Perhaps South Dakota will repeal the law of gravity, next?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.scientificblogging.com/chatter_box/south_dakota_exempted_laws_science

[Stealth Hunter]

http://i32.tinypic.com/2ijpyx5.jpg

Omg...

[August]

Well care to point out what is actually incorrect about any of these statements?

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;
(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena

[NeonSamurai]

Well care to point out what is actually incorrect about any of these statements?
(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;
(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena



(1) Well its all theory, in theory at least. :DL If you want to get really philosophical about it, you can make the valid statement that there is no proven fact at all, we can't even really prove we exist, or that anything we "sense" does.

(2) Its a lot more then simple speculation, there is considerable evidence in support of the theories relating to this topic. This isn't some theory a guy came up with one day on the back balcony having a beer, based on sheer speculation.

(3) I think it has far more prejudiced the greater populace as to its debate on the topic rather than the scientific community itself (notice how the political sides have lined up on the issue?). The scientific community at least has some training in identifying their own biases and trying to control for them. Plus of course the whole thing on the scientific method which is designed to reduce bias as much as possible.


Anyhow sounds like that group has their own agenda, probably pandering to their constituents, or business pressures.

[razark]

Well care to point out what is actually incorrect about any of these statements?

The definition of "theory" in a scientific discussion, for one.

Also, what are the "astrological... dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena"? What does astrology have to do with anything?

That shows that the people passing the laws aren't exactly the best people to deal with the subject. Edit: This last part is a problem with a lot of laws. Politicians are great at PR and getting elected. They're not really experts in anything else. But they make the laws that affect everything.

[Stealth Hunter]

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;

Perhaps they should refresh their memories of junior high on what a scientific theory is exactly... a well-tested theoretical concept confirmed by present facts and evidence gathered by researchers that explains a wide range of observations for whatever specific field of study, or fields. (-The National Science Foundation)

(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;

Pretty much correct, except for the "largely speculative" part- which, aside from being erroneous (you don't speculate when it comes to the sciences...), they also fail to define this usage of terminology.

(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena

First half, well that goes without say. This happens with anything when it comes to the public's views. Very rarely, though, does something this large become that political (the majority of the scientific community is in consensus that global warming is at least partially caused by humans; source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_sc ientists_and_scientific_literature) when it comes to the actual scientists who are doing the investigations and research/studies. It's never been proven in this instance that they've been influenced, anyway. The "Climate-Gate" scientists who were supposedly hiding data and discussing it in emails were cleared of all charges and found innocent by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

[SteamWake]

There is no gravity... the earth sucks :har:

[NeonSamurai]

The "Climate-Gate" scientists who were supposedly hiding data and discussing it in emails were cleared of all charges and found innocent by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

Oh good, was wondering when that was going to finish. You should post that to the global warming thread ;)

[August]

(1) Well its all theory, in theory at least. :DL If you want to get really philosophical about it, you can make the valid statement that there is no proven fact at all, we can't even really prove we exist, or that anything we "sense" does.But some people act like it is indeed proven fact. Skybird does it all the time.

(2) Its a lot more then simple speculation, there is considerable evidence in support of the theories relating to this topic. This isn't some theory a guy came up with one day on the back balcony having a beer, based on sheer speculation.They said "largely" speculation. YOU are the one changing that to "sheer" speculation and "simple" speculation.

(3) I think it has far more prejudiced the greater populace as to its debate on the topic rather than the scientific community itself (notice how the political sides have lined up on the issue?). The scientific community at least has some training in identifying their own biases and trying to control for them. Plus of course the whole thing on the scientific method which is designed to reduce bias as much as possible.Well I agree and you'd think the scientific community would have learnt to stay out of politics by now but I guess they have to pander to the alarmists in order to get their funding.

[NeonSamurai]

But some people act like it is indeed proven fact. Skybird does it all the time.

They said "largely" speculation. YOU are the one changing that to "sheer" speculation and "simple" speculation.

Well I agree and you'd think the scientific community would have learnt to stay out of politics by now but I guess they have to pander to the alarmists in order to get their funding.

The main thrust of my 2nd reply was that it is evidence based, not speculative in nature. They are making it sound like the science is pure speculation, which is false.

The scientific community is largely out of the picture, not really pandering to anyone. Most governmental funding comes regardless of the direction of results, they just want an accurate picture. Its these other people that are taking the science and running with it to further their own ends. Just like those on the other side are doing the same thing too. I guess this is why I like scientific discourse most, as it is by in large politics free. Everything else is poisoned by political weighting.

[August]

Everything else is poisoned by political weighting.

I think that's the main point the SD legislature is trying to address here.

[tater]

Sadly, many AGW skeptics are also very creationist in their thinking (or are actually creationists). It gives those of us who are NOT a bad rep.

I'd call AGW a hypothesis, not a theory, since their models don't nearly explain the observations well enough to meet the standard required for theory. Not really reproducible, either, since they publish neither their data, nor their models.

If they'd keep "global warming" out of public policy, no one would bother with it and they could stop politicizing it in any direction and just do the science.

[Aramike]

Oh, this is rich ... somehow libs have found fault with a resolution:...Calling for balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota.which essentially simply requires that the science be taught without being presented as rock-solid conclusions.

I wonder who to trust more - the aforementioned lefties or the people who flat-out state their agendas.

[Bubblehead1980]

Looks like the bill is just saying that a balanced teaching of global warming must be taught.Let's face it guys, global warming is not a FACT, it is a theory and one that I and many people find unlikely.Now, I will not deny that man's pollution has an effect on the earth in some ways and thus we need to find ways to live and not pollute the earth so much(not things like cap and trade that will hurt us), but we do not have the impact to the extent Al Gore and company argue.Although I disagree with global warming theory, both sides should be taught as THEORY and students can make up their own minds.

I live in the Florida Panhandle(Pensacola) and the winters here do get cold but this past winter was the coldest thus far in my life.I looked up some info:

The average winter reading this season in Pensacola has been 48.4 degrees, which is 5.3 degrees below normal. Here are the coldest winters on record from the National Weather Service for Pensacola.

1.) 47.4 average temp in 1977
2.) 47.5 average temp in 1978
3.) 47.6 average temp in 1964
4.) 48.4 average temp in 2010

48.4 may have been the AVERAGE temp but there were many nights, including 11 days straight in January when the temp went below freezing, in Florida(!) Talked to some friends in south florida and was told it was cooler down there as well.Put this in with the record snow storms in the US and all.Oh yea, the climate change conference that was in copenhagen(i think) they had a record blizzard during or right before the big meeting right? Global Warming my ass:har: OH wait, I think someone actually said that global warming was causing us to have harsher winters LOL

On a more partisan note: The envrionazis are a force in the Dem party thus their candidates have catered to them and pushed this crap as if it's real scientific fact and not a theory.Kind of a good scheme except facts and rational thinking just don't match up with it:haha:

[Stealth Hunter]

Looks like the bill is just saying that a balanced teaching of global warming must be taught.Let's face it guys, global warming is not a FACT, it is a theory and one that I and many people find unlikely.Now, I will not deny that man's pollution has an effect on the earth in some ways and thus we need to find ways to live and not pollute the earth so much(not things like cap and trade that will hurt us), but we do not have the impact to the extent Al Gore and company argue.Although I disagree with global warming theory, both sides should be taught as THEORY and students can make up their own minds.

I live in the Florida Panhandle(Pensacola) and the winters here do get cold but this past winter was the coldest thus far in my life.I looked up some info:

The average winter reading this season in Pensacola has been 48.4 degrees, which is 5.3 degrees below normal. Here are the coldest winters on record from the National Weather Service for Pensacola.

1.) 47.4 average temp in 1977
2.) 47.5 average temp in 1978
3.) 47.6 average temp in 1964
4.) 48.4 average temp in 2010

48.4 may have been the AVERAGE temp but there were many nights, including 11 days straight in January when the temp went below freezing, in Florida(!) Talked to some friends in south florida and was told it was cooler down there as well.Put this in with the record snow storms in the US and all.Oh yea, the climate change conference that was in copenhagen(i think) they had a record blizzard during or right before the big meeting right? Global Warming my ass:har: OH wait, I think someone actually said that global warming was causing us to have harsher winters LOL

On a more partisan note: The envrionazis are a force in the Dem party thus their candidates have catered to them and pushed this crap as if it's real scientific fact and not a theory.Kind of a good scheme except facts and rational thinking just don't match up with it:haha:

Oh boy... where to begin. I guess with having us ask ourselves just one question: is the increase in CO2 man-made? And I shall address it in an at least moderately well organized format.

Simple Accounting (second order evidence)

The first thing one must look at for this is simple accounting. We know how much carbon (as in fossil fuels) we've burned since the beginning of the Second Industrial Revolution and birth of the Industrial Age. The total amount comes to around twice as much as the increase in atmospheric CO2 (we'll get into where the last part went - when we get further on in this debate; see the first three citations for this particular segment's sources of information).

Carbon Isotopes (first order evidence)

The second thing which scientists and we can base our conclusions upon are measurements of carbon (C-12) and its isotopes (C-14 and C-13) in the atmosphere (referred to as the Suess Effect; cited in the fourth and fifth sources listed).

Carbon-14 is created in the upper troposphere by high-energy reactions created by cosmic rays. It's is radioactive and has a half-life of 5730±40 years. Because it is radioactive, it undergoes radioactive decay. As such, it's frequently used in dating objects just around 100,000-years-old (radiometric dating can trace back billions of years, on a related note). Oil, coal, and other fossil fuel materials have no carbon-14 content (as it's decayed away over the 65 million years or so that the oil began formulating, around the time of the mass extinctions of the dinosaurs and 90% of all life on the surface of Earth). So, when we burn the fossil fuel materials, they release carbon with no C14 content. This means that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere should fall, and indeed it does.

Carbon-13 has the strange characteristic that causes plants to not particularly "like it", so when plants use CO2 in carrying out their metabolic photosynthesis pathway, they avoid using the C13. This means that plant material is consisting almost completely of carbon-12, and for the same reason, oil, coal, and other fossil fuel materials contain almost no C13. So when we burn it we'll see the same effect as for C14: The relative abundance of (C12,C13,C14) changes.

The latter two (C13,C14) and their relative abundance work as a fingerprint as to where the carbon is coming from. This means we can trace their sources for each cubic foot of the gases we capture and study.

Plant material has low levels of C13 but normal levels of C12 and C14.
CO2 produced from dissolution in the oceans has normal levels of C12 and C13 (normal levels of C14, but could be low if the CO2 came from the bottom, for whatever reason).

Fossil fuel materials have low levels of C13 and C14 (being almost pure C12).

So when the atmospheric level of C13 and C14 falls (as measured and documented by practically all climate change research institutes and organizations) in proportion to C12, then we can see that it comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Consequently, we know it was not produced naturally, but from human beings burning the fuels for whatever reason (cars, industrial complexes, power plants, etc.).

Paleo-data (first order evidence)

This line of evidence is primarily inferred during the last stable geological period (around 20 million years ago). CO2 in the atmosphere has varied between 180ppm (the coldest parts of a glacier) and 300ppm (the warmest part of the interiors of the glaciers). We know this from several paleo sources, particularly ones relating to ice core samples that have been taken from all around the globe. All results gathered have shown virtually the same thing: a general trend of warming followed by a violent period after the Second Industrial Revolution and the birth of the Industrial Age. During the last 150 years (or since we started to burn fossil fuels like coal in factories, steamships, and the like), the atmospheric content of CO2 has risen by 35.7% from 280ppm (has been reasonably stable here for the last 20.000 years) to currently around 380ppm (see the sixth and seventh sources listed below). That's a large increase, not at all like the natural trends found before.

Sinks and Sources (second order evidence)

This line of evidence is based upon tallying the various sources, and the various sinks of CO2; what is calculated is the net sink or net sources. The ocean, for instance is emitting CO2 (the algae in it is anyway), but is also sinking CO2 (from other types of algae, too). By subtracting these fluctuations, we can see how much the oceanic contribution to the carbon budget is (eighth source listed).

When calculating this we can see that the annual contribution to the atmosphere is around 2ppm (or 4.26 Gt CO2), and we can also see that the only source where this can come from is from human (antropogenic) sources. Since nature as a whole is acting as a sink, save for a few exceptions.

Oxygen content (first order evidence)

The last one is rather simple. When carbon is burned, it oxidizes. That means that it uses 1 oxygen molecule. So for each new carbon atom released, 2 oxygen atoms are used. This can be measured since in each 100 atoms of fossil fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed (ninth source listed)

Addendum here: the reason that this line of evidence is important is that if the CO2 had come from the oceans as many global warming/climate change deniers claim, the oxygen level would not fall as the CO2 is released with oxygen molecules from the oceans as well (tenth source listed).

It would have been theoretically possible for the CO2 to come from the very bottom of the oceans (for example, large outgassings beyond what Henry's law could counteract and thus elude us by still making the surface waters acidic), which means that it could have been stored away for thousands of years, exhibiting the same C14 depletion as fossil fuels, so that the oxygen level falls proportionally with CO2 increase. This means that the CO2 couldn't originate in the oceans, but if this were true, then this wouldn't have the C13 signature seen though.

The same can be said for volcanoes, as they also release it as CO2 (without oxygen from the atmosphere). This happens by metamorphism of basic elements and substances. For instance, carbonates reacting with quartz, the chemistry being represented as: CaCO3 + SiO2 = CO2 + CaSiO3. The calcium silicates (CaSiO3) come back out as lava, adding to continental crust, and the CO2 comes out of the volcanoes as an explosive gas- which leaves very few atmospheric traces despite claims made by deniers and their "research".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:


CDIAC CO2 emissions http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems

Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html

Tans et al(1979) "Natural atmospheric 14C variation and the Suess effect" Nature 280, 826 - 828; doi:10.1038/280826a0 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../280826a0.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5725/abs/280826a0.html)

Battle et al(2000) "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C" Science 31 March 2000: Vol. 287. no. 5462, pp. 2467 - 2470 DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5462.2467 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...;287/5462/2467 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;287/5462/2467)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm

Bender et al(2005) "Atmospheric O2/N2 changes, 1993–2002: Implications for the partitioning of fossil fuel CO2 sequestration" Global Biochemical Cycles, vol. 19, gb4017, doi:10.1029/2004GB002410 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GB002410.shtml (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GB002410.shtml)

Wallace S. Broecker "Et tu, O2" http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm


The greenhouse effect itself is what keeps the earth warm and habitable for us. If we didn't have it, Earth’s surface would be about 60*Fahrenheit on average. Since the average temperature of Earth is about 45*F, the natural greenhouse effect is clearly a good thing, as are the gases in limited quantity. But the enhanced greenhouse effect means even more of energy given off by the sun is trapped by having too many of the gases in our atmosphere, the result of course being global temperatures rising.

By pumping man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are altering the process by which naturally occurring greenhouse gases trap the sun's energy before it can be released back into space. The main gases are as followed:


Carbon Dioxide (CO2; unnaturally produced/exacerbated by fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion (destroying trees and other plants which are responsible for recycling it and emitting oxygen as a byproduct, and basic cement production)
Methane (CH4; fossil fuels, farms, waste dumps)
Nitrous Oxide (N20; fertilizer, industrial production, combustion)
Chlorofluorocarbon-12 (CCL2F2; liquid coolants and foams)
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 (HCCL2F2; refrigerants)
Perfluoroethane (C2F6; smelting of metals, semiconductor manufacturing)
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6; dielectric fluids)

All chlorofluorocarbons listed are damaging to ozone, the greenhouse gas (albeit, a harmless one) that is there to protect us from the sun's great amount of energy and UV-rays.


Today, tropospheric composition of these gases is as follows (in parts per billion with the numbers from 1750 included for comparison):



Carbon Dioxide - 377,700 (280,000)
Methane - 1,847 (635)
Nitrous Oxide - 319 (260)
CFC-12 - .545 (0)
HCFC-22 - .174 (0)
Perfluoroethane - .03 (0)
Sulfur Hexafluoride - .00522 (0)

Source of graphical information:

Blasing, T.J. ad K. Smith 2006. "Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations." In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Cetner, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.

Global CO2 flows, carbon reservoirs, and changes in the reservoirs can best be displayed via a statistical figure representative:

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/figure2_image.gif

The tan colored pool is decreasing in size, but the blue colored pools are increasing. Intensity of the blue color indicates the magnitude of stock change. The numbers in orange indicate the total amount of carbon in the reservoir discovered by NCAR, green ones the average annual change in the amount of carbon in the reservoir. Also note that a gigaton (as the graph is displayed in; Gt.) are as follows: 1 Gt = 109 metric tons

Source of graph: Bolin et al. in NCAR, 2007a; Houghton.

As shown in the graph, the annual average human-induced flows of CO2 - 6.3 gigatons from fossil fuel combustion and 1.6 Gt from deforestation in the from the late 1990s/early 2000s- are a small fraction of total CO2 flows. However, these flows are resulting in increased carbon in the ocean and atmospheric reservoirs on Earth.

Anthropogenic emissions of CH4 and N2O comprise a much larger share of total emissions of these gases than is the case for CO2. Approximately 70% of the 550 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually and about half of the 14 MMT of N2O emitted annually are due to human activities, concentrated over large industrial nations- chiefly being India and China (source: also Bolin et al. in NCAR, 2007a).

It should be noted that water vapor also acts as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect (which, for the record, is not at all like how a literal greenhouse works). This is a result of the natural cycle of water.

One of the most important bits of evidence touched upon are global surface temperature trends. The global average surface temperature fluctuates over time, but in recent decades it has increased dramatically. From 1920 to the present, Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 1.4*F. According to the National Academy of Sciences, this change is the largest global temperature rise in at least the last 2,000 years and may steal the record from the last 5,000 years. The sharpest rise occurred between 1975 and 2005, when temperatures rose steadily by about 1*F on average.

The recent increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of human activities, as we discussed earlier- mainly the burning of fossil fuels. As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, so has the average surface temperature (to reiterate). The relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature is shown here for the past 150 years.


http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/co2-and-temp-trends_013007_092528.gif


Source for CO2 concentration data: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf, 2005. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. DOE, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

Source for temperature data: Brohan, P., I. Haris, S.F.B. Tett, P.D. Jones, and J.J. Kennedy, 2006. Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. Journal of Geophysical Research, p. 111, 2003.

Over the last 400,000 years.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/vostok-ice-core_013107_062554.gif

This data was also collected by C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf, published on pages 121-126 of issue #398 of Nature magazine in 2000.

The graph below this section of paragraphs compares measurements of the Earth’s past temperature variations (shown by the black line) with simulations of past temperature variations (shown by the red and blue lines) in order to determine whether the major changes in temperature were caused by natural or human-caused factors.

The black line shows observed surface temperature variations from the average. The blue and red lines show computer model results when past temperatures are simulated including different drivers of the climate system. Natural drivers include solar radiation and volcanic emissions, while anthropogenic (man-made) drivers include man-made greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols. The blue line shows variation when natural drivers are included in the calculations, while the red line shows variation when both natural and anthropogenic drivers are included.

This graph shows that the combination of natural and anthropogenic drivers (the red line) provides a better match to the observed temperatures (black line) than only natural drivers (the blue line).

Natural drivers alone can explain much of the temperature change in the first half of the century, as demonstrated by the similarity between the black and blue lines during that time period. As can be seen with the close match between the red and black lines, human-produced drivers strongly dominated the temperature change in the latter part of the 20th century.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/meehl-attribution.gif

The source: Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.M. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigley, and C. Tebaldi, 2004. Of Models and Men. Journal Collective of Scientific Minds, p. 44, found in the January 2005 edition.

The graph below shows the heat content of the ocean measured at three depths: from 0-300 meters (red line), from 0-700 meters (blue line), and from 0-3000 meters (gray line). Each line on the graph corresponds to measurements taken at one of these three depths and shows a gradual increase in heat content over time. Warming of the oceans has many consequences, including sea level rise, coral bleaching, loss of sea ice, intensification of hurricanes, and higher coastal storm surges. Taken together with the graph below, this shows that increased temperatures have been observed at Earth’s surface and in the oceans.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/ocean-heat-trends.gif

Source: Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer, 2005. Journal of Geophysical Research, p. 66, 2005.

One of the projected impacts of climate change is an increase in sea level. This figure shows the results of satellite measurements of the change in average global sea level in recent times. The slope of the graph suggests that the change in sea level is accelerating, which is expected as a result of global warming.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/mean-sea-level-rise.gif

Source: Cazenave, A. and R.S. Nerem, 2004. Present-day sea level change: Observations, Causes, and Conclusions. Rev. Geophys., p. 42.

This figure compares the extent of the summer arctic sea ice in 1979 with the extent of the sea ice in summer 2005. Since 1979, more than 20% of the Polar Ice Caps have melted away in response to increased surface air and ocean temperatures. Information and graphical representation from NASA and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The figure below demonstrates the trend in arctic sea ice extent, as measured in September, the annual summer minimum for sea ice extent, for each reporting year. Starts in 1979, going in intervals of five years until the 2004 mark, and ends in 2006 (the quality is also downgraded, for some reason; probably the pure-white background it had in the magazine- from the National Snow & Ice Data Center).

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/ice_decline_graph.gif

This figure also shows the number of named tropical storms in the North Atlantic, per year, smoothed out over a decade long running average to minimize the clutter of data in year-to-year variation. Since 1996, tropical storm frequency has exceeded by 40% the old historic maximum of the mid-1950s, previously considered extreme. Recent peer-reviewed studies suggest a link between higher sea surface temperature and storm frequency. Extreme weather events are a projected impact of global climate change.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/NATL-TS-Frequency_1930-2007.gif

In the year 2004, the United States emitted over seven billion metric tons of greenhouse gases (CO2E). Carbon dioxide accounted for the largest percentage of greenhouse gases (83%), followed by methane (9%), nitrous oxide (5%), and the high global warming potential gases (2%).

(sources are all listed beneath the images; if they're too blurry, I'll write them out for anyone who asks)

http://i43.tinypic.com/wgouht.jpg

Greenhouse gases are emitted by all sectors of the economy, including industry (30% of total), transportation (28%), commercial (17%), residential (17%), and agriculture (8%). In this figure, greenhouse gases from electricity generation have been allocated to the end-use sector. (from the EPA's website)

This figure shows the trends in US carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2004. The data indicate that carbon dioxide emissions increased 15.8% between 1990 and 2004.

http://i43.tinypic.com/hrhh7t.jpg

This figure shows the emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels in the generation of electric power. The three electricity-generating fuels shown here are coal, natural gas, and petroleum.

http://i41.tinypic.com/a4sll4.jpg

This figure shows trends in emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of oil to produce energy for the following five sectors: transportation, industry, electric power, residential, and commercial.

http://i43.tinypic.com/205xk5d.jpg

The transportation sector is the second largest contributor of greenhosue gas emissions (mainly in the form of carbon dioxide) in the United States (see the second figure in this post). This figure shows the trends in aggregate and per capita vehicle miles traveled by Americans per year.

http://i41.tinypic.com/k1rs6b.jpg

Greenhouse gas emissions, largely CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, have risen dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, energy-related CO2 emissions have risen approximately 145-fold since 1850 - from 200 million tons to 29 billion tons a year.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/Historical-Emissions.preview.JPG

Most of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from a relatively small number of countries. The United States, China, and the European Union (EU-25) together accounted for about 50% of global emissions in 2004. The eight largest emitters- the United States, China, the European Union, Russia, India, Japan, Germany and Brazil- accounted for more than 70% of global emissions.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/Annual-GHG-Emissions.1.preview.JPG

Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming long after they are emitted (in most cases, for a century or more), so cumulative emissions are an important measure of a country's contribution to climate change. From 1850 to 2000, the United States and the European Union were responsible for about 60% of energy-related CO2 emissions, while China contributed 7% and India 2%.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Cumulative.jpg

Globally, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions are the energy supply sector (26%), industry (19%) and forestry (17%). Agriculture and transportation account for 14% and 13% of total emissions, respectively.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/GHG-by-Sector.jpg

CO2 accounts for about 80% of total greenhouse gas emissions- 57% from fossil fuel use and 20% from deforestation and other activities. Methane, primarily from agriculture, is the next largest category of emissions (14%). Note that different gases have different potentials. All figures here are expressed in CO2-equivalents.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/GHG-by-Gas.jpg

Anybody else interested might also want to check these sources:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

den Elzen, M & M Meinshausen. "Multi-gas emission pathways for meeting the EU 2°C climate target," Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. 2005.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/synthesis-spm/synthesis-spm-en.pdf), Cambridge University Press. 2001.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Summary for Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/synthesis-spm/synthesis-spm-en.pdf).

Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change, 2005

Michaels, Patrick J. "Non-Linear Climate Change (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/08/09/non-linear-climate-change/#more-41)," World Climate Report. 9 Aug 2004.

Michaels, Patrick J. "Observations, Not Models (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/04/14/observations-not-models/)," World Climate Report. 14 April 2004.

Michaels, Patrick J. "Hot Tip: Post Misses Point (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/31/hot-tip-post-misses-the-point/#more-137)," World Climate Report. 31 Jan 2006.

National Acadamies of Science. "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions," The National Academies Press. 2001.

Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch. "Hurricanes and Global Warming (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf)," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Nov 2005.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Looks like the bill is just saying that a balanced teaching of global warming must be taught.Let's face it guys, global warming is not a FACT, it is a theory and one that I and many people find unlikely.Now, I will not deny that man's pollution has an effect on the earth in some ways and thus we need to find ways to live and not pollute the earth so much(not things like cap and trade that will hurt us), but we do not have the impact to the extent Al Gore and company argue.Although I disagree with global warming theory, both sides should be taught as THEORY and students can make up their own minds.

I live in the Florida Panhandle(Pensacola) and the winters here do get cold but this past winter was the coldest thus far in my life.I looked up some info:

The average winter reading this season in Pensacola has been 48.4 degrees, which is 5.3 degrees below normal. Here are the coldest winters on record from the National Weather Service for Pensacola.

1.) 47.4 average temp in 1977
2.) 47.5 average temp in 1978
3.) 47.6 average temp in 1964
4.) 48.4 average temp in 2010

48.4 may have been the AVERAGE temp but there were many nights, including 11 days straight in January when the temp went below freezing, in Florida(!) Talked to some friends in south florida and was told it was cooler down there as well.Put this in with the record snow storms in the US and all.Oh yea, the climate change conference that was in copenhagen(i think) they had a record blizzard during or right before the big meeting right? Global Warming my ass:har: OH wait, I think someone actually said that global warming was causing us to have harsher winters LOL

On a more partisan note: The envrionazis are a force in the Dem party thus their candidates have catered to them and pushed this crap as if it's real scientific fact and not a theory.Kind of a good scheme except facts and rational thinking just don't match up with it:haha:











http://freeforum.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/teach_both_theories.png

[Bubblehead1980]

Nice job on puttting all that together, waste of time though because I have read the research, watched the films, heard various professors when i was in college give their views on global warming and both sides had valid points but neither could prove it either way really, no one has.I did admit that humans have had an impact on the earth with pollutants, no doubt about it, but again not to the degree Al Gore and company would have us believe, the earth does go through cycles.We should also try to move towards better practices that curb pollution and improve the earth but can not get radical about it.However, this environazi movement that has taken hold in the Dem party and produced proposals like cap and trade, which even the President admitted would drive energy prices way up, is disturbing and based on flawed science for most part.Can we say climategate? google it.

[August]

Here's the ugly truth about global warming:

http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/images/demographic-change_global-population_150dpi_3.jpg

[Tribesman]

Nice job on puttting all that together, waste of time though because I have read the research, watched the films
Would that research and films be of similar quality to that you posted relating to the secret army of nazi dentists who are taking over America?

[razark]

Can we say climategate? google it.

That was addressed in post #6. See here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1349509&postcount=8).

[Bubblehead1980]

Would that research and films be of similar quality to that you posted relating to the secret army of nazi dentists who are taking over America?

tribesman, do you even live in the US? just curious .Also, I did not post saying the "secret army of nazi dentists" were taking over.I posted my concerns about obama starting his own little army under the guise of the already established corps. I also posted how many are far too trusting of someone who has shown he as a problem with being truthful.Blind faith in a leader or the government is just crazy. Again, you can never respond with anything to counter what I said, just sarcasm and insults, maybe you will wake up one day, doubt it but maybe.

[Bubblehead1980]

That was addressed in post #6. See here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1349509&postcount=8).

That means nothing, O.J. Simpson was cleared of murder charges but the evidence was there, just like in climategate.:salute:

[NeonSamurai]

That means nothing, O.J. Simpson was cleared of murder charges but the evidence was there, just like in climategate.:salute:

:huh: and that has exactly what to do with science or global warming?

[CaptainHaplo]

August - I think you have nailed global warming down - all the extra people create alot of extra body heat - thats must be what has made it snow.....

oh wait a sec........:rotfl2::88)

[Tribesman]

Also, I did not post saying the "secret army of nazi dentists" were taking over.I posted my concerns about obama starting his own little army under the guise of the already established corps.
Thats true, you didn't say it was nazi dentists, you said the emergency medical staff were a private army under the President who are akin to the Gestapo.

Again, you can never respond with anything to counter what I said
Thats funny , what I wrote here was to counter your claims about yourself viewing evidence and reaching a logical conclusion from that evidence.
It links nicely with how you reject all the data posted y Stealth Hubnter as you already have your conspiracy theory, just as despite all the data posted in the nazi dentist topic you yet again just claimed its the President starting his own little army under the guise of something else:doh:

Blind faith in a leader or the government is just crazy.
Who on earth is talking about blind faith?
Though it could be said that it appears you will blindly believe any crazy conspiracy you see in a video on you-tube about if it fits your faith in the existence of the secret evil plans operating throughout the establishment.

[August]

August - I think you have nailed global warming down - all the extra people create alot of extra body heat - thats must be what has made it snow.....

oh wait a sec........:rotfl2::88)

Snow? We have mosquitoes already in northern Maine when normally there is a foot or more of snow still on the ground. What snow?

Global warming is real. The ugly hidden truth is that with world population at 7 billion and growing no cap and trade type scheme is ever going to do anything except make a few people rich.

[Safe-Keeper]

The average winter reading this season in Pensacola has been 48.4 degrees, which is 5.3 degrees below normal. Here are the coldest winters on record from the National Weather Service for Pensacola.

{/troll}:nope:

I'm serious. No one at this point can be this ignorant as to what AGW is and how it works. The whole "ah, it's cold outside, AGW must be a lie" joke is growing too old to be taken seriously.

Also, what are the "astrological... dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena"? What does astrology have to do with anything?:haha:

[Tribesman]

I'm serious. No one at this point can be this ignorant
I wouldn't put money on it.

[Zachstar]

{/troll}:nope:

I'm serious. No one at this point can be this ignorant as to what AGW is and how it works. The whole "ah, it's cold outside, AGW must be a lie" joke is growing too old to be taken seriously.


I saw that and was wondering if that poster was being serious. The whole point about GLOBAL warming is that it is GLOBAL. What happens in your town means jack compared to global average and temps in areas that can cause significant climate change.

BTW that "Let the kids decide" comic is the best way to describe the situation I have seen yet.

[August]

{/troll}:nope:

I'm serious. No one at this point can be this ignorant as to what AGW is and how it works. The whole "ah, it's cold outside, AGW must be a lie" joke is growing too old to be taken seriously.

:haha:

Why do you say that's a troll? If the temps in his area are below average over an entire season then they are below average over an entire season.

Global warming activists always shoot themselves in the foot with these knee jerk reactions which is part of the reason people tend to disbelieve the theory.

[Zachstar]

People tend to disbelieve? Is that why in my neck of the south most people here believe in global warming? Whoops that can't be right its Tea party country. Oh maybe its because even if people are nuts they arent completely insane to think carbon does nothing.

[August]

People tend to disbelieve? Is that why in my neck of the south most people here believe in global warming? Whoops that can't be right its Tea party country. Oh maybe its because even if people are nuts they arent completely insane to think carbon does nothing.

You just made the argument that local conditions do not a global trend make. Do you really believe that your ever shrinking circle of friends is an accurate indicator of the national mood?

[krashkart]

I'd like to see certain laws of physics repealed in favor of a new "Insanely Hilarious Ragdoll Physics" law. WWE, boxing matches, and visits to the beach would never be the same again! :up:

I don't know which laws of those should be repealed, though. :hmmm:

[NeonSamurai]

Personally I wish people would not call theories, laws. The theory of gravity is not a law. Sure, evidence of 'gravity' is blatantly obvious, and those effects that we label as being gravity are a natural law, but the theory itself is likely wrong or flawed as all human theories are. We just haven't come up with a better one so far.

[tater]

From a policy standpoint, it's not enough to say, "human carbon emissions likely play some role in climate."

It needs to be FAR more robust than that. They need to be able to accurately predict changes, and outcomes. In addition, they need to be able to demonstrate—at physics levels of confidence, not "soft science" levels (I'll admit, I'm a biased, physics guy)—that any mitigation scheme will in fact mitigate the demonstrated problem, and by how much.

Without that, it is impossible to do a cost-benefit analysis. Yes, that MUST be done. If fixing the problem (assuming it is clearly demonstrated and reproducible) costs more than dealing with the change later, then it's simply not worth doing.

This is about money, nothing more. Note that some places would improve with warmer temps, so how it is weighted is also important.

Being skeptical of a computer model that the authors refused to legitimately publish (a very poorly written one at that, we now know only because it was leaked) is not crazy, it's good science. Science has nothing at all to do with consensus. You need a model that works, and is reproducible by others using the same methodology.

Some useful gems for you:

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”

“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”

Here's one climate scientists should take to heart when publishing:
“The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another”

[Zachstar]

You just made the argument that local conditions do not a global trend make. Do you really believe that your ever shrinking circle of friends is an accurate indicator of the national mood?


Don't have to. Global Warming mitigation is still a major cause in the US. Despite teabagger attempts to derail it. BTW you have no access to "my circle" So you have no idea either way.

If GW was truely perishing as a national issue people would be ripping out spirial bulbs in masse and going nuts for more coal plants. Oh wait coal is having a HARDER time lately not easier. How can this be? Supposedly GW is perishing as an issue so how can this be?

[NeonSamurai]

Fluorescent bulbs make sense anyhow as they last longer and are cheaper overall. Coal is also not very popular anyhow for other reasons such as pollution.

Just playing a little devil's advocate here :DL

[tater]

GW and pollution are not the same thing. I'm very skeptical of elements of the AGW models out there now (and I have an astrophysics background). None the less, I'm completely against coal here in NM because I like the fact that I have a 100+ mile view from my home in the foothills.

No other reason.

I'd be fine with better car emission standards for the same reason—MY VIEW. I don't care in the least about carbon, just my pretty view. <shrug>

The carbon taxes, etc, proposed are VASTLY more intrusive financially than any emission control laws have ever been. On top of that, even if the worst AGW models were true, there is zero reason to believe that such massive tax increases will do ANYTHING to stop it. On the contrary, we often hear that any effort now is too little, too late, and that as a classically chaotic "tipping point" situation (state change with small change in initial conditions) we cannot tip it back—in which case doing anything at all is a waste of money.

You can be in favor of preserving the environment for entirely selfish reasons, and still be against massive expenditure to try and combat AGW.

[August]

Don't have to. Global Warming mitigation is still a major cause in the US. Despite teabagger attempts to derail it. BTW you have no access to "my circle" So you have no idea either way.

If GW was truely perishing as a national issue people would be ripping out spirial bulbs in masse and going nuts for more coal plants. Oh wait coal is having a HARDER time lately not easier. How can this be? Supposedly GW is perishing as an issue so how can this be?

Well first off Global Warming and Global Warming Caused by Man are two different things which are often confused with each other.

Now you said:

Is that why in my neck of the south most people here believe in global warming? Whoops that can't be right its Tea party country. Oh maybe its because even if people are nuts they arent completely insane to think carbon does nothing.

So my question stands. Why do you think the opinion of your neighbors, regardless of how numerous they may be, is an accurate indicator of how people feel across the country?

Oh and while you're at it how about explaining why you think it's ok to call people insulting names just because they have differing opinions on this issue? This type of thing seems to be a habit with you and it's why I think you don't have all that many friends. Now don't go and rage quit the forum again, i'm just asking...

[tater]

My standard environmentalist story follows.

In college one year, a bunch of hippies started protesting that the Student Union Building food service switch back to ceramic mugs instead of styrofoam for coffee, etc. They claimed it was unkind to the Earth or something. They had kids with signs there all the time, went to student senate meetings, etc. My friends were almost all science and engineering people like myself, and I didn't recognize any of the protesters most of the time (saw some of my GF's friends from the dance department, LOL (yeah, science geek dated hot dancer chick, who'dve thought?)). BTW, I characterized them as "hippies" since I didn't see science/engineering types among them, not for any other reason.

Anyway, there was a group there at a table passing stuff out, and I started asking questions. I was not against the switch, mind you, and I said as much. I asked what the total environmental impact of a foam cup was vs the total impact per use of a ceramic cup. Specifically if they had done a real budget looking at water use, caustic chemicals, energy to heat water to sterilize cups, etc, ad nauseum. I told them I wanted the SUB to use whichever was less impacting, but I wanted PROOF which that was.

You know the answer, c'mon, you know it...

They had no idea. None at all. They FELT that styrofoam was worse, but they had no real data.

That is politics over science. The bulk of what we hear re AGW is from people who haven't—and could not if they tried—"do the math." GW is a political creature now, it's not science, the massive influx of money is far too corrupting.

[Zachstar]

Yes I do. Because unlike Climate data being in the middle of Tea Party country gives me a good idea what the other side is thinking when it comes. And while it is very much "DRILL BABY DRILL!" People are genuinely concerned about the future. They buy the bulbs they like tips on hypermiling. Hell they even get that Organic crap that even my progressive ass wont touch.

When I talk to people I get the usual "Obama is doing it wrong" Talk but I only rarely get told GW is bogus in their opinion. Heck even a few times I joke about the cold weather pouring cold water on global warming to get told by even tea party pubs that its global (And followed quickly about how they think cap and trade is socialism tho)

I will admit tho chances are Utah and some of those other deep reds are reducing their already small GW believers. When they arent passing some other weird conservative in name only laws.

[August]

Again Zachstar you're not differentiating between natural global warming and global warming caused by man.

Now I tend to agree with the camp that says man is a, if not the, major cause of GW and i'm sure that many in the Tea Party movement feel the same way.

Their big hot button issue is unsustainable government spending, not the existence of climate change, and if you weren't so busy scorning them and calling them rude names maybe you'd see that.

FWIW just in case you actually care about this issue and are not being politically partisan here is what *I* think is the true cause of GW:

Note the similarity to the GW charts posted by Stealth Hunter on page 1 of this thread:

http://web000.greece.k12.ny.us/SocialStudiesResources/Social_Studies_Resources/GHG_Documents/World%20Population%20Growth%20Chart%2008.03.jpg

Putting money in Algores pocket via a Cap and Trade scheme is not going to solve anything.

[tater]

Anyone who thinks AGW and AGW is even understandable by anyone in the position to make policy is clueless.

Politicians—on both sides—screw up virtually every single science related policy they enact. AGW is so incredibly expensive that there is no room for error here. We simply don't have the trillions to spend on what is very poorly characterized at best.

As for crap like organic food, we get a lot at Whole Foods, but not because it's "organic" just because we find better food there than Albertsons much of the time. It's not political, it's being a foodie, lol.

Cap and trade is indeed wealth transfer, nothing else. It's therefor wrong headed IMO. It's also meaningless since the remainder of our manufacturing will simply move to China, and they'll dump crap in the air with ZERO regulation, AND they'll burn oil to ship it here, lol.

The thing is of course, that all such taxes are not even. The same people pay again and again, just like income tax. The lower super-majority don't pay enough tax to even matter. So the taxes keep getting piled on the well-off. IWe might well use more carbon than someone in ABQ with 10% of our income, but guess what, we don't use 10X as much as they do, and we in fact probably pay 100X what they pay in taxes already.

All that matters to ME, is if new taxes to mitigate GW (assuming for argument that they are 100% right) will cost ME more than mitigating my own lifestyle later.

[August]

Oh and I use the spiral bulbs for two reasons, neither of which have anything to do with GW.

1. They use less electricity thereby saving me money.
2. They generate less heat thereby also saving me money.

You may notice a pattern here...

[Zachstar]

Don't get me wrong I am not saying we ought to spend a trillion dollars on solar panels that will be outclassed in a decade by new designs. But I do believe the gov needs to put more funding in tech development. Especially when there is a bunch of recent advancements that if put to market would significantly reduce future Co2 emissions.

My issue is this idiocy that pretends earth is not responding to the excess carbon being released.

Outsourcing is a separate issue that requires a very harsh tax on companies that outsource greater than 100 jobs within a year in my opinion.

[tater]

I use some CFLs, as well (question, who here takes all their CFL bulbs to a hazardous waste disposal place like they are required to to avoid letting loads of Hg into the environment?).

I use them for reasons entirely unrelated to saving money.

My older, adobe house has many fixtures that only take 60W bulbs. I want more light. So I buy the CFL that uses the most electricity possible to maximize the light. If someone sold a CFL that was around the same size as a 60 incandescent that used 60W and made 500W worth of light, I'd buy nothing else if I could get a dim-able version.

On my low-voltage track lights, for example, I now use "halogena" (have some xenon in them) bulbs since a 35W makes the same light as a 50W halogen. As a result, my 300W transformers can support 8 fixtures instead of just 6. More light.

I bought a $30 LED bulb to try there for the same reason. It used 4-5 watts. Again, I couldn't care less about the energy, I want to be able to put MANY bulbs up there on the same 300W transformer (wooden ceilings and brick floors means I need a lot of light).

[tater]

Don't get me wrong I am not saying we ought to spend a trillion dollars on solar panels that will be outclassed in a decade by new designs. But I do believe the gov needs to put more funding in tech development. Especially when there is a bunch of recent advancements that if put to market would significantly reduce future Co2 emissions.

My issue is this idiocy that pretends earth is not responding to the excess carbon being released.

Outsourcing is a separate issue that requires a very harsh tax on companies that outsource greater than 100 jobs within a year in my opinion.

But you are in favor of things that end up doing just that.

100 jobs? Write a law like that. I start a new company that outsources NO jobs. My company does product development. I start another that is an importer. 1st company designs products—that I have the chinese produce. 2d company imports them. There are ways around everything.

If you massively tax imports—oh wait, you can't massively tax the PRC because they own US debt and they won't stand for it. Note that the PRC has said they support this new environmental stuff—for the US. That;s cause they know they will get the remainder of our industry.

[Zachstar]

Gen 3 spirals are supposed to have far less of Hg I hear so I am not too concerned about landfill contamination. Also if worse comes to worse we can ship high Hg landfil parts to the demo plasma trash reducer plant tho that would take decades to become an issue at best and contamination from E-Waste is a far worse issue.

[tater]

Have you ever bought any CFL bulbs?

Have you ever disposed of them properly?

Both are yes/no questions.

Less Hg is great, but it's still Hg. If everyone uses them, the total amounts become non-trivial.

I'd be willing to bet that maybe 1% of CFLs sold in the US are disposed of properly. Meanwhile of course, they dutifully recycle their trash—the large majority of which in the US gets dumped intot h e same landfills as the rest of the trash.

Thanks, hippies.

[Zachstar]

Yes and Yes and we have a good recycling program here surprisingly that does not just go back into the landfill. The city uses it to reduce landfill costs.

[Sailor Steve]

The city uses it to reduce landfill costs.
We backward rednecks here in Salt Lake City have a self-sustaining landfill. Every fall they pass out special orange bags for everybody to put their leaves in. They then hire temps in November and December to dump the bags out in one spot. Then bulldozers shove them into huge piles, where they sit out the winter. In the spring they're sold for mulch.

[tater]

Most recycle programs lose truckloads of money. Many pay people to sort the stuff, THEN throw it away anyway.

Simple test, if there is someplace you can take the stuff and SELL IT, it actually gets recycled. If you can't sell it, it's not valuable.

If the crap in your plastic bucket was worth recycling, companies would bid for it. You'd have knocks on the door, with private firms asking to be allowed to pay YOU for sorted trash. They don't, because it's BS.

[haz]

Im from south dakota and where I live there is no recycle program exept in bigger citys ie:rapid city souix falls,watertown,etc.our trash is picked up and disposed in a landfill miles away.our govenor spent alot of state money in the old homestake mine for research but as far as I know nothing much has come out of it.As for globol warming etc.Im not sure what to think.but no matter what we all do some country will continue their ways,so not sure it can be stopped.I read the previus posts and got lost in the paperwork.lol

[tater]

Recycled raw material usually costs more than "virgin." That should tell you something. Many states made laws that required that certain outfits buy recycled material in order to create a market for all the crap they were collecting, but that didn't work, either.

The recycling rates show in government statistics are the amount COLLECTED, not the amount actually recycled. Actually recycled means sold to someone who uses it to make products. If you have to PAY someone to take it and make something, then it's BS.

Recycling is mostly BS, sadly. It's a great idea, but nonsense.

But, hey, maybe Shreveport has figured it out, unlike the rest of the planet.

[tater]

BTW, recycled glass is not only more expensive than virgin glass, it's also worse for the environment. Not that recycling hippies give a crap, they are religious about it, they don't THINK. Recycled glass has impurities safely within the glass (colorants, printing, etc). When re-melted, those chemicals are released and not captured. Now the previously inert chemicals are in the air. Yeah!

Then they still need to be purified to be able to reuse it for new products. That uses more energy. Recycled glass is a LOT more expensive to use than just silica... more energy = more harm to the earth.

That is what happens when do-gooder politicians try to legislate things that require detail analysis by technical people. They almost invariably fail.

So recycling costs more (undisputed, even with offsets for whatever is sold it costs a LOT more than regular trash collection and disposal—a multiple), and at least in some cases actually does more harm than good.

This all started with a paper that noted that the NUMBER of landfills was decreasing. The news reported we'd run out of landfill. They failed to report that the VOLUME of the remaining landfills was FAR HIGHER. New laws requiring safer waste disposal put small landfills out of business. The huge version, OTOH, can safely dispose of waste while protecting ground water, and even can offset with methane production a little (still it is a net cost).

Unless recycling saves money, it's silly. Better to have good laws about proper waste disposal so that landfills, incinerators, etc are safe and least impacting.

[Zachstar]

Shreveport has saved a boatload of money through its recycling program. And I am not afraid of a little smoked soy ink.

As for your not worth it nonsence. Before the recession the talk was how valuable recycled material was. High demand for recycled cardboard glass and metals dear pete china got prices high. The only reason its down is because the recession has caused stockpiles to build. With increased growth.

You know how most toliet paper is made? bleached recycled paper.

You know where the majority of aluminum is obtained from? Recycled metals (cans)

[tater]

You can take cans and scrap metal outfits will pay you for it. It is valuable. As for market conditions.. so what? A legitimate business must deal with that. If it doesn't PROFIT in the long term, it's BS. In this case break even is the standard it being the government in most cases.

Show me a link to Shreveport's waste management budget. Saving a boatload of money means that waste management must consume fewer dollars than it would without recycling. Prove it.

Oh, and a link showing me that most toilet paper is recycled, please. There are a few brands that advertise heavily that they are recycled (small brands). If most was recycled (big brands) it would be pointless to push your version as recycled, wouldn't it? I flat out don't believe that stat. Show me the numbers.

Recycling programs ALWAYS cost more, I've never read of any exceptions, but I welcome enlightenment.

[Platapus]

Recycling won't become efficient until our products are designed and manufactured with the idea of recycling (special materials, inks, and construction).

One of the bad things about recycling paper is that everyone want's white paper back. Getting recycled paper to be bright white involves some nasty chemicals.

Now if we can only get people to accept gray paper, we might be able to reduce some of the chemical pollution associated with recycling.

Just tonight, I stopped off at Wendy's to get a cardiac burger for dinner. My large diet coke comes in this plastic cup. The container only has to hold the drink for at the most a few hours tops. Why use a plastic that can hold liquid for years?

[tater]

Can't wait to see the info on garbage, so PUNT!

[tater]

How about most TP being made of post-consumer waste, the best I could find on google was that it was actually under 2%?

[Zachstar]

Can't wait to see the info on garbage, so PUNT!

Here is our recycling page http://www.justcurbit.net/

The bit about TP is from how its made. I dont have a direct link sorry. But the first part shows them bleaching recycled paper. It was not some special case from what I understand either. And why would it be? Crap recycled paper is cheap compared to new.

[tater]

No, recycled paper costs MORE according to all the industry stuff I found with google yesterday.

That website is useless, and doesn't support a single claim you made. Did you just make stuff up? The amount they "recycled" is the amount they collected.

That says squat about what was actually USED.

Recycled raw materials frequently COST MORE than "virgin" in most cases.

I know that the 100% recycled TP at whole foods is GROSSLY more expensive than Charmin. It must therefor cost more to make, which means that recycled paper costs more (and that stuff is not white).