Earth day

Hey Matt,

You are free to ignore global warming as much as you can. But that doesn't mean it is "crap." Nobody can make you care, but I would suggest to you that the way you live your life does influence others, and not just your neighbors. As a global citizen you have some responsibility to at least be aware of the issues facing all of us.

Dave,

Yes, I agree, there is much more at play. Global climate change is based on averages over many years, there is simply too much else going on to cause each year to be warmer than the last. Nobody said that was going to happen. The effects so carbon emissions from 1997 and 1999 will remain with us for centuries, at least. I used the World Bank since you obviously have no respect for science. I didn't realize that you had no respect for the World Bank either. Do you respect the Dept. of Defense? They consider climate change to be one of the greatest national security threats of the 21st Century.

There is a ton of talk about natural CO2 buffers, but you are right most of it doesn't make it into the popular media. The largest CO2 buffer are the world's oceans, which actually soak up much of the excess carbon in the form of carbonate. Perhaps you've heard of ocean acidification? Similarly, nobody is making the claim that CO2, or other greenhouse gases for that matter, only come from driving around in your car or running the coal plant down the road. My links in the last post seem to have failed, but the EPA website shows that forestry and agriculture account for ~40% of total greenhouse gas emissions. This has all been taken into account.

Yes, we breathe out CO2, and nobody is claiming that it is a "poison." We do know, based on thermodynamics and observation of the earth's record, that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increases global temperatures. Therefore, to try to prevent excessive amounts some people want it classified as a "pollutant." It may not be directly "poisoning" the air or water, but it is definitely warming both of them and acidifying the latter. Since we know that warming can cause a host of changes in how ecosystems that we depend on function, I'd say it is fair to consider excess CO2 a serious pollutant.

It doesn't make any sense to me why you dismiss global climate change based on the fact that somehow politics is involved in trying to solve it. Of all people I'd expect that you would understand that people are political, and thus any global problem will inherently be political. You are free to choose your politics, but to say that climate change is not real because some people might use it for a broader political agenda is just ridiculous. Do you similarly question the existence of terrorism, healthcare, gun crimes, etc?

Face it, you guys are simply uncomfortable with climate change for reasons that have nothing to do with the science of climate change. You don't "believe" in it because you don't like what it might mean. This is a pretty unwise way of going about things. Maybe I'll try that on the boat and just start ignoring things when they go wrong, because well, I'd just rather not spend the time/money on fixing it. That is a great long-term strategy...

A CLIMATE CHANGE UPDATE MINUTE

It was announced in Minnesota today that last years climate change induced drought has officially come to an end due to this years..climate change....induced.....abundant rains.

This climate change update minute was brought to you by Global Climate Change who wants to remind you that - "We may seem exactly like weather, but we're not!"

Wow, who would have saw this coming, well except me. You have to love a good climate report

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013

Some of my favorite quotes from the story.
1) Explaining why we were not ice-less in 2013 as many alarmists were predicting

“We should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence 'regression towards the mean' told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent,” wrote Dana Nuccitelli.

I can see a "regression towards the mean" giving us a little to no loss ice loss (minimum extent) in a given year, but using it to explain a record 60% increase sounds like she is blinding me... with science. I don't remember seeing crazy Al's hockey stick graph "regress towards the mean", but now that its cooling.....

2) And this from the leaked UN climate report. For years any of us that said the climate was about far more than CO2, and that warming was due to solar cycles, or fluctuating volcanic activity were labeled deniers, but when facing 15 years of flat temperatures we get this

"A leaked draft of the next major climate report from the U.N. cites numerous causes to explain the slowdown in warming: greater-than-expected ash from volcanoes, a decline in heat from the sun, more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans, and so on."

Suddenly and shamelessly all the factors cited by "deniers" (realists) to explain warming, for which the "deniers" (realists) have been scoffed at, are the very factors that are used to explain cooling during a period with massively increasing world wide CO2 production. Oh the Irony,

I didn't do my part and run the boat a lot this summer, sorry.   I'll try to make up for it the rest of this year and get an early start on next year.

Don't worry, the leftists will find another problem so they can continue to take our money and tell us what to do. Now maybe they will stop putting alcohol in my gas and stuffing things into the exhaust pipes.

In case anyone cares about actual science, or facts..

Link one

Link two

And yes the "environmentalists" do picket and stop the windmills over birds dying. Or because it is going to ruin the view -- this for offshore field that would be unable to be seen by the naked eye from anyplace on land. The oil companies have been giving heavily to these stop the windmill campaigns forever... who can blame them.

jbach wrote: it will be interesting to see the IPCC report. my bet is it will finally admit that all the models have failed. basically not only can scientists not predict the climate of the future, but that they've also failed to "predict" the climate of the past.

Wanna Bet?

OverMyHead wrote: More fun Wind energy facilities have killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles in the last five years, but the figure could be much higher, according to a new scientific study by government biologists. Saving the planet by whacking eagles. Its amazing silent the environmentalists are on this. You would think greenpeace would be standing in front of the blades.

We've had quite a lot of wind mills developed in Maine during the past 10 years. From what I've seen the enviormentalists are strongly opposed to it, as are everyone else that lives nearby, liberal or conservative.

Slightly relevant to this discussion, I've recently learned that our beloved Clinton power station is on a list of possible plant shutdowns. With all the wind farms in our area now it is predicted that by 2016 the Nuclear plant will be operating in the red, basically costing more to produce energy than they can sell it for. Y'all better not miss too many more of our fall get togethers before they turn off the hot tub.

JoeinNY wrote: It's actually 97 percent of scientists and the data is correlating quite nicely to predictions - the only talking points out there are the ones that you are repeating that originate in oil funded right wing think tanks.

Joe
114 of 117 predictions (hopeful guesses???) being overestimated by an average of 285% being viewed as correlating quite nicely seems more like a faith based acceptance than an evaluation of scientific merit. I know they say this is short term, and we should stick with them for the long term, but if my stock broker over-promised me returns by 285% in 15 years, I would surely not leave my money with him for another 25.

I am always amused when industry scientist are viewed as being paid off to the industries agenda, but government and the scientists they pay are seen as agenda-less.

Joe. Do you really believe the government is only interested in being right, and not spending OUR money to promote IT'S agenda of expanding its power influence and tax revenue? If so I have some swamp land for sale. The governments of the world including ours are well invested in global warming and expecting major ROI.

I've been involved in manufacturing since the late 1970's, and now am in the renewable fuel business. In the '70's and '80's, the EPA was nuts and going to put us all out of business. I embraced the changes being an environmentally conscious person at heart, and stayed ahead of the curve on changing chemical use and water treatment, and guess what? I was still in business, and the rivers are cleaner, the lakes are cleaner, the harbors along the coast are cleaner. Same with air regs, same with fuels, etc. Now I put climate change in the same category - there will be people that deny it, say it isn't happening, say it's a government conspiracy, just like I've been hearing for 30 years. In the end the policies will help all of us, and the nay-sayers will fade away.

I know what you mean Bret, and have experienced it firsthand. I guess what I meant by my comment was that the end result was definitely needed, no question that at times the methods are suspect. I draw the same conclusion with climate change - I'm sure mistakes will be made, there will be problems and unfortunately we can count on some level of corruption along the way. But, I think the results are necessary and urgent, so there has to be a mechanism to force compliance.

Here is a very thorough (grab a cup of coffee) article on what ethanol is doing in the name of protecting the environment. And it isn't even from FOX!!



Secret

using food for energy is and always has been a bad idea. we have recently tilled under the last remaining 560 of 1000+ tillable acres of CRP in N.D. in favor of production crops, corn and sunflowers. has really hurt the upland birds and the hunting industry in that area. 10 years ago, that part of the state was near 100% CRP, native grassland.