shagdrum said:
I think u r missing my point here, let me try and rephrase.
America releases 1.6 Pg but our "terresterial uptake" of CO2 is 1.7Pg; in other words we take in more then we put out. They got the 1.7PG figure by taking a direct measurement of the CO2 in the North Pacific and subtracting it from the measurment from the North Altantic measurement. If they had assumed that the measurement was zero in the North Pacific then your claim of overlooking output from another country would be correct. If they did directly measure the CO2 levels in the North Pacific, then your point is invalid. Any measurement in the North Pacific would by design include any CO2 output from Asia, among others. Thus the CO2, Asia puts out is already accounted for in the measurement.
That is the difference between hard science (direct measurements and repeatible scientific tests), and "soft" science (computer or mathematical models); if u don't account for a variable with hard science, the variable is figured in to the research, with soft science, if u don't account for a variable, it is ignored.
...now respond so we can get this thing to three pages!!!!!
Since you seem to be one of the very few here who care to debate this without resorting to blatant name-calling and mud tossing, I’ll engage.
I’m not doubting the measured data, but I’m not buying the conclusions being drawn from it. In essence, this study is saying the equivalent of this simplistic analogy:
I’m driving down the road following a old POS Ford
blowing a blue cloud of smoke in my face in my car (a “clean” burning car or otherwise). They make a measurement of the air quality from in front of my car and compare it to the same type of measurement from behind my car. The measurement from in front of my car shows the air quality is lower than from behind my car. These relative measurements then
imply (the report’s words, not mine) that my car is cleaning up the air as it flows over my car and therefore my car is a “net negative polluter”.
Knowing that it is impossible for my car to NOT emit pollution, how does this data prove that the better air quality behind my car is due to my car acting like a “filter” and improving the air quality, and NOT due to the fact that the air behind my car is further diluted by traveling more distance (the length of my car) and becoming mixed with other clean air from turbulence after it leaves the Ford’s tailpipe? For the conclusions being drawn from this study to be valid beyond doubt, one must assume that the concentration of CO2 in either ocean represents (is proportional to) with 100% correlation (i.e: you increase “the cause” by 50% and “the effect” also increases by 50%) the amount of CO2 being pumped into (or drawn from) the atmosphere by the continent immediately to the west of the ocean AND NOWHERE ELSE. You can MAKE that assumption, fine. But once you DO make
any assumption, how valid are the conclusions?
But OK, for the sake of argument, lets assume it’s true that North America as a whole “sucks more CO2 out of the atmosphere as it blows over the surface than it pumps into it”. WHY is that? According to that report, most of the “net CO2 uptake” occurs in the northern latitudes (i.e.: primarily in the relatively sparsely populated forests of northern Canada). It doesn’t change the fact that globally, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at record high levels and continues to rise (that IS “hard science based on empirical measurements over a broad area and long timeframe, NOT a “theory” or a “computer model prediction”). In other words, it does not disprove the occurrence of global warming. And how does this study vindicate the US (primarily) from contributing the 1.6 Pg (and increasing with time) of CO2 to begin with? Theoretically, if the US were to reduce CO2 emissions, the “net CO2 uptake” would increase even further, possibly helping reverse the upward trend of global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Now don’t make the mistake of presuming that I’m proposing that the US take the entire burden of reducing global CO2 concentration (in an effort to reduce or reverse the global warming trends) solely on it’s own shoulders, because I’m not. There is no possible way any one country can solve this global issue by itself. WE ALL have to work together, which IS the spirit of the Kyoto treaty. YES, all countries, especially China with it’s skyrocketing population and subsequent energy use, must also be pressured into joining forces with the rest of the world. BUT, for the USA, which IS, HAS and CONTINUES TO BE one of the world’s major contributors of CO2 and greenhouse gases to “sit this one out” is preposterous. Everyone here prides themselves on the USA being the “world leader” in nearly everything we do. I find amazing, in fact appalling that those who criticize the “anti-war” crowd of “cutting and running” are the same people who now want to adopt that exact same attitude with GW, they want to turn tail and “cut and run” from this GWOGW. The same people who pride themselves on the US being “loyal” and “protectors” to the world now want to flip the rest of the planet the bird.
What is really disturbing is, those who don’t give a 2nd thought to shedding more BLOOD over “protecting our interests in the middle east” (i.e: OIL = MONEY), are the same people who can’t stand the thought of spending MONEY to save BLOOD. It would be hypocritical to now sit on our asses and let someone else lead this effort. We’d be setting a bad example, and hell, we’d probably be “emboldening the enemy” too.
All these “scare tactics” used by the non-believers (as evidenced in this very thread) that cry about how much IT’S GOING TO DESTROY OUR ECONOMY AND COST A GAZILLION DOLLARS is just that, scare tactics. The computer models they use to come up with these preposterous predictions CANNOT be any better than the same computer models that they themselves claim are wrong on global warming predictions. Additionally, most of these scary claims are based on false assumptions, such as this one:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...8,0,975318.column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday
This clown makes an absurd assumption then goes on to “extrapolate” what it’s going to “cost” to reverse global warming:
The Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800%, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800% is unknowable, but let's stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity and that this warming is in fact indisputably bad (which is hardly obvious).
The fact of the matter is that there is NO WAY that all of our prosperity cost us some amount of GW in terms of temperature increase. In fact, the majority of our prosperity didn’t “cost” us a red cent of GW. Now these fear mongers want us to believe that the cost of “buying back” all the GW that has occurred over the last century is
equal to all the “prosperity” that occurred over the same time??? You’d have to be a complete idiot to believe that BS.
These scare tactics also ignore the potential for new markets, new jobs, new industries and new opportunities. Every dollar spent on the reduction of GW is NOT going to be flushed down the toilet or “given away” to foreign countries (unless of course the US decides to sit on its hands and fails to seize these opportunities to keep that money at home). Depending on how the US acts, we have the opportunity to capitalize on this and open new avenues of cash flow and prosperity for our own fellow American citizens.
Additionally, there are (and will probably be thousands more) ways to reduce GW that actually pays for itself. Take the mini-fluorescent light bulb for example. At first glance, it appears to cost us more initially, but in the long run it lasts longer and saves energy (reducing GW) and ends up actually SAVING the consumer money compared to current technology (incandescent bulbs). Each bulb may be a drop in the bucket for its effect on reducing GW, but it’s a drop INTO the bucket and not a LEAK from it. And it doesn’t cost us a dime, it actually pays for itself.
BOTTOM LINE:
1) Global warming IS occurring. There is no longer a dispute about that amongst the worlds’ best climate scientists. Even fossten agreed with this at one time before he flip-flopped (
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/sho...84&postcount=1), apparently only because Al Gore came out on his side.
2) Global warming is 90% likely to be caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. Out of every 10 of the worlds’ best climate scientists, only ONE disagrees.
3) What is still up for debate is, the ability for humans to positively effect and possibly reverse the trend of global warming, and how bad the long term adverse effects on our lives will be. Predicting the future is by nature a very daunting task. However, “your” predictions of COSTING A GAZILLION DOLLARS are no better or more precise than “my” predictions of A TIDAL WAVE WIPING OUT NY CITY WITHIN THE NEXT 50 YEARS. Using extremist terms and views, from EITHER SIDE, will get us nowhere in this debate.
If ‘yall want to burry your heads in the sand and pretend GW is “bunk science”, that’s your prerogative. Just be prepared to be schooled. The planet earth has survived much worse than any “plague of man” (enviro-whacko speak, not mine) and will continue to thrive in some manner long after man’s peril. However, you must understand that the global climatic conditions that have allowed life to thrive and man to proliferate over the millennia are the result of a delicate balance of natural forces. While “organism earth” has a huge capacity to absorb periodic disturbances to maintain some control over this balance, this capacity is not without bounds. If we are pushing those bounds to its limits as the vast majority of the data shows, it would be irresponsible to future generations (does anyone here besides me have children??) to continue down that path. If you want to ignore the potential impacts on human lives to maybe save a few bucks, then be prepared to pay the price of adaptation later and STFU when it happens.
![warm11[1].gif](https://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/forum/data/attachments/98/98380-7da6a1ae17b4705a14a7e23a72d22190.jpg "warm11[1].gif")
