Kerry blames Tornados on Global Warming

#51
#51
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm not saying push it aside. The cost and demand of energy is rising. There are serious efforts being made to find alternatives, but you just can't blink your eyes and have a solution.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying. I think it should be a personal choice of what you drive but it would be nice of those choices helped reduce the amount of oil we use if for none other than sticking it to the middle east. I know that won't happen but that region will be in serious trouble the day oil drys up.
 
#53
#53
MG1968 said:
so how does global warming explain the last two Atlantic hurricane seasons?
Click to expand...

Do you not see the difference between frequency and intensity - or did you not really read my post?

Edit: Are you actually asking this question for an answer or is it rhetorical? Should GW theory explain hurricane frequency?
 
#54
#54
Rasputin_Vol said:
Instead of mandating, how about let the supply/demand economic principles take affect and let the market drive people towards Civics? Plus, we have at least another 100 years of oil reserves on the planet (at least 100 years). I'm confident that by that time, we will have found an alternative source of energy, but right now, those alternatives that are viable are at least 20-30 years away...

Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon... unless you intend on crippling the global economy.
Click to expand...

Supply and demand implies the cost of fuel will drive people to hybrids or more fuel efficient cars. So, from a fuel supply issue - I will agree with you. Ultimately, this view fails in light of an externality like global climate change without government subsidy or tax. I know you don't really buy into the climate change issue - so the argument holds if you are right about GCC.
 
#55
#55
TennTradition said:
Supply and demand implies the cost of fuel will drive people to hybrids or more fuel efficient cars. So, from a fuel supply issue - I will agree with you. Ultimately, this view fails in light of an externality like global climate change without government subsidy or tax. I know you don't really buy into the climate change issue - so the argument holds if you are right about GCC.
Click to expand...

For some reason, I see people backing away from the term "global warming" and are now using the term "global climate change". I've probably done it without thinking about it, but it does seem odd that 35 years ago, it was the threat of global cooling. Then it was the threat of global warming. Now that their arguments about warming trends is being shot to pieces, they seem to be talking about GCC.

Oh, and don't use the terms "weather" and "climate" interchangebly... :spank:
 
#56
#56
Rasputin_Vol said:
For some reason, I see people backing away from the term "global warming" and are now using the term "global climate change". I've probably done it without thinking about it, but it does seem odd that 35 years ago, it was the threat of global cooling. Then it was the threat of global warming. Now that their arguments about warming trends is being shot to pieces, they seem to be talking about GCC.

Oh, and don't use the terms "weather" and "climate" interchangebly... :spank:
Click to expand...

I don't know what the official reason for the terminology GCC vs. GW is. I think that in general, GCC science is more accurate because depending on what we are doing (that is, emitting more aerosols and particulate or more greenhouse gases) we could force temperature up or down. However, I think that the larger reason is that it isn't just the study of temperature, but also sustaining trends in precipitation, humidity, etc.
 
#57
#57
jkell24 said:
I'd rather take the steps necessary to prevent global warming and find out I was wrong rather than ignore it and find out I was wrong. I know it has been referred to as "junk science" on here, and maybe it is, but what if it isn't? Just as someone cannot tell you global warming is 100 percent true, someone can't tell me it isn't. We do know that oil won't last forever so I don't think it's a bad thing to see a few more Civics and Corollas and a few less Excursions and Hummers on the road if it is "junk science".
Click to expand...
You do understand that American compliance with Kyoto would very much sour the American economy. You think the economy is doing poorly right now, just wait until we have caps placed on our levels of production.

So, until there is some kind of concrete science on this matter, I will continue to refer to it as junk science. And, this junk science is going to cost millions of Americans their lifestyle.
 
#58
#58
An interesting result of global cap and trade system modeling is that the US would curb emissions very little - we would actually tend to buy our emissions from 1) India and 2) China. Now - that doesn't mean there couldn't be problems with this "investment" in competitors growth...but ultimately this would be a business decision - either go the cheaper route and make these "investments" or make the more expensive emissions reductions at home.

As for you second point - what would you say would constitute concrete science? I'm pretty interested in understanding where people see holes in the science and what makes it unsound (assuming that is an appropriate antonym of concrete). And, when you say "this matter" ... do you mean predicting temperature increases or the more specific predictions, such as seal level rise, precipitation, etc?
 
#59
#59
TennTradition said:
An interesting result of global cap and trade system modeling is that the US would curb emissions very little - we would actually tend to buy our emissions from 1) India and 2) China. Now - that doesn't mean there couldn't be problems with this "investment" in competitors growth...but ultimately this would be a business decision - either go the cheaper route and make these "investments" or make the more expensive emissions reductions at home.

As for you second point - what would you say would constitute concrete science? I'm pretty interested in understanding where people see holes in the science and what makes it unsound (assuming that is an appropriate antonym of concrete). And, when you say "this matter" ... do you mean predicting temperature increases or the more specific predictions, such as seal level rise, precipitation, etc?
Click to expand...
No study thus far has proved a causal link between man made emissions and global temperature increases. Most simply jump through hundreds of hoops in order to state that in the past 100 years the emission of "pollutants" has increased as well as the temperatures (along with melting glaciers, rising sea levels, etc.) These are people making two observations and then telling the mass public that they are relating without ever establishing the relation.

Yet, whenever a climatologist or archeologist shows data that sufficiently proves several millenia worth of increases and decreases in global temperatures, sea levels, etc. it is completely ignored by the public and the policy makers. The earth is incredibly dynamic. To say that man is now causing these tremendous swings due simply to the past 100 years of industry is absolutely ridiculous.
 
#60
#60
therealUT said:
No study thus far has proved a causal link between man made emissions and global temperature increases. Most simply jump through hundreds of hoops in order to state that in the past 100 years the emission of "pollutants" has increased as well as the temperatures (along with melting glaciers, rising sea levels, etc.) These are people making two observations and then telling the mass public that they are relating without ever establishing the relation.

Yet, whenever a climatologist or archeologist shows data that sufficiently proves several millenia worth of increases and decreases in global temperatures, sea levels, etc. it is completely ignored by the public and the policy makers. The earth is incredibly dynamic. To say that man is now causing these tremendous swings due simply to the past 100 years of industry is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The IPCC feels that the scientific literature is sufficient to make the claim. Through assessing the literature, the IPCC has concluded that their is sufficient scientific evidence (performed by leading climate scientists - not the IPCC itself) to ascribe a specific positive radiative forcing to anthropogenic activity - and this translates to temperature increase. The degree of temperature increase experienced under a given radiative forcing certainly has uncertainty, but the uncertainty has been decreasing with more studies - and the IPCC has only recently been able to conclude that the literature supports a positive human impact on radiative forcing - with error bars that don't cross zero (for the first time). I am familiar with some of the processes the literature uses to determine this ... but not all, so I can't really comment on the 100s of hoops.

I don't think that the scientific literature asserts that man has been responsible for any "dramatic" swings...and will readily agree that climates are dynamic and driven first and foremost by the sun. So, is there ultimately a distrust of the scientists performing this work, then? It seems that 1) there is a disconnect between the work they do how they inform the public .. but more importantly there is perhaps 2) a distrust that inside the "100s of hoops" the scientists are suppressing certain details to get the result they want. I don't want to mis-characterize anything you've said...but it would seem this may be the case if the scientists determine that within error they can say humans are having a positive affect on temperature but public opinion appears to come to a different conclusion.
 
#61
#61
I would say that I "disstrust" everyone, when it comes to goverment funding and corporate greed, and let me tell you that I "love" corporate greed, tis my life, but when the UN came out saying, they had the data, and that global warming was a fact, sorry I was lost till the tidal waves start rolling in....
 
#62
#62
iceman9 said:
I would say that I "disstrust" everyone, when it comes to goverment funding and corporate greed, and let me tell you that I "love" corporate greed, tis my life, but when the UN came out saying, they had the data, and that global warming was a fact, sorry I was lost till the tidal waves start rolling in....
Click to expand...

I agree that there is a lot of distrust of the UN - but it is worth noting that the IPCC doesn't do the science, they assess the existing scientific literature. For each assessment report, they read about 10,000-20,000 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.
 
#63
#63
Oh, I certainly understand that, my point was that as a insider you trust the science and numbers, and as the outside world for the most part, we are numb to all of it, and don't trust our leadership. Its like when some racial strife occurs and Al Sharpton shows up, preaching to the heavens about injustice, most of America turns a deaf ear, its not that we don't beleive that their is racial strife, but its the messenger that is questionable. Same in this debate, when you say global warming, we think Al Gore. Could their be a bigger(literally) doofus leading the cause in this country than he. Personally, if he gets any bigger, the ice age may come, Gore's back-side is gonna block the sun....:p
 
#64
#64
iceman9 said:
Oh, I certainly understand that, my point was that as a insider you trust the science and numbers, and as the outside world for the most part, we are numb to all of it, and don't trust our leadership. Its like when some racial strife occurs and Al Sharpton shows up, preaching to the heavens about injustice, most of America turns a deaf ear, its not that we don't beleive that their is racial strife, but its the messenger that is questionable. Same in this debate, when you say global warming, we think Al Gore. Could their be a bigger(literally) doofus leading the cause in this country than he. Personally, if he gets any bigger, the ice age may show, Gore will block the sun....:p
Click to expand...

I think that is likely a sound analysis of public reaction...
 
#65
#65
therealUT said:
No study thus far has proved a causal link between man made emissions and global temperature increases. Most simply jump through hundreds of hoops in order to state that in the past 100 years the emission of "pollutants" has increased as well as the temperatures (along with melting glaciers, rising sea levels, etc.) These are people making two observations and then telling the mass public that they are relating without ever establishing the relation.

Yet, whenever a climatologist or archeologist shows data that sufficiently proves several millenia worth of increases and decreases in global temperatures, sea levels, etc. it is completely ignored by the public and the policy makers. The earth is incredibly dynamic. To say that man is now causing these tremendous swings due simply to the past 100 years of industry is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No study thus far has proved there is not a link to man made emissions and global temperature changes either. Yeah, we understand there have been changes over the course of the earth's history but not at the rapid rate that we are seeing now and how is it "ridiculous" seeing as the amount of industry and pollutant causing devices such as cars are at an all time high. The Chinese are trading bikes for cars. Go visit the mountains around Gatlinburg and see the research showing how rapid the visibility is lost there over the last 20 years due to pollution.
 
#66
#66
First, you cannot prove a negative. So, that argument is out. I do not even understand your comment concerning Chinese people and bikes and cars. Please go into more detail on that one. I cannot wait to be entertained by the explanation. Finally, the argument is not about visibility due to pollution. It is about material changes in climate.
 
#67
#67
therealUT said:
First, you cannot prove a negative. So, that argument is out. I do not even understand your comment concerning Chinese people and bikes and cars. Please go into more detail on that one. I cannot wait to be entertained by the explanation. Finally, the argument is not about visibility due to pollution. It is about material changes in climate.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point in the context of our discussion last night about nuclear WMD intelligence when preparing for war with Iraq and the burden of inaction.
 
#68
#68
TennTradition, what are you officially getting your doctorate in and what do you want to do with it?
 
#69
#69
allvol123 said:
TennTradition, what are you officially getting your doctorate in and what do you want to do with it?
Click to expand...

It is a PhD in chemical engineering. I'm not sure what I want to do yet - but I am really interested in science and technology policy...so perhaps something in this area. I'm interested in energy innovation, nuclear fuel cycles and non-proliferation, energy infrastructure, global climate change, etc. I took my first course in defense policy this past term and really enjoyed that too.

I haven't ruled out academia yet either - but I had better start cranking out more papers if that is my plan! :) I am a theoretical researcher - I do computational investigation (quantum chemistry) of catalysts for hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. I enjoy the work - but in the end I am probably most intrigued by the intersection of science and technology with policy...

That may be a longer answer than you wanted....so my apologies...
 
#70
#70
TennTradition said:
It is a PhD in chemical engineering. I'm not sure what I want to do yet - but I am really interested in science and technology policy...so perhaps something in this area. I'm interested in energy innovation, nuclear fuel cycles and non-proliferation, energy infrastructure, global climate change, etc. I took my first course in defense policy this past term and really enjoyed that too.

I haven't ruled out academia yet either - but I had better start cranking out more papers if that is my plan! :) I am a theoretical researcher - I do computational investigation (quantum chemistry) of catalysts for hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. I enjoy the work - but in the end I am probably most intrigued by the intersection of science and technology with policy...

That may be a longer answer than you wanted....so my apologies...
Click to expand...
shameless plug: my law school has the top intellectual property program in the country. a lot of chemistry and engineering types go through it to get into policy work in their respective fields.
 
#71
#71
TennTradition said:
It is a PhD in chemical engineering. I'm not sure what I want to do yet - but I am really interested in science and technology policy...so perhaps something in this area. I'm interested in energy innovation, nuclear fuel cycles and non-proliferation, energy infrastructure, global climate change, etc. I took my first course in defense policy this past term and really enjoyed that too.

I haven't ruled out academia yet either - but I had better start cranking out more papers if that is my plan! :) I am a theoretical researcher - I do computational investigation (quantum chemistry) of catalysts for hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. I enjoy the work - but in the end I am probably most intrigued by the intersection of science and technology with policy...

That may be a longer answer than you wanted....so my apologies...
Click to expand...

No, that was good. You are just always involved in the climate change discussions. Did not know if this was what you were seeking to do after school or just a passing interest as a scientist.
 
#72
#72
ksushalovesthevols said:
shameless plug: my law school has the top intellectual property program in the country. a lot of chemistry and engineering types go through it to get into policy work in their respective fields.
Click to expand...

Yeah..there seem to be 3 main ways that people make the transition

1) Science background + J.D. - they tend to focus on innovation systems, lobbying, or congress it seems

2) Science background + masters or PhD in a technology and public policy program (such as EPP at Carnegie Melon or TPP at MIT) - these guys often work for think tanks, government agencies, and congress. They are very strong in the area because of their training, but also lack a lot of flexibility / fall back options.

3) Pure science/engineering PhD - some people go straight into policy roles at think tanks or government agencies .... but many that enter from this side do so as "amateurs"....who have a primary position as a professor or research scientist and work on policy issues that are important to them through panels for the National Academies, government-sponsored studies, etc.

You may not care...but if you get a shameless plug then I'll shamelessly talk on and on about random issues that interest me and probably few others :) (maybe I can be an academic!!).

I think that option 3 will be the path I choose if I decide to go into it - and my wife would probably kill me if I actually considered an MBA or JD at this point!! I didn't realize you guys had the number 1 IP program ... but it does make sense.
 
#73
#73
allvol123 said:
No, that was good. You are just always involved in the climate change discussions. Did not know if this was what you were seeking to do after school or just a passing interest as a scientist.
Click to expand...

It's more of a scientific interest of mine than a research focus. But, I certainly have an interest in it as a science and technology policy issue because it in many ways the perfect example of the important intersection between S&T and policy.
 
#74
#74
I live in Memphis and was 200 yards from the tornado that hit the Hickory Ridge Mall. I can assure you I wasn't thinking about global warming when that thing was coming towards me.

Idiot politicians. Don't get me started.
 
#75
#75
TennTradition said:
Yeah..there seem to be 3 main ways that people make the transition

1) Science background + J.D. - they tend to focus on innovation systems, lobbying, or congress it seems

2) Science background + masters or PhD in a technology and public policy program (such as EPP at Carnegie Melon or TPP at MIT) - these guys often work for think tanks, government agencies, and congress. They are very strong in the area because of their training, but also lack a lot of flexibility / fall back options.

3) Pure science/engineering PhD - some people go straight into policy roles at think tanks or government agencies .... but many that enter from this side do so as "amateurs"....who have a primary position as a professor or research scientist and work on policy issues that are important to them through panels for the National Academies, government-sponsored studies, etc.

You may not care...but if you get a shameless plug then I'll shamelessly talk on and on about random issues that interest me and probably few others :) (maybe I can be an academic!!).

I think that option 3 will be the path I choose if I decide to go into it - and my wife would probably kill me if I actually considered an MBA or JD at this point!! I didn't realize you guys had the number 1 IP program ... but it does make sense.
Click to expand...


A good friend of mine, Georgetown BS, Brown Phd in Biochem, gave up her Yale admission to go to Berkeley to do IP. She seems happy with the choice so far, but you're right, it's somewhat focused and not for everyone.

You should tell your wife that the median starting salary for Berkeley law grads is 110k/year. She might be more inclined to support a JD then.:)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top