Global Warming Explained

Maintenance/Repairs
61

FYI- Al Gore has refitted his mansion with equipment to make it use less energy than it did when he moved in.

FYI- The US Government would not need to raise taxes in order to pay for education and address global warming if the Bush Administration wasn’t wasting billions on no-bid contracts and reimbursing the families of innocent civilians we have killed in the name of the War on Terror.

I would rather see government officials exploit our noble instincts to survive and breathe clean air than see them exploit the fear of the ignorant.

62

“Check out a true look at it, not a channel with an agenda!”

Now let me guess. Is Fox News the channel “without an agenda”, and are all of the other channels run by Godless commie-pinko atheists?

63

Thanks for the link. I’m glad to see that nuclear power is in our future. I hope that we are serious about safety as we go forward.

64

I hope that we are serious about safety as we go forward.

That was always the problem. Each plant in the US is CUSTOM designed. No two plants are alike. So every time they build one there are THOUSANDS of unknown problems and major major cost overruns. I think Seabrook was the last nuclear power plant to be commissioned in the US. It was initially suppose to cost $2b for two plants. Instead it cost $8 for ONE. That’s a cost increase of 800%. And they built it in the WORSE possible place you can. If there’s ever a disaster in the middle of the summer…it’ll be IMPOSSIBLE to evacuate the 50K people at Hampton Beach (1 mile away) in time. There’s only 2 roads in and out of that area. Safety was NOT an issue when this plant was built.

65

but don’t get the GOVERNMENT involved in this stuff. Our environment is SO much cleaner here in the US than it is in India or China - and what are THEY doing about keeping their air clean. NOTHING!

Eh? Ever hear of the Clean Air Act? It used to be perfectly legal to dump any waste you wanted anywhere – our air was dangerous to breathe, our rivers were sewers, etc. The GOVERNMENT forced the big cleanup to give us an environment so much cleaner than India or China’s. Yes, India and China are behind the curve on cleaning up pollution. So what is your point? That we shouldn’t do anything, lest India and China surpass us in wealth? Did you ever hear the term, “a race to the bottom”?

66

Each plant in the US is CUSTOM designed. No two plants are alike. So every time they build one there are THOUSANDS of unknown problems and major major cost overruns.

Yep. Nuclear power could be fairly safe and efficient, except that the bozos are in charge. Gee, the FRENCH have centrally standardized designs, standardized training for operators, rigorous controls on the industry, and regulators that don’t insist on thousands of design changes after construction starts. Maybe we should ask the French to run our nuclear industry?

67

No one want to bite on exactly how the dire prediction of global warming is figured?
Since no one bit on that one, how about this one?

In a 178 year period from 1822 to the year 2000 the average yearly temperature of New York City has increased by almost 5 degrees F. That, of course, is huge.
Anyone think that all of, or even a fraction of, that 5 degrees is attributable to global warming?

68

I’m interested in both items. Especially since claims are made that a 5 degree (or around that) increase would wipe out mankind.

69

Why don’t you folks get back to some auto problems and leave this subject to NOAA, USGS, the Pope and the White House. Yawn

70

Let me see, not too many years ago, we were told R-12 magically floated up in the air 15 miles and destroyed the ozone.

Let’s see… Ozone was discovered to be rapidly disappearing over polar regions. The mechanism was worked out in the laboratory and confirmed in the field, that chlorinated fluorocarbons were in fact rising high into the atmosphere and breaking apart under UV radiation to release free chlorine. These chlorine atoms have a voracious appetite for ozone. The world acted quickly to ban most CFCs, and the ozone layer has shown slow recovery.

who were so stupid they didn’t understand ozone is made by sun particles hitting the outer atmosphere.

Particles? Try ultraviolet radiation + 3O2 -> 2O3. Now who’s stupid?

And, in the winter at the poles, the outer atmosphere is not hit by the sun.

And, in the winter at the poles, temperatures are cold enough to produce fine ice particles that act as a substrate for the chlorine + ozone chemical reaction. There are also vortices (winds) around the polar regions that reduce mixing with the rest of the atmosphere.

Just yesterday, a paper was releases showing that calculations on CO2 somehow failed to measure the effect of water vapor on absorbing CO2.

Please elaborate and provide references. Water vapor consists of independent molecules of H2O mixed in with the air. I’ve never heard of it being able to absorb anything else. Liquid water can certainly absorb CO2, forming carbonic acid.

The remainder of your John Birch style rant is beneath comment. Go away until you learn something.

71

Since my son is in the field, both meteorology and climatology, I get many unbiased answers and the opportunity to read a lot of publications that few other get to do. This info is not reported. It does not make good politics, promote an agenda, and there’s no flaming car crashes to go along with it for dramatic effect. I’ll address those 2 things and throw in a few bits and pieces.

  1. This “unusual warming” we hear about? Absolutely normal; the amount of warming is within the normal climatic variation.
    As to future warming, this is based on someone’s interpretation of a computer model. There is MORE than one model and these models vary by 400 PERCENT! How’s that for nailing it down? I would be willing to bet if the final repair bill on someone’s car varied by 400 percent from the estimate that no one would be so blindly willing to go along with any explanation.

  2. The New York City temperature range? Travel up the river a few miles to West Point, NY. The average temperature at W.P. remained the same during the same time period with no rise at all and the CO2 levels are the same at both places.
    Over the last 70 or so years the average temp of Albany, NY has actually dropped a .5 degree.

  3. Boulder, CO, home of NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) and where GW is really studied hard, has also shown an average temp drop. There are many more I can point out but you get the point.

  4. Global warming causing more hurricanes? Only on TV. Check the data back to the year 1900 and anyone can see it’s gone down.

  5. Global warming causing more extreme weather? Again, only on TV. Read some obscure meteorology booklets, some back 500 years, and one can plainly see that if anything the weather has settled down.

This is a very weighty, deep subject so I’ll close with this one. About 2 years ago, the AMS (American Meteorological Society), performed a survey about global warming in an area of the SE U.S. They picked the SE because of hot temps and very muggy conditions.
They polled something like several hundred people on this issue. The people surveyed are considered to be above average intelligence (doctors, lawyers, business people holding at least a Masters Degree) and the question was basically this.

“Have you noticed that global warming is causing the temps in this area to be warmer than they used to be”?

A full 90% of the respondents stated that yes, global warming had made it noticeably hotter in their area.
The problem with that is that the average temps in that area had actually dropped.
See where perception and blind faith to the boob tube comes in?

72

Should have added something about hurricanes Jad.
The hurricane season will be approaching soon and you’re going to see the usual “global warming is heating up the Gulf waters which means more hurricanes and more violent ones”.
This is the same prediction they make every year and of course they were wrong in both '06 and '07. Eventually, they’ll guess right and BINGO! Proof positive GW is behind this.

It was funny. After Katrina, and at the start of the 06 season my son was at my house one weekend when the “leading hurricanologist” (Dr. Gray I think, recently retired) was rambling on about the dire upcoming hurricane season.
When he finished I looked at my son and said “Well”? He just shook his head, said the guy was full of carp, and gave me x, y, and z reasons why it was not going to happen.
The process was repeated in 07 by a new “leading hurricanologist” and of course he was wrong also.

As a final thought on this subject consider this. No REPUTABLE, CREDIBLE, or HONEST meteorologist or climatologist can make a prediction on future temps; no matter if it’s a week or a millenium.

As my son said, computer models are only even what could be considered reasonably accurate up to 3 days. A week and further is nothing more than an educated guess at best and any scientist who says otherwise has an agenda or an ax to grind.
Even the local TV weathermen who are degreed in the field know this but their job, under orders from management, is to pretend they know what is going to happen a week or so off.

(Consider the CO2 business. It’s about 375 PPM right now. Several times in the past before man came along it was in the 3000-5000 PPM range. Who done that?)

73

If Beefy Norm would like to convince anyone of his position he would do well to remember that many people have a great deal of trouble rating George W. Bush as barely competent. Mr. Bush started a war for no reason killing many thousands and promoted the use of torture for what he called “our” purposes. I’m willing to read comments agreeing with and disagreeing with the concept of global warming, but Norm’s commentary is not only beefy but insensitive.

74

"who were so stupid they didn’t understand ozone is made by sun particles hitting the outer atmosphere.

Particles? Try ultraviolet radiation + 3O2 -> 2O3. Now who’s stupid?"

Aw, c’mon, Phil! Where’s the duality? Light can be described as both particles and waves!

Aside: I agree with your post, but it was just too good to pass up! And is that Birchite or Luddite?

75

“As a final thought on this subject consider this. No REPUTABLE, CREDIBLE, or HONEST meteorologist or climatologist can make a prediction on future temps; no matter if it’s a week or a millenium.”

You are a great resource for information on a lot of automotive subjects; I’m consistently impressed with your knowledge of the cars you worked on for 40 years. But you are stone, cold wrong on this one. Many reputable climatologists have said that it appears that temperatures will continue to rise as long as we produce increasing amounts of greenhouse gases. We humans make more carbon dioxide.

76

I’m not wrong and any person may have an agenda behind what they say. Did you know that there was a behind the scenes row over the U.N. IPCC report for example? Many of the climatologists behind it did not like the wording stating that “for sure basically” man was behind GW. The report went to the politicians and…

The part about reputable, honest, etc. climatologists not being able to predict anything beyond 3 days is NOT a statement made by me; that’s the view of climatological and meteorological associations.

Do you know what the primary “greenhouse gas” is? It’s water vapor; clouds. You want to know how much CO2 there is in relation to all of this? Think of a tape measure 300 feet long. The TOTAL CO2 is 1 inch of that 300 feet.

As I said, if one watches TV at all then it would appear that 98% of all scientists buy into the GW theory. The other side of the issue or the climatologists involved do not get face time.
And I am telling you for a card carrying fact, that all of these predictions you hear on TV are based on nothing more than an interpretation of a model - period. The models vary by 400 percent and they’re picking and choosing the model to give them the results they want. Pretty easy when the spectrum is as wide a double wide barn door.

There is no double-blind testing methods being used and there is no large group of scientists sitting around crunching countless numbers related to temps, etc.

I’ve made a number of points and thrown some stats out but have yet to hear a response to them. The NYC/West Point temp differences for example.
Matter of fact, let me know roughly where you live and I’ll see if there’s a temp chart for your area.

To close this post out I’ll try again. Consider this statement and give me a comment on it.
“A regular car will emit 1000 pounds of CO2 (yes, 1/2 a ton) in only 20 miles”.

In all seriousness, I would like to hear comments on that statement; and yes, there’s a follow-up.

77

As I said, if one watches TV at all then it would appear that 98% of all scientists buy into the GW theory. The other side of the issue or the climatologists involved do not get face time.

That’s a very good point and why so much on TV is bogus (not just weather related…most “news” too). I’ve heard of climatologists getting death threats and being harrassed for trying to show the truth in this global warming propaganda. When do you ever get to see their side of the argument?

Thanks for the info, OK.

1000 lbs of CO2 / 20 miles seems like a lot…is that a true fact?

78

First off, let me apologize up front if I come across a bit rough on this topic. It’s a volatile issue with me mainly because of the television BS and misinformation being peddled.
You’re exactly right; there is a different side to this argument but TV, and other media outlets, do not present it.
Last summer my son was invited to speak at an international meeting of climatologists and not a camera in sight.
Anyhoo, I apologize if I seem too combative.

I am a bit let down that no one has commented much on any of those climatology tidbits I tossed out there though.

That bit about 1000 lbs of CO2 in 20 miles is not true of course. It’s absolute bunk and was stated by none other than Al Gore if I remember correctly. Will try to verify that on Monday.
No telling how much CO2 Gore added when he hit Oklahoma last year. Private jet in, gaggle of limos to present his traveling medicine show, dinner with the powers that be, and collected 200k dollars worth of mostly tax deductible money on the way out of town.

In spite of what is beaten to death on TV the fact remains that IF any temps are abnormally warmer than they used to be the variation is still within the normal temperature swings. It’s a plus/minus thing just like if you asked a machinist to make a bushing with a length of 3/4 of an inch; .750 +/- .002 for example.
The normal temp swing is 1 degree F and if one even believes the elevated temps theory that figure is about .7 of a degree F.

My son could explain this stuff far better than I could ever hope to but he refuses to get involved in net discussions on this issue. He figures that nothing he can say will accomplish anything because most people formulate their opinions based on TV, USA Today stories, gossip, and the net so he just proceeds on with what he’s doing.
We discuss this subject quite a bit and he answers my questions in plain English because as I’ve stated, I’m nowhere near smart enough to even begin to dissect this subject on a technical basis.

(For what it’s worth, most climatologists have to grovel and scrape for research money.)

79

Way too many half-truths with just enough real truth to sound believable. …From both sides.

First, all true meteorological/climatological temperature readings are taken from Svensson screens, whether analog or digital. Anyone who told you otherwise is lying. A thermometer mounted above an A/C unit would show more than just a slight rise in temperature. It would register as an anomaly and someone would be sent to investigate. On finding it not in a svensson screen, it would be laughed at.

Svensson Screen: A louvered box painted white, with certain dimensions, mounted with a certain clearance from other structures, that allow air/moisture to pass through freely but blocks the effects of direct sunlight, etc., to allow for accurate reading of temperatures, humidity, air pressure, etc.

GW does not show a globally even rise in temperatures and can even cause a drop in temperatures in certain regions. A total temp rise globally of 5degrees will be bad as it causes regionla temperatures to be at greater extremes.

Global warming does not cause a significant increase in hurricane occurences. It causes the ones we have to be more intense. (This has been borne out in recent years.

The current increases in temperatures we have is within the normally acceptable range. The rate of increase is not. The timing of the increase is not.

CO2 is a major green house gas (GHG) but is not the only one. It is one that is used to explain the problem because it is easy to explain it from there, is usually accompanying other gases, is easy to find in ice cores, is stable, easy to measure, etc… CO2 levels are higher than it has ever been in a non-catastrophic event. Any time in history that it has been higher has been after catastrophic events. I see figures being thrown out but without references as to where the figures came from or at what point on the geological time scale they were measured. Go figure. We cannot come to any conclusion from that.

Global warming effects of GHGes trails the build-up of the gases for many reasons that I’ll get into later because…

Uh-oh. Look at the time, I gots ta go. Talk later or tomorrow.

80

The new European standard for tailpipe emissions of CO2 will be 124 grams/kilometer, or about 200 grams/mile. For 20 miles that would be 4000 grams of CO2, or 8.8 lbs!

US vehicles emit about twice as much, so about 19 lbs would be about right.

The person who spouted the 1000lbs is a mathematical illiterate to even remotely believe such nonsense.

A gallon of gasoline produces about a gallon of water. The combustion process takes Hydrogen and carbon and combines that with oxygen to produce water and CO2. At 20 mpg, the car generates about 8.8 lbs of water and a roughly equal weight (2/3) of CO2.

C + H2 + 3 O2= 2 H2O + CO2

So that gallon of water (molecular weight 2x(2+32)=68 lbs)the engine produces also results in an amount of CO2 that weighs 14+2x16=46 lbs. So the weight of the CO2 produced is abour 2/3 of the weight of the water.

So at 20 mpg, we get about 46 lbs of CO2 produced.