Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

If your data is for the San Francisco Bay, you should know that it is also affected by the somewhat variable flow of the Sacramento River in January -- lots of rainfall in the Central valley and along the coastal range. The tidal fetch isn't all that great, but the currents at the Golden Gate can be large (>4kts).

0 Replies

The data are from there - but I can't know such since I've only handbooks from the "Atlantic - Eastern Part", "German Sea" and "Baltic Sea" in my chart house :wink:

That map from 1922 wouldn't be any help, I suppose Laughing

0 Replies

Interesting old chart. The inset at the right is for the Straits of Juan de Fuca near Seattle.

Most people don't know that, even though the Golden Gate channel is very deep (>300feet), there is shoal water about three miles off the coast. It is very shallow (< 20 feet) and a marked channel through it is dredged almost continuously.

In addition, the golden Gate channel through the coastal hills is aligned about 35 degrees from the perpindicular of the coast line. One can't see through it and detect the channel unless he is perfectly aligned with it, and then he is likely hard aground on the shoal or enveloped in coastal fog. It is likely these factors that prevented the Spanish and English explorers from finding the immense natural harbor of San Francisco from the sea. In fact the Spanish discovered the Bay and the Golden Gate on an expedition by land from their first outpost at Monterey about a hundred miles to the south.

Not to worry -- if Steve and the other fanatics are right, it will all be under water in a few years. (My home is about two hundred feet above sea level so I should likely make it for a while.)

0 Replies

george writes :

Quote:

The issue here is the, relative to other hazards, significance of this issue and the theory behind it, as well as the relationship of the supposed hazard to the costs (both economic and in terms of the loss of human freedom) associated with the proposed remedies.

george speaks of possible "loss of human freedom" . i assume he believes that taking measures to reduce pollution , excessive and wasteful consumption , measures to reduce global warming trends etc. might result in possible loss of certain "human freedoms" .
general zinni believes that we adopt a "do nothing" policy , we may well be talking of large-scale loss of human lives and dislocation of large groups of people through floods , starvation , desertification etc .

it would be easy for me to say , at my age , why should i care what the earth looks like in 40 to 50 years ? - and general zinni could no doubt take the same attitude .

however , i think taking some steps to correct the increasing pollution and associated problems will likely benefit the generations to come after us ;
but let's assume that we find out that the steps taken to reduce pollution etc will actually INCREASE the pollution and associated problems .
is there any reason to believe that mankind will not be smart enough to recognize that and modify the action ?

since we have had increased pollution levels during the last 40 to 50 years , might it not be worth trying to reduce them ?

we surely have gone down the road of increasing the pollution for several decades now .
without getting scientific , all i have to do the count the increased number of days with pollution warning every year ,
or i can drive towards toronto in the summer where the smoke/pollution plume gets larger and starts ealier every year ,
or i can take lake ontario - which is right at our doorsteps - , where 50 years ago pretty well all fish could be eaten without much worry , but where today almost all fish are contamined with mercury and other poisons ,
or i can take niagara falls , where 40 years ago the waters were running over thefalls quite cleanly but now it's a foul and foaming soup that's coming over the falls ,
or ... well i don't want to bore anyone with more of these stories .

one thing i can vouch for : the air over ontario and the waters of lake ontario and the st. lawrence river have become much dirtier over the last 50 years .

perhaps certain areas of our earth have become much cleaner during that period . it would certainly be interesting to learn abotut such areas/countries .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foxfire wrote :

Quote:
So then, we should add a few military types and envoys along with Queen Elizabeth and George W. Bush as experts on climatology? I'm REALLY going to have to think long and hard about that.

well , i sure hope some scientists will come around and see foxfire's point of view .
and if they can't accept foxfire's point of view they must be totally unqualified .

You're the one wanting us to listen to them. You must think they are qualified. On the other hand you quite handily dismiss any genuine experts in climatology who disagree with you. So which of us is being the unreasonable one here?

Quote:

(i really wonder why it is so difficult to accept that wasting the resources of mother earth isn't a very smart thing to do - it really puzzles me !

And I wonder why you think that somebody who isn't a religious fanatic about global warming and environmental issues is automatically opposed to conservation and protecting the environment? Seems to me that you're being rather presumptious there. I accept that combining environmentalism and common sense automatically disqualifies me from the environmental wacko club, but I've tried to avoid putting you with that group. I am deeply hurt, however, that you've already forgotten my posts re protection of the environment if you ever read them at all.

Quote:

i guess it is somewhat like the "big 3" almost always claiming that whatever makes sense - seatbelts , airbags , lower fuel consumption ... you name it ... , can't be done . of course , they will come aboard at some point and suddenly claim credit for it . all one has to do is watch the latest ads touting safety featuress that at one time they fought against tooth and nail ... and so it goes on .)

The Big 3 are on very precarious ground to survive at all right now. If they do not give the public the cars that the public wants to buy, then the Asian and European auto makers are the beneficiaries of the Big 3 finally going belly up. Americans who can't get what they want from Ford and can get what they want from Toyota are going to be driving a Toyota.

The common sense side of the equation thinks there is more to benefit people and progress by the Big 3 not going belly up. The short term and miniscule savings by adding 1 mpg to a Ford F150 benefits nobody if nobody buys the truck.

One of the most destructive things in the world to the environment these days is poverty.

0 Replies

foxfire writes :

Quote:

The Big 3 are on very precarious ground to survive at all right now. If they do not give the public the cars that the public wants to buy, then the Asian and European auto makers are the beneficiaries of the Big 3 finally going belly up. Americans who can't get what they want from Ford and can get what they want from Toyota are going to be driving a Toyota.

from what i read , sales of the "big3" are going down , but particularly toyota and honda have increasing sales in north-america .
doesn't that look like toyota and honda are supplying more of the cars that customers want at an increasing rate ?
the "big3" have to provide more and more incentives to sell their cars and keep increasing their losses nevertheless .
toyotas and hondas are hardly ever available with any kind of a discount .
i think the "big3" were amiss in their long-range plans and did not want to admit that consumer preferences were changing ever so slightly .
(we drive a u.s. built car - 1999 olds intrigue - and while it is a good driver , the gas milage is nothing to write home about . we too bet the wrong way . gas prices had come down and we thought NOW is the time to buy our first V-6 , 205 hp car , of course , now we are paying for it Shocked

) .
it's interesting to note that the smaller cars the "general" builds in europe are selling quite well over there .
hbg

0 Replies

The basic problem with the 'Big Three' is that they are stuck with the legacy of UAW Union contracts which saddle them with enormous costs for retiree medical benefits that the other manufacturers (mostly based in the US, but not unionized) don't have to face. This indirectly affects investment and vehicle quality as well.

The last thing we need is government regulation of automnobile design. Bureaucrats are a necessary evil for certain essential government functions, however their scope and powers should be olimited as much as possible. My impression of most AGW zealots is that they like to envision all kinds of government and administrative controls on the lives and choices of others as a preferred way of achieving their aims. Freedom is far better.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The basic problem with the 'Big Three' is that they are stuck with the legacy of UAW Union contracts which saddle them with enormous costs for retiree medical benefits that the other manufacturers (mostly based in the US, but not unionized) don't have to face. This indirectly affects investment and vehicle quality as well.

The last thing we need is government regulation of automnobile design. Bureaucrats are a necessary evil for certain essential government functions, however their scope and powers should be olimited as much as possible. My impression of most AGW zealots is that they like to envision all kinds of government and administrative controls on the lives and choices of others as a preferred way of achieving their aims. Freedom is far better.

And the ultimate handicap, health insurance. Tell me again why our employeers should be in the business of providing my (our) healthcare?

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

george speaks of possible "loss of human freedom" . i assume he believes that taking measures to reduce pollution , excessive and wasteful consumption , measures to reduce global warming trends etc. might result in possible loss of certain "human freedoms" .

Go deeper into the details of things hbg. Nobody would refute the benefits of reducing pollution which has been decreasing the rich countries over the last decades anyway. The question is, like in a any real life problem, at what cost? When it comes to it, the usual attitude is always: you first. Everybody can reduce air pollution to zero buying an electric car but almost nobody does it.
There is an interesting POV of Lomborg on this kind of bang-for-a-buck assessement in this recent documentary by Glenn Beck

0 Replies

Keep in mind that most electric cars have a significant reduction in utility from gas-burners. Want to drive cross-country? Whoops, 200 miles and you're going to need to stop for the night and recharge! Fine if you live a mile from work, not so nice otherwise, even disregarding performance and safety compromises AND the cost premium.

Dunno about you, Hamburger, but things are actually a lot cleaner here in Houston than they used to be. Sure, it's still about as dirty as the air gets in the US, relatively speaking. But in -absolute- terms, it's improved significantly even from my own childhood. You have to get right on top of the refineries to get that old-time stink these days.

And, I hate to keep saying it, but we can't conflate normal environmental issues with global warming issues. It's perfectly possible to continue to improve the local environment without worrying about CO2 in the least. CO2 is not a conventional pollutant. It is not dangerous to humans in any sort of concentration to be found in the atmosphere, unless you're actually breathing exhaust, and even then the other pollutants are much more of a threat than plain ol' asphyxia. Low-sulfur diesel, coal plant scrubbers, all that jazz, go ahead! There's real improvement yet to be had in the control of real pollutants, even if we have bagged most of the low-hanging fruit.

But dealing with CO2 isn't like dealing with other pollutants. If we clean up our mercury emissions, and China doesn't, well, at least we can go fishing without hauling up contaminated fish. (Yes, yes, big-ass plume from China. Even then, it's still not nearly as bad for us as it is for them locally!) But with CO2, it doesn't do any good for us to cut emissions if other people don't; if manufacturing relocates to other countries with lax pollution controls because we crack down on CO2 emissions, things arguably get worse. And while with normal emissions we at least get the improvement in environmental quality, a plant on the other side of the world emitting the same amount of CO2 has the same negative externalities imposed on us as one in our back yard!

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

a plant on the other side of the world emitting the same amount of CO2 has the same negative externalities imposed on us as one in our back yard!

Talking about "negative externality" of CO2 is misleading near to absurd. CO2 is plants' fuel! OK, it contributes to warm the planet, in a proportion nobody knows, but a planet warmer of 5°C can't be WORSE than now except for unproven and ultra-simplified impact models cited by the IPCC and is definitely better than a 5°C colder planet. A warm winter happening and oil prices crash because of les consumption, vegetable prices are lowered, the number people dying of cold spell is reduced... The benefits far outweigh the inconvenience NOW and nobody can "prove" the other way round for the future, except untested models.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
1. The "degree" of warming is unprecedented 2.As is the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. 3.The science is done... the "possibility" is reduced to almost zero.."could be a contributor" should read "is the major cause of anthropogenic global warming".

I admire your efforts to deny the tide the right to come in George. But King Canute still got wet.

Neither the degree of warming nor the CO2 concentrations are "unprecedented". Both have been exceeded in the earth's past as is confirmed in the geological record.

It didnt take long to find this quote from the Energy Saving Trust in the UK

Quote:

Climate changes are natural phenomena that have been happening since the earth was created approximately 4.6 billion years ago but recently there has been unprecedented warming.

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/your_impact_on_climate_change

Georgeob1 wrote:

The possibility of exactly what is "almost zero"?? Catastrophe or continued slight warming. That is the essential question.

Ok I didnt express myself very well. I meant the possibility that CO2 emissions might have some affect. Its a certainty i.e. probability approaching unity that they have some affect, the question is the magnitude of that affect. I was considering the past data, not making a prediction for catastrophe or not. The science shows that greenhouse gas emissions account for well over half the measured warming.

Quote:

Concentrations of greenhouse gases are now higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years. This change has happened very quickly and although the full impact is not completely known, it is possible to predict with some certainty what this change will lead to...Over the past century, average global temperatures have risen by 0.7°C and computer modelling suggests that at least half of the increase since 1900 and most of the warming over the past 50 years has been caused by human activities.

Since 1990, global temperatures have risen by 0.2°C and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from 354 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm¹. The ten warmest years on record have all been since 1990. Six of the ten warmest years on record in the UK were between 1995 and 2004.

georgeob1 wrote:

It is you, not me, who has a closed mind on this matter.

I dont have a closed mind on this, but there come a point George when you have to come to some conclusion. As Carl Sagan said "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Not to worry -- if Steve and the other fanatics are right, it will all be under water in a few years. (My home is about two hundred feet above sea level so I should likely make it for a while.)

I object to being labelled a fanatic, especially as I have made absolutely no predictions about the likely consequences of global warming. My frustration and perceived fanaticism in your eyes stems entirely - as it seems to me - from your willful disregard of the facts.

0 Replies

minitax wrote :

Quote:

Nobody would refute the benefits of reducing pollution which has been decreasing the rich countries over the last decades anyway. The question is, like in a any real life problem, at what cost?

avatar wrote :

Quote:

Dunno about you, Hamburger, but things are actually a lot cleaner here in Houston than they used to be.

hbg wrote :

Quote:

without getting scientific , all i have to do the count the increased number of days with pollution warning every year ,
or i can drive towards toronto in the summer where the smoke/pollution plume gets larger and starts ealier every year ,
or i can take lake ontario - which is right at our doorsteps - , where 50 years ago pretty well all fish could be eaten without much worry , but where today almost all fish are contamined with mercury and other poisons ,
or i can take niagara falls , where 40 years ago the waters were running over thefalls quite cleanly but now it's a foul and foaming soup that's coming over the falls ,
or ... well i don't want to bore anyone with more of these stories .

perhaps to bore you a little more , the first "pollution warning" for the year for southern and eastern ontario - and stretching as far as montreal -
was issued today because the prevailing south-westerly winds bring plenty of foul air into this neck of the woods .
i've already explained about lake ontario and niagara falls - do you think the polluters bear any responsibilty for the clean-up ?
of course , corporations claim they'll go bankrupt if they are forced to foot the bill for the clean-up .
(in the meantime dogowners are are fined if they don't clean up after their dogs ! not that i think they should be allowed to make a mess of the city sidewalks , but to me it's kind of ironic that we go after the dogs with the might of local bylaw-enforcement officers and allow the big ones to get away with murder - literally !) .
hbg

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

The science shows that greenhouse gas emissions account for well over half the measured warming.

No, it does NOT. You wouldn't find anything supporting such claim since the science does not even know climate sensitivity to a doubling of GHG and understanding of aerosols (whose negative forcing equals the positive forcing of CO2+CH4+N0x combined) remain low to very low (see the diagram in the Summary for Policymakers).

BTW, the GHG theory can't explain why the Earth was warming from 1900 to 1940 at an "unprecedented" rate while the world was in long periods of economic recession (hence less emission), why it was cooling from 1940 to 1975 while there was a global economic boom (hence ghg emitted like crazy), why China is not cooling while it emits as much aerosols now than western countries back in the 60s when the Earth was cooling, why the Earth had an "unprecedented" (and sometimes very rapidly occuring) warm Optimum Medieval then a deeply cold Little Ice Age while GHG content remained constant.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
The science shows that greenhouse gas emissions account for well over half the measured warming.

No, it does NOT. You wouldn't find anything supporting such claim since the science does not even know climate sensitivity to a doubling of GHG and understanding of aerosols (whose negative forcing equals the positive forcing of CO2+CH4+N0x combined) remain low to very low (see the diagram in the Summary for Policymakers).

BTW, the GHG theory can't explain why the Earth was warming from 1900 to 1940 at an "unprecedented" rate while the world was in long periods of economic recession (hence less emission), why it was cooling from 1940 to 1975 while there was a global economic boom (hence ghg emitted like crazy), why China is not cooling while it emits as much aerosols now than western countries back in the 60s when the Earth was cooling, why the Earth had an "unprecedented" (and sometimes very rapidly occuring) warm Optimum Medieval then a deeply cold Little Ice Age while GHG content remained constant.

Are you seriously suggesting that China should be getting colder and it isnt therefore GHG theory is wrong? Smile

You argue like a creationist picking at bits of Darwinian evolution in a vain attempt to pull the whole thing down. If I accept the anomaly of cooling during an economic boom 1940-1975 I could suggest there is a hysterisis lag surrounding certain events or periods, and its the cummulative affect of CO2 build up which counts. But then I'm not a climatologist.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
The science shows that greenhouse gas emissions account for well over half the measured warming.

No, it does NOT...

well from the Energy Saving Trust (above) which quotes reputable government sources

Quote:

Over the past century, average global temperatures have risen by 0.7°C and computer modelling suggests that at least half of the increase since 1900 and most of the warming over the past 50 years has been caused by human activities.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that China should be getting colder and it isnt therefore GHG theory is wrong? You argue like a creationist picking at bits of Darwinian evolution in a vain attempt to pull the whole thing down. If I accept the anomaly of cooling during an economic boom 1940-1975 I could suggest there is a hysterisis lag surrounding certain events or periods, and its the cummulative affect of CO2 build up which counts. But then I'm not a climatologist.

No. She merely pointed out a few very salient facts that contradict specific elements of arguments put forward by AGW fanatics (or cultists if you prefer). There are numerous rather incongruous phase shifts in the geological record of variations of past temperatures and atmospheric CO2 content. Hysteresis, which has to do with the Second Law and energy losses from the system, doesn't explain them. You may well have a point in the matter of cumulate effects, extended over time. The problem is the available facts don't clearly demonstrate one.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that China should be getting colder and it isnt therefore GHG theory is wrong? You argue like a creationist picking at bits of Darwinian evolution in a vain attempt to pull the whole thing down. If I accept the anomaly of cooling during an economic boom 1940-1975 I could suggest there is a hysterisis lag surrounding certain events or periods, and its the cummulative affect of CO2 build up which counts. But then I'm not a climatologist.

I am seriously suggesting that the China "anomaly" added to the facts stated above that contradict the GHG theory make the theory moot.
You can have 1,000 facts that support your theory, just ONE "inconvenient" fact is enough to make the theory irrelevant. That's the way the science works. The AGHG theory has too many contradictory facts to be correct.
As to the "hysteresis lag", no offense but I'd rather call it a knowledge lag.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
The science shows that greenhouse gas emissions account for well over half the measured warming.

No, it does NOT...
well from the Energy Saving Trust (above) which quotes reputable government sources

Where are the scientific papers ref. please ? I'm not aware of ANY scientific paper that supports your claim that "The science shows that greenhouse gas emissions account for well over half the measured warming." ???

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know