majestyx - 29 August 2007 07:38 PM

What is the CORRECT temperature and atmospheric make-up of the Earth in order for life to survive?

I really think your question is best answered in this United Nations report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (World Meteorological Organization). If not with all the numbers, at least with all the facts we all should know. It summarizes the many aspects of human life that are/will be affected directly by climate change.

It is late here in Los Angeles… you all have a good night.

Occam - 29 August 2007 07:49 PM

...it does seem that this administration has missed a number of opportunities that may have reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses.  It also seems reasonable to assume that it’s more likely that another administration of the same party will continue the present policies, and that a shift in parties may result in policies that do reduce emissions.

The notion that democrats are inherently better than republicans is simply wrong.  They are both politicians.  Neither has a monopoly on hypocrisy.  Both do it equally well. 

The Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 (when Clinton was President) by a vote of 95 – 0. 

Plus it is important to note that the Kyoto Protocol, as written, purposely exempted China, India and other nations from having to cut their CO2 emissions (China is currently the largest emitter of CO2 on the planet) with India among the top 5 emitters of CO2.  This speaks volumes.  If the real purpose of Kyoto was to lower a deadly planet killer of a gas that is about to doom us all, then it should have been an across the board cut for all nations.  It wasn’t.  That’s like passing a law that says one group of people are not allowed to commit murder, but this other, more special group of people over here, are allowed, carte blanche, to murder anyone they want at anytime. 

Plus, über-democrat, Ted Kennedy is just as hypocritical as any republican on this issue.  Kennedy’s oceanfront compound off Nantucket Sound, is where Cape Wind Associates would like to build the nation’s first offshore wind farm.  This would be 130 wind turbines that would generate enough electricity to supply an estimated 75% of the Cape and Islands’ energy needs.  It would do this without a single drop of oil being burnt or one bit of pollution emitted. And it would do it all miles off costal property.  But the tiny spec of a view of a windmill was enough for Kennedy to derail the idea.  He arranged for a “poison-pill amendment” to stop the wind farm.  This amendment was never debated in either House of Congress and was slipped into an unrelated Coast Guard bill. It would give the governor of Massachusetts, who just happens to be a wind farm opponent, unilateral authority to veto the Cape Wind project.

Democratic Senator and Presidential hopeful John Edwards said, as President, he would ask people to “sacrifice” their SUVs, all while he is drive around in one. 

Al Gore’s house consumes more electricity in one month than the average American household uses in an entire year. 

Sorry, but the democrats are simply using global warming as a scare tactic to energize their base just as republicans have and use their own scare tactics with their base.  Same $#!&, different party.

ticktock - 29 August 2007 10:58 PM

I challenge you to back up your claims that democrats or any party have put forward or suggested any laws that will raise your taxes and deny you freedoms.

Granted, the challenge wasn’t presented to me, but here goes anyway:

* Los Angeles Democrat Lloyd Levine wants to ban the incandescent bulb and force people to use compact fluorescent bulbs. 

* San Rafael Democrat Jared Huffman also wants to prevent people to be free to chose their type of bulbs.

* San Francisco (not a republican stronghold) banned the use of plastic grocery bags to fight global warming.  Now they want to ban plastic water bottles.

* The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative John D. Dingell MI (D.) announced a plan to fight global warming by by raising gasoline taxes 50 cents per gallon and ending mortgage tax deductions on large houses, which he snidely called “McMansions.” Weasel Word Alert!

* A bigger name democrat, Al Gore has proposed a “carbon tax.”

* While not a democrat, but clearly a left-leaning individual, one Australian columnist suggested making it a crime to deny global warming climate change.

Meanwhile, back in the land of the “free"…

* “A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming.”

Nice.  Real nice.  When they have to resort to using the Hitler/Nazi analogy, they have officially lost the debate in my book. 

ticktock - 29 August 2007 10:58 PM

Politicians talk about issues that are important to the people of this country…

No they don’t.  They talk about issues that they think will help them win votes in order to get elected. 

ticktock - 29 August 2007 10:58 PM

You don’t want to argue the point of leaving a cleaner Earth for our children because you don’t want to think about it.

Do you honestly think that people who may disagree with anthropogenic catastrophic global warming are pro-pollution?” Do you really think they want to damage this planet and leave their children in harm’s way?  Because if you do, I’m afraid you are not only wrong, but prejudiced against those with whom you may have disagreements with.  Have you ever sat down and talked with a conservative or a libertarian?  Or - GASP! - even be friends with one?  Would you let your daughter marry one?  :grin:  You might be surprised to find that they don’t have fangs, they don’t really want to starve little children or throw the elderly out in the streets.

ticktock - 29 August 2007 10:58 PM

You don’t want to admit that the U.S. is responsible for most of the pollutants…

That is factually incorrect.  If you are talking about CO2, China is the worst polluter on the planet.  And keep in mind, China was exempt from the Kyoto Protocol back when they were number 2. 

ticktock - 29 August 2007 10:58 PM

...because you are too selfish to think about every other innocent country on this planet that is trying hard to balance out our bad habits.

It is not a zero sum game.  The single largest factor that keeps other nations from achieving prosperity for themselves and their citizenry is not the existence of the United States, but a lack of freedom for their people. 

ticktock - 29 August 2007 10:58 PM

How can we possibly reduce greenhouse gasses without it being a burden to you.  Here are a few possible ideas- you get a very nice tax credit for buying a hybrid, alternative fuels become cheaper alternatives to gas, the electric company pays you for the energy saved by putting in solar panels.

Fine ideas.  I’m all for them.  I’d also like to add we, as a nation, need to get over our irrational fear of nuclear power and start building more nuclear power plants.

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

When climate conditions collected are made from rooftops near air conditioning vents, one has to also question the reliability of the data:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=692

majestyx - 30 August 2007 09:38 PM

When climate conditions collected are made from rooftops near air conditioning vents, one has to also question the reliability of the data:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=692

How does your quote relate to the page you linked to? This just shows the location of two temperature sensors on a building. So what? HERE is the master list of climate stations in the US.

I get a kick from the arguments of the anti-global warming proponents.

“Global Warming absolutely does not exist, and besides, it’s caused by cattle and termites producing methane, not from human activity.”

Occam

dougsmith - 30 August 2007 09:47 PM

How does your quote relate to the page you linked to? This just shows the location of two temperature sensors on a building. So what? HERE is the master list of climate stations in the US.

If I am going to measure the temperature and atmospheric make-up for my location, I am not going to go to my roof and take the readings there where the radiant heat from the roof and exhaust from an air conditioning vent will skew the data.

Occam - 30 August 2007 10:03 PM

I get a kick from the arguments of the anti-global warming proponents.

“Global Warming absolutely does not exist, and besides, it’s caused by cattle and termites producing methane, not from human activity.”

I can’t speak for others, but I don’t think you will find where I said anything approaching, “Global Warming absolutely does not exist, and besides, it’s caused by cattle and termites producing methane, not from human activity.”

Personally, I am skeptical of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming.  Yes, the Earth has been warming since it has been coming out of a little ice age around 1850 (if I recall the year correctly.)

Besides, I get a kick from the arguments of the global warming proponent alarmists who say things like, “CO2 emission are deadly to the planet!  We need to put an end to as much of these emissions as is possible immediately…except for the largest producer of it on the planet.  And except for the 3rd, and 5th largest emitters of it on the planet.  And except for the rich and powerful within the Democratic Party who get to play by different rules.  And except for…

majestyx - 30 August 2007 10:21 PM

If I am going to measure the temperature and atmospheric make-up for my location, I am not going to go to my roof and take the readings there where the radiant heat from the roof and exhaust from an air conditioning vent will skew the data.

Radiant heat exists everywhere. Do you have any data indicating that their sensor is in front of an air conditioning exhaust vent?

dougsmith - 30 August 2007 10:45 PM

Radiant heat exists everywhere. Do you have any data indicating that their sensor is in front of an air conditioning exhaust vent?

That’s why the link is there. Look at the pictures.

Are you trying to tell me that the radiant heat at a station on grass will have the same radiant heat as a station placed on a rooftop?

dougsmith - 30 August 2007 10:45 PM

majestyx - 30 August 2007 10:21 PM

If I am going to measure the temperature and atmospheric make-up for my location, I am not going to go to my roof and take the readings there where the radiant heat from the roof and exhaust from an air conditioning vent will skew the data.

Radiant heat exists everywhere. Do you have any data indicating that their sensor is in front of an air conditioning exhaust vent?

dougsmith - 30 August 2007 10:45 PM

Radiant heat exists everywhere. Do you have any data indicating that their sensor is in front of an air conditioning exhaust vent?

Scanning the list you provided, here is what it states about just the Santa Rosa site I linked to:

“on roof of building, near a/c exhaust”

There are plenty more like that on the list as well. But I’m sure I’m going to hear that this too is irrelevant in one way or another.

Well, look at it this way. As long as the sensors have always been in the same place relative to the AC, the rise in temperature they measure will reflect real local changes since the AC has always been nearby. Unless of course the ac is on more often and thus putting out more heat. But then wouldn’t that be because it’s warmer due to global warming?

My point is we amateurs can nitpick the data all we want to. Ultimately, there is a lot we don’t know, and maybe the most extreme alarmism is not justified, but neither is the most extreme complacency. I find the hypothesis reasonable, the data strongly suggestive but not by any means ironclad, and I don’t see why some attempt to mitigate what might actually turn out to be a problem is such a bad thing. Of course, anti-GW alarmists will claim that any attempt to moderate our CO2 emissions will cause economies to crumble, totalitarian governments to rise, and send us all back to the stone age. But those aren’t particularly compelling arguments either. For those who feel GW is either not happening, is not related to human activity, or is unlikely to have any serious effects, what if anything would you suggest we do in terms of mitigating our impact on the environment?

The location I pointed out (Santa Rosa) has been measured from there since 23-Sep-1997, even though it’s considered the same station whose record goes back to 1931. Before that, it was in two other nearby locations, meaning not at it’s current physical address. Its first location was measured from 1931 (possibly before, but that’s as far back as the records for this station go) to June of 1969, then moved to another location until being moved once again in 1997. So no, it hasn’t always been measured where it currently is.