DIY Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 4508 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If you would like to debate the various tenants of Climate Change, here is the only place to do so. If you are easily offended then you should probably avoid this thread but we urge all members to civil and respectful. DIY Electric car doesn't have an official stance on this issue but please limit discussion to this thread only so that we can all get on with the job of building EVs. Both sides of the debate are here to build electric cars, so don't forget what unites us here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
I guess the first think We could do is pin down what exactly we mean by debating "climate change" or "global warming".

For me the definition of the debate is really about anthropological climate change. This implies that we are somehow responsible for changes in climate by way of CO2 emissions (and other so called "green house gasses", like methane, etc).

This theory can then be contrasted against recorded data over the last few decades, since the theory of anthropological climate change has been around long enough to be able to start testing it.

Any objections or thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
The same misinformed people that want to dispute the fact that Earth is much older than the Bible is debating the scientific fact that points to human industrialization causing global warming.The science is indisputable unless you are a hired scientific gun hired by the dirty energy providers.The core samples taken from earth's icecaps proofs without a doubt that their recorded history of carbon storage shows a graphical event of our human carbon footprint since man started burning fuel.People here on this blog might as well say the Earth is flat if they are disputing human contributed global warming.What boggles the mind is why someone building a EV would have opposition to the real data of global warming science! I don't think Rush L. is behind the Tesla!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Welcome back, sunworksco.

Just so you know, we are not discussing the bible, creationism, or the earth being flat.

Did you watch the video from start to finish? Can you be a little more specific in your concerns of the info?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
Can anybody explain why the EPA suppressed a document showing global temps going down over the last 5 years? It also shows it will continue to fall for the next 11.

People are starting to ignore the green stuff because they are tired of hearing that they sky will fall. That is why global warming has been changed to climate change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,302 Posts
As I have frequently said, I am in favor of doing what we can reasonably do to clean up the environment. That said, the CO2=Global Warming theory is not tracking well in light of recent cooling despite great increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Irrespective of the potential or non-potential for disaster, I am fully convinced that the POLITICAL actions behind the Global Warming fear-mongering are nothing but another excuse to through slave-taxes on us. This part is really not debatable, since the actions seeking carbon taxes intend in no way to "repair" damage done nor to "prevent" future damage - they only seek to make it burdensome to live a decent life. In this light the politicians pose a much greater threat to humanity than does pollution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
I agree, If they pass this cap and trade bill, it will only make things worse. It will force more jobs overseas to countries that are smart enough to not have passed a carbon tax.

As John Wayland said," I don't think you should tell people they are bad, I think you should show people there is a better way.":cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Welcome back, guys

I feel the best way to deal with this issue is to call them (Al Gore and company) out on the issue of science. Thats what we are often told......that science is irrefutable, and that consensus among scientists = irrefutable science. Numbers and recorded observations are science, not consensus or projections that do not pass the test of the real world experiment.

John Christy knows what he is talking about, but if some one doesn't like him, then there is also recent science reports on NASA's website that show similar data contradicting the alarmist argument. NASA is also starting to look at solar activity as a greater contributor to climate change than previously thought since the CO2 theory doesn't seem to be enough to explain what is happening. Their recorded data also shows the cooling trend for the last 10 years that I mentioned earlier.

Until some one can call me out on these numbers with something credible and not just claim there is universal agreement, I'm certainly not going to stop talking about this.

So far, no climate model has predicted the growing antarctic ice or the decline in global temperature that we are seeing for the last decade. This means to me that the basis for the alarm is flawed and needs to be re examined very closely.

So let the debate begin:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Firstly, I'd like to make a clarification:
I think that many opinions opposing climate change are based on the fact that recorded temps have been lower recently, and that, in their minds flies in the face of global WARMING.
In my opinion, their reasoning is flawed for this reason: the term "global warming" is in fact a misnomer. What will happen in this "climate change" theory, is that certain parts of the world will in fact get COLDER, while other areas will get WARMER. Cetain other areas that have high levels of rainfall may experience even higher levels of rainfall, whereas areas with drought problems will experience greater drought problems.
So, the "climate change" theory, does not claim that every place in the world will become warmer. It claims that there will be more temperature extremes and these extremes will inadvertently affect our crops, property, lives etc., with a NET AVEREAGE increase in GLOBAL temperature.

With that beeing said, of course there were, are, and always will be, large temerature fluctuations as part of the normal cycle of earths climate.
The question thus becomes: how much, if anything, is man contributing to this "climate change".
My opinion, which I've stated elsewhere is this:
I neither know or care about the answer to that question. Mankind, in an ideal world, should be contributing 0% to it. More important than reducing pollution to avert climate change, in my opinion, is the immediate reduction of polution in order to STOP human illness and Death directly related to air, water and food pollution.
The area I currently live in currently is in the top 10 in terms of highest cancer rates in the US. We have lots of Steel-mills, a couple of refineries, some of the most travelled highways in the country, etc... Move you say? Good idea. But what happens when everyone else in the more polluted areas has the same idea and also moves away... many of them to the same "cleaner" area I've moved to? So the solution CAN'T be to run away from the problem. It must be confronted. And by confronting the problem by reducing pollution, and thus reducing the immediate short-term dangers of pollution, we also, as a side-effect reduce any POTENTIAL contribution man may have to the climate. And even IF that contribution is in fact 0%, then no harm done - we've made the world a HEALTHIER place to live in.
Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
Can anybody explain why the EPA suppressed a document showing global temps going down over the last 5 years? It also shows it will continue to fall for the next 11.
1. According to testimony before Congress yesterday (7/7/09)
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the study's chief author had been given numerous opportunities to voice his opinions and some of his arguments were included in the "endangerment" proposal. "The facts do not justify the belief...and they are anything but suppression," Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Jackson said...that Carlin had been allowed to air his views within the agency and that some of the points in his comments were addressed in the technical support document attached to the endangerment proposal. Furthermore, once Jackson said she discovered Carlin felt his comments were being ignored, her staff allowed him to release his comments publicly.
2. Climate change sceptics frequently argue that climate models and forecasting techniques cannot accurately predicate climate temperature increases. So how are the report's authors able to predict 11 more years of cooling?

global temps going down over the last 5 years
the CO2=Global Warming theory is not tracking well in light of recent cooling despite great increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Their recorded data also shows the cooling trend for the last 10 years that I mentioned earlier.
Climate change sceptics have been touting this cooling trend all over the Internet. Can you provide links to actual data sets that show this 5 or 10 year cooling trend?

The following data and analysis is all from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center.

1. Here is a time series analysis for the period 1880-2007 showing variation from the 20th century (1901-2000) mean global temperature


The final data point on the graph is 2007 which was 0.73°C above the 20th century mean.

Here's a different look at the same data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

2. According to the NCDC, "...seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995." Also "Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years."

How about other effects of climate change?

Sea level rise due to thermal expansion

Decline in Arctic sea ice (September extent)

Decreases in glacier and ice cap mass balances

This is just a little bit of the data that CONFIRMS global climate change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Climate change septics have been touting this cooling trend all over the Internet. Can you provide links to actual data sets that show this 5 or 10 year cooling trend?
This info was taken from NASA's website:






Source:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

To the point about global warming being a misnomer. No, it isn't. While predictions have been revised to allow for some regions to get colder and others warmer, the basis for the global climate change movement, is still a slight increase in average global temperature. The danger still comes from the added greenhouse effect according to the theory.

Testimony before Congress is meaningless these days. Just getting some one over there to read a bill before voting on it is a challenge enough. Getting them to understand it is another matter entirely. Forgive me if I don't take the EPA's word before Congress at face value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
This info was taken from NASA's website:

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
The charts you posted from the NASA site are not trend charts, they simply show that 2008 was cooler then 2007 (which is not surprising since 07 was a very warm year globally). 2008 was still the 9th warmest year since 1880. In climate, one year does not make a trend. Looking at the actual data from the NASA site there is NO cooling trend in the past 5 to 10 years. Here is the data of temperature anomalies for 2001-2008 from the site you reference (in degrees C).
Code:
2001     0.53
2002     0.69
2003     0.63
2004     0.60
2005     0.75
2006     0.64
2007     0.74
2008     0.55
By the way, 2009 for the first six months is tracking at about 0.64. There is slight differences in data from the NCDC numbers since NASA is using the mean of 1951-2000 rather than the mean of 1901-2000 (the long term warming trend is the same however).

To the point about global warming being a misnomer. No, it isn't. While predictions have been revised to allow for some regions to get colder and others warmer, the basis for the global climate change movement, is still a slight increase in average global temperature. The danger still comes from the added greenhouse effect according to the theory.
Never said that global warming is a misnomer. The planet IS getting warmer and it is largely caused by human created CO2.

Testimony before Congress is meaningless these days. Just getting some one over there to read a bill before voting on it is a challenge enough. Getting them to understand it is another matter entirely. Forgive me if I don't take the EPA's word before Congress at face value.
Well, if you think the EPA Administrator is lying to Congress there's no argument that I can make that will change your mind. However, the original point she made is still valid; if the EPA allowed the authors to release their report to the public (through the Competitive Enterprise Institute) how can you argue that the report was "suppressed"?

And again, where did their next 11 years of cooling prediction come from?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
From the beginning of history to recorded times there has always been the village wise man who says the sky is falling. All you have to do to save the planet he says is to give him money, power or whatever else he needs and all will be well. They he says the fact that the sky didn't fall is testimony to the fact that he was right all along.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Jeff, I don't understand where you are getting those numbers from. Are they from the link I posted?

As far as trends are concerned, I was referring to the 1998-2008 period, which the graphs show as a shallow decline when you look at them starting from 1998. No, there is no trend line put there, but the raw data is the same.

My "misnomer" remark was aimed at namyzarc, not you. I should have been more specific.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,302 Posts
Firstly, I'd like to make a clarification:
I think that many opinions opposing climate change are based on the fact that recorded temps have been lower recently, and that, in their minds flies in the face of global WARMING.
In my opinion, their reasoning is flawed for this reason: the term "global warming" is in fact a misnomer. What will happen in this "climate change" theory, is that certain parts of the world will in fact get COLDER, while other areas will get WARMER.
This is equivocating - the theory of Global Warming (not "Climate Change") is that increases in CO2 in our atmosphere will result in runaway global heating of the atmosphere. That means it will get hotter everywhere, although in any one or two years it may be cooler in a few spots.

This is not a Climate Change thread, it is a Global Warming thread - as in the excuse politicians are using to impose huge taxes which will neither reduce the temperature of the globe nor effectively reduce CO2 emissions.

My opinion, which I've stated elsewhere is this:
I neither know or care about the answer to that question. Mankind, in an ideal world, should be contributing 0% to it. More important than reducing pollution to avert climate change, in my opinion, is the immediate reduction of polution in order to STOP human illness and Death directly related to air, water and food pollution.
The only way mankind will emit 0 emissions is by eliminating mankind. CO2 is a natural part of existing.

However, this being said the most effective way we could control emissions is by implementing global birth control. Emissions would drop proportionately to the population.

So the solution CAN'T be to run away from the problem. It must be confronted. And by confronting the problem by reducing pollution, and thus reducing the immediate short-term dangers of pollution, we also, as a side-effect reduce any POTENTIAL contribution man may have to the climate. And even IF that contribution is in fact 0%, then no harm done - we've made the world a HEALTHIER place to live in.
Thoughts?
My thoughts on this matter are simple - keep government involvement to a minimum. Every rational being on the planet (and that is at least 5% of human beings) already knows polluting is bad, and a good number of them are working on ways to eliminate pollution while RAISING our standard of living. The one measurable trend which IS agreed upon by virtually all scientists is that technology is advancing at a geometric pace. This means that what took ten years to accomplish 10 years ago may only take 10 months now, etc. What does that mean? It means we will develop REAL solutions a hundred or more years before Global Warming, if in fact it is anything near as bad as the Chicken Little braying jackarses in Washington wish you to believe it is, becomes a real problem.

Read, "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil. Then read, "The Prince" by Machiavelli. Once you have read both, you will understand why this whole brouhaha is political nonsense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
Jeff, I don't understand where you are getting those numbers from. Are they from the link I posted?
Yep; Global Temperature Anomalies 1880-2009

As far as trends are concerned, I was referring to the 1998-2008 period, which the graphs show as a shallow decline when you look at them starting from 1998. No, there is no trend line put there, but the raw data is the same.
Actually, even taking the 10 year period you are referring to, for the global annual average temperature, the trend is still going up. I took the data for 1998-2008 from NASA's data table above and plotted it in Excel. Note a couple of things; all of the 1998-2008 temperatures are above the 1951-1980 mean and that a linear trend line for this short period still shows an upward trend.



Sorry, but you cannot argue that global warming is not happening because the climate has been "cooling" for the past 10 years when, in fact, the data shows the opposite.

My "misnomer" remark was aimed at namyzarc, not you. I should have been more specific.
Not a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
This is equivocating - the theory of Global Warming (not "Climate Change") is that increases in CO2 in our atmosphere will result in runaway global heating of the atmosphere. That means it will get hotter everywhere, although in any one or two years it may be cooler in a few spots.
Not exactly. The theory of Global Warming is simply that there has been an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and that this increase is likely to continue. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) states that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.

The basic theory of global warming is simply an observational conclusion with the hypothesis that warming will continue. The data shows that the theory of global warming is a fact. The average temperature has increased since the mid-20th century and it has continued to increase since the hypothesis was first proposed.

The data also indicates that the theory of AGW is probably correct though research is still ongoing to determine to what degree other climate drivers (other than human activities) might be contributing to the fact of global warming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
DEBATING THIS IS A HUGE WASTE OF TIME AND PRODUCTIVE ENERGY - ALSO CREATING UNNECESSARY TENSION AND DIVISION BETWEEN GOOD PEOPLE THAT SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER FOR A BETTER WORLD FOR EVERYONE. THE "SOLUTIONS" ARE GOOD FOR EVERYONE IN MULTIPLE WAYS - UTOPIAN LIKE.

________________

Here's an old post of mine:
Nice to see that people like to think, yes. I am concerned that people aren't thinking enough, though, yet convincing themselves that they are because of a contrarian stance.

Don't miss the big picture. Don't let people like Alex Jones distort your vision of that picture. Think more like John Lennon's Imagine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg .

Nobody will ever "prove" either of the "Yes" or "No" sides to "Global Warming is an urgent man made danger of global catastrophe" with 100% agreement and certainty.

An irrefutable fact is what the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome said:

"The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. It was founded in April 1968 and raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report Limits to Growth. In 1993, it published followup called The First Global Revolution. According to this book, "It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....The common enemy of humanity is man....democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.", and "In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill." [1]"


"Global Warming" has a lot of flaws, especially "Man Made" Global Warming, but ...
1) we are better safe than sorry,
2) a nearly 7 Billion Global Population and growing could certainly use the best of sustainable/ultra efficient/non polluting solutions if anyone cares to preserve this incredibly unique planet,
3) all solutions to "Global Warming" will bring more global cooperation and appreciation that all people and governments in the world are more similar with more of the same good intentions than we distract ourselves from ... which is a step towards world peace,
4) more energy independence means less war thus less death and less trillions in tax dollars fighting over resources while we keep ourselves from working on important advances in science to make everyone's lives better,
5) JOBS that actually do good things for all of humanity, truly possible.


People need to get over their xenophobia and radical sovereignty/libertarian idealism, despite their good intentions, and realize we long ago became globally dependent in every aspect and it's time to embrace that and work together for the best of everyone despite the growing pains that come with it.

I don't care if Global Warming is BS, as especially man made warming seems to be, because anything that will more quickly and massively mobilize people to the good solutions makes me happy ... and I think it should do the same for you.

Another user also made an excellent neutral and productive point:
I really hate "Global Warming" ...& no I'm not talking about the phenomena its self, rather the term "Global Warming". Whoever coined that phrase may go down in history as the person who ultimately ended up killing us all.

Whether the planet is heating up or not is somewhat irrelevant. "Global Warming" has become the poster child for just about everything to do with maintaining the environment's health. Basically in a nut-shell it tells us that...

  • If you pollute the globe will get warm.
  • If you don't recycle the globe will get warm.
  • If you waist energy the globe will get warm.
I'm sorry but does any of that sound like a bad thing? I don't know about you but I rather like the idea of being "warm".

To make matters worse there's all this pointless & distracting debate going on. Questions like is the planet actually heating up (note I didn't say warming up). Whether or not we're the cause. Maybe we're just experiencing natural temperature cycling. All this stuff that distracts us from the main issue here...

WE'RE TREATING OUR PLANET LIKE CRAP & THAT SHOULD STOP!

You'd think for something as profoundly important as preserving our planet's ecosystem, we'd come up with a better catch phrase. Something more provocative, scary & hopefully bad habit changing. Lets try this again...

  • If you pollute then the ecosystem will breakdown & we'll all starve to death.
  • If you don't recycle then the ecosystem will breakdown & we'll all freeze solid.
  • If you waist energy then the ecosystem will breakdown & we'll all be buried in desert sands.
Now you have my attention. Hmmm maybe I should rethink what I'm doing. My actions DO effect my planet. I don't know what's going to happen but I think its safe to say, what humanity is doing to the planet right now can't be good.

"Global Warming" sucks. Anyone have a suggestion for a better, stop screwing with our planet, phrase?

Amen dude.

There are way more important threats to our existence than even climate change - natural or industrially mutated. I place global media at the top of the list, followed closely by international banking, medical/pharma cartels and the destruction of a decent education system. These swine are a much greater threat to humanity than pigs with a cold, but the media just misinforms us as usual.

A million children die each year from totally preventable malaria. But because they're Africans, and Malaria doesn't cross international borders easily, who cares????

Just about everything I see on a tv or movie screen can be classified as "intellectual anaesthetic"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
This is not a Climate Change thread, it is a Global Warming thread - as in the excuse politicians are using to impose huge taxes which will neither reduce the temperature of the globe nor effectively reduce CO2 emissions.
In that case, I think it would be obvious to most that focusing on ONLY 1 TYPE of pollutant (CO2) & ignoring all others, even ones that are more dangerous, is clearly politically motivated. We don't need more taxes to solve the problem. Existing technology already has solutions for reducing alomst ALL types of pollutants. If there is any government involvement, then it should be in the form of financial incentives, or money going towards research and ways to lower production costs for such techs. After all we give the gov. our money so they can put it to good use. Unfortunately, that rarely happens.
 
1 - 20 of 4508 Posts
Top