Automotive News

Global Warming: Are the Skeptics Right?

Page 1 / 3 Next >
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
Page 1/54  >  >>
User Rank
Re: What information is correct?
WhEEngineer   5/6/2014 4:24:48 PM
Thank you Al Gore Jr.  I'm sure your 'data' correlates to your expectation of an increase in funds to further your 'global warming research'.

Like I say, just don't expect me to believe or fund your lifestyle via taxation.

User Rank
Re: Global warming
PFStaats   4/23/2014 10:47:34 AM
eb1225, your focus on risk reduction is typical of progressives. Aside from the question of how accurate and useful are the climatologists projections, we must question how cost effective the risk reduction measures may be. Risk reduction is fine until it runs into unintended consequences and the law of diminishing returns. The low hanging fruit of risk reduction tends to be effective. As the risk becomes incrementally smaller, the cost of risk reduction rises. As the risk approaches zero, the cost approaches infinity. Unfortunately the cost/benefit ratio is seldom discussed. In the case of global warming the arguments have been largely emotional with little believable quantification of benefits or costs.

William K.
User Rank
Re: Consider the thermodynamics and the physics, and ten examine the data
William K.   3/29/2014 4:33:31 PM
But the truth is that I simply do NOT want to live in a cave and eat rocks. I suppose that I am being quite selfish in that attitude, but then, I don't want anybody else to live in a cave and eat rocks either.

User Rank
Is this a religious debate or a scientific debate ?
jbrydon   3/28/2014 8:27:30 PM
Everyone has a right to believe what they want - it's just that I'm not too interested in hearing about arguments based on belief. As an electronics engineer and scientist whose specialities do not include climate science I can't take a position regarding the core research. So, of the 54 pages of comments you have on this topic shall we try applying this filter ?

Having said this, I have read the scientific parts of the new IPCC5 ( home page: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ ) in particular, the Evaluation of Climate Models ( http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf ) and the Final Technical Summary ( http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf ). Perhaps this is the minimum knowledge base that is needed to take part in a scientific discussion of climate change, so, let's consider again filtering the respondents in your 54 pages to only those who have read this - an attempt to have a scientific discussion without having read the original articles or at least the "informed"  summary is useless.

As a provocative footnote - it is interesting, once you look in depth at these documents (see, in particular the key uncertainties section on p114 of the Technical Summary), how unsure the climate scientists are of most of their facts and how wide their error bands are.


User Rank
Re: Consider the thermodynamics and the physics, and ten examine the data
Trenth   3/28/2014 5:24:14 PM
The EROI for oil is fast approaching 1 or less.  We are using all tertiary methods of extraction.    No one thought we would be stupid enough to sacrifice our water and environment.  all the easy oil is gone.  Now we are into shale oil and coal to liquids, while we still pay big bucks to bury our wastes instead of converting them to fuels.  http://8020vision.com/2011/10/17/energy-return-on-investment-eroi-for-u-s-oil-and-gas-discovery-and-production/


We have dumped 400 times all the volcanoes GHG into the air and raised CO2 levels to the highest in 15 million years.   We now regularly have sick building events caused by high CO2 levels.  Warming has not slowed, land temperature raise has.   The temperature of a mixed water ice system does not go up as you add heat until the ice is gone, and the volume of ice has been shrinking, while the oceans are heating up. 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml Heat content. World heat content is up. Tracking CO2 and GHG since 1960.

Climate change is real.

Not to mention the mercury, heavy metals pollution from fossils fuels.   

Without subsidies breaks and protection, electricity prices would

be: rooftop solar Power: 3-6 cents/KWH
Wind Power: 6-7 cents/kWh
Nuclear Power: 11-20+ cents/kWh
Coal Power: 9-32+ cents/kWh
but who gets the giant gov breaks?????
solar 2.3, wind 12B, ethanol 17B, 70B fossils. nukes 120B$

 the linked articles do a better job of explaining where there numbers come from. 

The total gov break per industry are far more important than the gov breaks per unit.




If our gov would stop propping up the fossils and nuclear industries and start really energizing the solar, wind and waste to fuels industries we would make the transition to renewables much faster.  

The fossil industry really does pay out millions to deniers and denier research, they really do pay off our politicians 10 times or more what renewable can afford.

Of course there are sincere scientists who think humans are not causing global warming, but they are the vast majority, and if you study it yourself, you not likely to agree with them.

There are also many corrupt, greedy liars out there doing it for the fat fossil money.

Let's not be naive.  

User Rank
Why do you keep reposting this stupid article?
jhmumford   3/28/2014 2:04:38 PM
Seriously, climate change is a problem, it is at least partially man-made (e.g. albedo-raising soot on the surface of Greenland's ice sheet).  The science is clear, even if the deniers who stick their heads in the sand happen to have impressive-sounding credentials (btw notice that many of them are "former" this or that; why are they no longer doing those jobs? Incompetence?)

But why do you keep featuring this stupid article over and over?  Trying to generate traffic for your web site? Do us all a favor and just ditch your anti-environment pro-carbon agenda and find something productive to write about.

William K.
User Rank
Consider the thermodynamics and the physics, and ten examine the data
William K.   3/28/2014 11:13:44 AM
If we consider the mass of the earth, we find that it is quite large, and that it has a very large capacity to absorb heat energy enough for the temperature to increase a bit. An analogy would be to consider a large pot of water on a stove. It takes a long time for the water to heat, and then if we turn up the heat just a little bit, it takes a long time for the temperature to rise a bit more. 

Now suppose that the heat output from the sun increased just a small amount, say 0.1%, a hundred years ago. Would anybody have noticed? and how long would it take for the earth's temperature to rise a degrree? Remember that Q=mS(delta T), and that can be solved fot (delta T)=Q/mS. Now m= the mass of the earth, and S= the specific heat of the earth, we can see that for a small change in Q, the energy from the sun, will produce a small change in the temperature of the earth, and we can also see that the change will take a while. My point is that while it may be true that the climate of the earth is warming a bit, it may well be due to an increase in solar energy output, which so far we are not able to affect. Not even president Bush could have had any effect on the solar energy output.

Now consider also that a previous warming trend around the 1500's led to a whole lot of improvements in the human condition, would it be too much to supose that there are cycles that we don't quite understand? 

It would take a really towering ego to believe that one understandsexactly how the whole climate mechanism actually works. Some folks do have a few clues, but there is still a whole lot that is unknown, and the present models are a long way from complete. Only a total sophomore would believe that they know it all.

User Rank
Re: Carbon one element of the environmental picture
ramjet@metrocast.net   3/28/2014 9:13:11 AM

I have always doubted "Global Warming" was a man made problem. Look at the amount of CO2 belched out by the Volcano in Iceland in recent years. It dwarfs man made carbon for decades easily. Also look at JPL's data on the outer planets temp changes over the last 10 years. Temps are up but why? I'd like to know how we could have possibly caused that when we haven't dropped anything on them. Perhaps the warming pundits should look at solar activity records and compare it to their temp charts a bit.

I so happily agree with your point on recycling.

We are covering the planet with trash and it needs to stop. More and more places are closing the landfills with nowhere to go. Cities are shipping trash to other states already !!! This massively increases the cost of an already expensive operation.

The city I work in is taking trash from 2 states away into it's landfill, while this nets them free garbage disposal here, the landfill is filling decades sooner than it would on just local material.

I personally put out 5 times as much recycling as trash. And I have a hard time keeping family putting things into the recycling VS the trash. I think I need a compactor for the recycling bin so it doesn't fill so quickly.

If you look at places like South Korea, they know how to recycle. A standard day at recycling there shows over 90% of the material is recycled. This is possibly driven by low incomes and lack of space for landfill, but it proves it can be done.

User Rank
Re: AGW Skeptics are wrong!
Ceylon0   1/15/2014 9:12:37 AM
You say the data set showing a correlation between CO2 and warming was wrong.... Hahhaha. It was also conveniently destroyed as well.... Hmmmm. Look, you seem to be fooling yourself here. One dataset does not make science. Also, you don't back up your contention with proof about this mysterious dataset. Sounds to me like you prefer conspiracy theories to science.

Next, nobody is demanding that we stop burning fossil fuels across the board. That's just a red herring in this argument. The cost of doing anything needs to be understood as best it can. Extracting and burning coal is inexpensive, but who pays for the people affected by the mercury poisoning downstream.

Lastly, what was green Greenland and not green is once again a phony example of supposed common sense run amok. Look, the science is pretty clear, the concept is quite simple, and the effects are complicated. The urination analogy is not credible. You can calculate the contribution of your urination to a river and it has an effect. You can say the amount of CO2 entering the atmospere is trivial, but the only scientists you find that will agree with that are not specialists in the field; and, they are always in the minority.

Good look with that one scientist that says the asteroid is going to miss us!

User Rank
Re: Green house Gas
ChrisP   1/15/2014 12:08:31 AM
It is not an "agenda".  It is reality.  These people are just a few and mostly not in the climate business.

Data in many areas confirms the problem.  Weather confirms its effects. 

Page 1/54  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Automotive News
General Motors is putting an off-road twist on hydrogen fuel cell technology with an imposing new pickup demonstrator called the Chevrolet Colorado ZH2.
The term “autopilot” is now at the heart of a growing debate between Tesla Motors Inc. and Germany’s Federal Motor Transport Authority.
Twenty months after news leaked about Apple Inc.’s secretive automotive project, the high-tech giant has apparently decided it will not go toe-to-toe with Detroit, leaving few in the Motor City surprised.
From the Corvair and the Pinto to the Gremlin and the Pacer, we’ve collected the worst vehicles that suffered from design and engineering hiccups.
Electric powertrains are stealing the spotlight, as automakers showcase their best and brightest battery-powered vehicles, during the Paris Motor Show, Oct. 1-16.
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Oct 10 - 14, Embedded System Design Techniques™: Getting Started Developing Professional Embedded Software
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Course November 8 - 10:
Sponsored by 3M
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2016 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service