd say greed, lack of incentive to change and of course the need for energy. We are engineering our climate today with a massive infusion of warming gases. The debate is if we stop the ramp up or slow it, can nature recover to its original course. Is the current climate optimal, if I'm an American it sure is...but if I'm a African, not so much...

 

See, I would disagree that we have intentionally engineered the climate to this point. It has been a byproduct of using fossil fuels, but no one was aware of that effect when fossil fuel development began taking place.

 

So now after a century of fossil fuel use, we discover we may be having a climate impact. Now we have to make the choice of whether or not to intentionally, consciously change climate in response.

[Korben Dallas 0]

See, I would disagree that we have intentionally engineered the climate to this point. It has been a byproduct of using fossil fuels, but no one was aware of that effect when fossil fuel development began taking place.

 

So now after a century of fossil fuel use, we discover we may be having a climate impact. Now we have to make the choice of whether or not to intentionally, consciously change climate in response.

 

 

I guess I don't understand the difference, regardless of its intention. We artificially contributed trillions of tons of waming agents, thus accelarating or "enginnering" a change. For the sake of avoidance, either a small or large amount of change is expected.

 

we know what the world was like prior to teh industrial revolution, we know what actions are causing it. It would be more like "un-changing" our behavior, or slowing down the race to the bottom.

 

It's not like we are introducing some random new element to the equation. If we were, say, going to spread some CO2 eating element into the air, I'd be right with you.

[torridjoe 0]

A common misconception, and one of the hottest debates in the climate world:

 

The warming was gradual, followed by a increasing spike as the industrial age began. How big of a spike is the debate.

 

Not following you. What's the misperception?

[Korben Dallas 0]

Not following you. What's the misperception?

That the earth has been warming for 2000 years, and thus we are simply experiencing a natural rise. I don't think you mispercieve it.

[gocolts 300]

Go away, or respond to the butt whipping you got in your own climate thread.

 

At least Sooner engages in intelligent debate.

 

Butt whipping

[nobody 2,055]

Torrid,

 

You seem to have done alot of research on the issue. I heard in all the noise surrounding this issue that they earth is the warmest it has been in 400 years. Can you confirm or deny this statement?

 

 

They were some claims and they seemed very, very, very confident in those claims, but it's tough to compare temperature readings that far back because the measurement techniques are so different. You're talking about sampling ice cores and looking at tree rings versus NASA temperature measurements.

 

It's like measuring something with calipers versus measuring something against the length of your finger.

 

But even over the last 150 years of quality temperature record it's easy to see that the rate at which the earth is warming is climbing and that's the real issue.

[torridjoe 0]

That the earth has been warming for 2000 years, and thus we are simply experiencing a natural rise. I don't think you mispercieve it.

 

OK, sorry for the confusion.

[Call me...Tim? 0]

Shouldn't we all be able to agree that, just for a starting point, pumping pollutants (including CO2) into the air in massive quantities is not likely to be good for us?

[nobody 2,055]

I know the solution this so called "global warming" given that the cause seems to be this so called "carbon dixide"

 

What we do is kill off a couple of billon people since we are all running around using energy and also through the simple process of breathing, we are producing a whole assload of carbon dioxide.

 

 

 

Also, the real solution is easier than people think. You don't necessarily have to build machines that don't produce CO2. The easier solution is to build machines that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That right there is what we call "thinking outside the box"

[brinett9 0]

Also, the real solution is easier than people think. You don't necessarily have to build machines that don't produce CO2. The easier solution is to build machines that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That right there is what we call "thinking outside the box"

We have those.

 

We call them 'plants.'