Global Warming Must Be Stopped

[dwasson]

From: http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/06win/frontlines.asp

Since the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, when farmers of Scottish and Irish descent tarred and feathered government excise collectors, Kentuckians have fought hard for their bourbon. Federal law makes it very clear that unless your whiskey is made from a mash containing 51 percent to 79 percent corn and produced and stored for at least one of its two years of aging in Kentucky, you can't call it Kentucky bourbon. But if a recent study conducted for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is correct, global warming may soon make it impossible to produce good Kentucky bourbon -- at least in Kentucky.

According to the author, Mike Jones, a researcher at American University, a bourbon's distinctive Kentucky flavor comes from the seasonal warming and cooling of the whiskey during its aging. This is done in white oak barrels that have been "toasted" in order to caramelize the sugars in the wood and then charred on the inside to impart flavor to the whiskey during storage. "When the temperature rises in the summer, the bourbon expands," Jones says, "and with lower temperatures in the winter, it contracts. This movement gives the bourbon its amber color and oak flavor."

Producers consider these temperature variations so critical that during the course of their storage, barrels are shifted from the lower racks in the warehouse to the upper racks. However, the 3-degree Fahrenheit average temperature increase predicted for the state over the next 100 years will mean less variation between winter and summer temperatures. The study's sorry conclusion: "In the future, global warming may affect the weather patterns which are essential in Kentucky for the aging process."

It's yet another reason to cut back on carbon emissions -- your driving may be affecting your drinking.
-- Bruce Stutz

[Vortech347]

Its definatly happening in my state. Usually we get alot of snow down in the valley and on the benches. For the past 4-5 years we've had WEAK winters in the lower area's but records in the mountains which means the temp is moving up. I remember being little and having 2ft of snow in the front yard! Now if we get 6" on the grass its a "good storm"

[Leadfoot281]

Global warming is a hoax. Seriously. The weather man can't accurately tell me what the temperature is going to be next year/month/week! Now some one thinks we're all gonna fry?

Whatever happened to Global cooling? That theory was popular in the 70's.

And what about all the flooding will happen from Global warming? That's a hoax too! Try this experiment; Fill a glass with ice and water. Wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow and flood your house?

Anyone want to buy a bridge? You might need it.:D

(And no, I'm not slamming anyone. Nothing political, Ok? I just threw a few shots at a bogus theory. Got evidence to the contrary? PM me.):)

[TripleTransAm]

And what about all the flooding will happen from Global warming? That's a hoax too! Try this experiment; Fill a glass with ice and water. Wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow and flood your house?

Bad example. The ice melted and that extra water did raise the level of water in the glass (if it didn't, where would it go?). In real life, there's a LOT of ice packed in the poles and packed high, and in the high mountains especially in more northern areas. When that ice melts, it's going to have to run off to whatever body of water is going to take it (or maybe make a new one). Enough of it melts, the water level's going to rise. How much? I don't know, ask someone with more concrete data. However, if all it takes is a submarine earthquake to create a wave that wipes out tens of thousands of people in one shot, I guess a few feet of extra water might annoy a few people around the world.

I have no idea if global warming is something to worry about, but one thing is for sure: in my youth we had serious dumping of snow and that was that. We still get a good deal of snow, but in the past 10 years or so it's been a real pain to deal with all that freezing rain. My driveway's been a skating rink for over a month now, and while I have no trouble whatsoever dealing with shovelling snow, it's a pain in the /\ss to have to hack away at 2-3 inches of ice on my walkway and steps every week this month. I cringe when I see the temps hover around the freezing mark... 10 years ago, you had a couple of good sized dumpings of snow followed by a solid deep freeze for a couple of months, none of this rain-sleet-snow-ice-rain-ice-sleet-... crap. My backyard patio looks like a damned archaelogical dig, with all the different layers...

I've always appreciated the 4 seasons we enjoy up here, but it's this in-between crap that has become a real drag in the past 10 years.

Another example: I used to have to put away my GTA for the winter at the end of October (if I made it that far without the first light snow and the ensuing salt trucks... even if it all melted the next day, I was screwed with the salt). Used to pull the car out in late April or early May. Nowadays, I get to use my Trans Ams partly through December and have begun having them on the road by early April.

[duhtroll]

There are theories and counter-theories. None proven.

Global warming might be real, it might not. I'm waiting for it to appear on Penn & Teller's "BS" to know for sure. :laugh:

[Haggis]

Well sine I will be in Kentucky for the March meet I might as well stock up on borboun. Don't know how much it will cost or be worth in a couple of years.

[rookie1]

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

[juno]

Yes, we are warming noticeably from the little ice age we had until the late 1700's early 1800's.

Darn, no one ever metioned the bourbon effect before though. Time for more research!

[duhtroll]

1) There are at least as many articles with "evidence" that global warming exists. If there were definitive proof, there would be little debate.

2) Dow Jones? I wonder if they would have anything to gain by saying there is no global warming. Hmm.

3) The Wall Street Journal? They're not conservative or anything, are they?

There's proof out there that we're doing something to the atmosphere. Whether or not that has long-term ramifications is the subject of the debate. I still believe this is a political issue and not one that actually deals with fact.


Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

[dwasson]

Well sine I will be in Kentucky for the March meet I might as well stock up on borboun. Don't know how much it will cost or be worth in a couple of years.

Yeah when it was just snail darters and spotted owls who cares? But if global warming is threatening the Wild Turkey this is a real problem.

[dwasson]

There are two issues.

First, is the earth warming? The base period that is typically used for temperature comparisons is the 1830's. This is one of the coldest stretches in modern history. If you can choose what date you compare your numbers to, you can show anything you want.

Second, is because of human activity? Recent studies show that Mars has been warming lately. I can't see how this would have anything to do with my driving habits but, you're welcome to try to convince me. If Mars is warming, then the cause is likely solar variations.

I believe that Metro Detroit at least, is getting warmer over the last 40 years. But I don't know if this a global phenomenon. And I don't think that anyone else really knows either. I do know that the environmental advocacy groups and the energy groups both have a history of lying to promote their views. A few years ago, Al Gore made a speach to a media group, where he told them that global warming is such an emergency that reporters are irresponsible if they report anything that indicates doubt about either global warming or that it is caused by human activity. With that as background, I think that I can be forgiven for not accepting everything that said about it.

[rookie1]

Climate change as it relates to bourbon is indeed alarming.

What's curious to me is the overwhelming difference btween the camps in the whole global warming debate. I'm from the Detroit area(go Pistons and Wings) and currently reside near Chicago. Are the winters milder here than I remember as a child? Sure seems like they are, I have golfed outside with my pals at least once every month for the last 5 years or so. Which seems unheard of in the Midwest. However, the Jan. 2005 average temperature was higher than the January 2006 average temp is. Hmmmmmmmmm does that mean that we had global warming where I live in 2005 but global cooling in 2006? The Ukraine is experiencing the worst cold snap/freeze on record as I type this yet Jacksonville, Fla. where I just got back from a golf trip was unseasonably warm.
The amount of time that human life has even existed on this planet seems insignificant compared to the age of the Earth according to same scientists on both sides of the debate, far too many conclusions are being drawn from far too little evidence.

Does global warming exist or is it junk science? I don't know, but, I do know that there seems to be reams and reams of studies and measurements supporting both points of view.To unequivocally state true or not is ridiculous.