Design engineering at large

at 4/26/2007 5:39:09 AM, Jerry Clay said:
Mr Dodge: Thank you for encouraging debate. This is something that is being discouraged. Rather than saying that "some scientists" predict or a "consensus" of scientists agree, how about some facts: Mars (with no SUV's) is warming due to solar activity. 96.5% of CO2 levels are from natural sources. There are 18,000 scientists worldwide that have signed the Oregon petition that says that there is no evidence for man made global warming theory nor any impact from mankind's activities on climate. Mild winters have shown to save lives overall since there are large populations in northern climates. Data from ice core samples show that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise and fallen again in the space of a human lifetime. CO2 levels have been 18 times higher in the past when fossil fuel was not used. To prove "warming" you have to be very selective about when you start the baseline, such as only 100 years ago. Even then, there is debate about how the measurements were and are currently made. Sea level monitoring has shown no sign of recent sea level rise. What would the poll numbers say if people were told that the goal of the global warming advocates is to enact a tax on energy paid for mostly by people in western countries while countries such as China and India can still be gross polluters? In addition, coal fired power plants are being targeted for elimination with no plans for replacement by nukes which are cleaner and safer overall. This may have the effect of doubling or tripling our electricity costs. The wealthy politicians behind these initiatives will still be massive energy hogs and just pay the so called "carbon credits". I am all for energy and pollution education and volunteerism but government command and control based on sensationalism should not be acceptable. Based on economic payback, I have already put additional insulation in my house (20years ago) replaced the windows, put in fluorescent bulbs, and bought a more fuel efficient car. I cannot, however justify investing in solar panels in my overcast area of Ohio, unless Al Gore would like to send me his carbon credit money.

at 4/26/2007 5:39:47 AM, Bob Focht said:
John, it is articles by media sensationalist like you that perturb the real scientific community. You, and most of the media, constantly infer that the majority of the scientific community undeniably agree with your stance. What is your source and where are the statics to back this statement? Sure the scientific community you refer to get their government funding for the research they are doing towards global warming, so of course they are going to continue to push these views. Yes there is global warming and there always has been for millions and million of years. It is a natural process of our planet. But there is very little that mankind can do to prevent it. I can't believe the media is trying to convince the public that we can change what mother nature does. How naive are you to think we can ever control mother nature? Why create a panic and spend millions of dollars on items that have so little impact on our environment. Sure it makes you feel good, but can you really change the impact that natural events such as the eruption of Mount St. Helen's has had on our environment. It did more damage in several days than man can do in a hundred years. Do you know why the Dark Ages were so named or why Greenland received such a name. How about the fact that the Arctic and Antarctic were once tropics? Sure it sounds good to drive a Prius but the cost and impact of the batteries are not worth the investment. Maybe we should put a cap on Old Faithful to restrict the sulfur and carbon dioxide emissions. How about your leader Al Gore's $30,000 a year in electric bills? Sounds like he is doing his part by practicing what he preaches. Scientist from countries such as Russia who have no government funding are laughing at us. Our planet has been through the ice ages many times in the past and will surely face the inevitable again in the future. It seems to me the same scientific community proclaiming global warming were on the global freezing bandwagon during the early '70's. If you like creating a panic, how about the 900 charted asteroids that are on path to collide with the Earth, with asteroid 2002NT7 on February 1, 2019 and MN4 on April 13, 2029 as the most eminent.

at 4/26/2007 11:44:31 AM, Fred Hayduk said:
Dear Mr. Dodge: Global Warming is far and away the biggest environmental scam ever foisted on the global populous. Not only is there no scientific proof that this event is occurring, but the models used to predict it are incapable of predicting global weather patterns that have already occurred in the past, and are well documented. These "scientists" are some of the same purveyors of miss information who were predicting the coming Ice Age back in the early 1970's. I believe these "environmentalist's" sole agenda is deindustrialization of the of the world. If you would be interested in some scientific explanation of the natural climate variation that is occurring, and why carbon dioxide emissions are probably as helpful as they are harmful. Please look at the Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, a paper there written by several Cal Tech, and Harvard scientists. "The effects of carbon dioxide emissions on the environment" is very informative. Best of luck Fred Hayduk

at 4/26/2007 11:47:32 AM, Dan Delbridge said:
John, You write of melting glaciers. Here in upstate NY where I live we have beautiful rolling hills that were created by melting glaciers thousands of years ago. What do you think caused these glaciers to melt back then? It wasn't coal fired generating plants or suvs. The earth therefore goes through cycles and maybe we're in a warming one now. It would be hard to convince most of the people who live here of that now as February's mean temperature was 11 deg F below avg and April here has been very cold (14 straight days with the average temperature below average). If scientists wanted to convince people of global warming they would issue reports of "degree-day" temperatures which would reflect the true situation, but all we are offered is melting glaciers. The electric and gas companies use degree-days to estimate consumption, which is truly the only accurate means to determine temperature fluctuation.

at 4/26/2007 11:52:06 AM, John Dodge said:
Dan, There's been four ice ages in the past 2.3 billion years so the cycle of freezing up and melting takes forever. It's not like the melting happens in any type of time frame that we would understand (or outlive). Yes, here in Massachusetts, the winter was long and colder than normal, but the rapid melting of artic glaciers is worrisome. It's hard to believe all the cars and power plants in the world today don;t have some type of impact like global warming.

at 4/27/2007 6:17:10 AM, Robert Leon said:
Hello John, Since you’ve asked, and you’ve succeeded in setting me off, here is my response. Falling into using Global Warming (GW) as the political driver for making business, even life, decisions, you have missed the whole technical point of the debate. Everyone seems to have “forgotten” their basic Thermodynamics 101. Since the actual data used to make the GW “reports” is never ever released and made public for real people to see for themselves and only the “conclusions” by “experts” and commentaries by people with political axes to grind are ever released, I can’t determine if global warming is actually occurring or not. I guess not, of course, or the data behind the “reports” wouldn’t be kept so secret and locked away from view, except to “experts” who already meet the political requirements for membership in (GW). Where, oh where would anybody with any technical background including thermodynamics ever get the idea that energy could be used without paying the price of increasing entropy, including the by-product of carbon dioxide and the final product of heat? Hopefully, you are aware that every one of your “greener” ideas involves the use of energy resulting in the end product of heat, pollution, and more greenhouse gases. Have you even considered where the energy comes from to re-charge those batteries, either from electrical generating plants powered by fossil fuels, or the burning of gasoline to run the car to turn the wheels to generate the power? And, guess what, more thermodynamics 101, the efficiency of useful energy gained is even less than just using it for it’s primary purpose in the first place! And this doesn’t even mention the energy cost and pollution caused by battery manufacturing. In other words, this (GW) battle CAN”T possibly be won thermodynamically speaking, EXCEPT by actually REDUCING energy usage! Is that what you really want to do? Reducing energy usage in the light of the increasing human population would have to be on of the worst possible things that could ever happen to the human race. Consider the consequences, less energy to power everything from lights, homes, factories, to transportation and distribution systems. Fewer jobs for more people, less food for more people, less power for drinking water systems, less irrigation, less education, less food, clothing, and shelter for more and more people, and finally great famine, war, or worse? This whole (GW) thing will eventually be seen for the red herring it is, a “convenient” way to introduce political division and create “us vs. them” scenarios for one side or the other to gain political power, especially in the two-party system that is our American republic. I don’t think you’re much of an engineer or scientist for falling for it. Regards, Bob Robert Leon Industrial Chemist

at 4/27/2007 6:26:15 AM, John Dodge said:
Hi Robert, First off, thanks for writing. And don't mistake me for an engineer or scientist for I have been a proud and successful journalist for 30 years (I have been a regular tech and business columnist for both the Boston Globe and WSJ). However, many of not most scientists agree that GW is bad and that the increase in it is caused by humans. Anyhow, GW is tied into energy consumption and we need to 1) accelerate development of renewable source like wind...just look what Germany is doing with wind turbines, and 2) lower consumption of fossil fuels which are bound to run out. While engineers and sciencetists debate the finer scientific points of GW, these two goals would seem hard to dispute. That's what really gauls me. What's wrong with protecting the environment and being efficient? It's the junkscience.com contrarian view on everything I resent. This morning's rant was about how back compact fluorescent light bulbs are. That's a clueless position

at 4/27/2007 6:29:49 AM, Bob Focht said:
John, your answer confuses me even more by referring to a political connotation in my response. I am an independent thinker with no alliances to any party. The point of my concern is the sensationalism that you and others are creating without any real knowledge yourself. I am sure the majority of people, as well as myself, are for a clean environment and we should all do our part to keep the environment as clean as possible for future generations just as we maintain our housekeeping, yards. gardens, etc. But to describe a pending disaster that mankind did not create nor has any real control over is insane. Why do you need to sensationalize the matter by continually using the word Global Warming? Let's just do our best to keep the environment as clean as humanly possible within the budgets of all people worldwide. You mentioned Frontline as being unbiased. Aren't your aware that they have been investigated three times in the last two years for biased and unsubstantiated reporting. I'm sure the unfunded scientist will get equal time during the broadcast. Of course if someone in the media states it, then it must be true. I do read the appropriate scientific journals and base my opinions on the facts that they present. These facts are constantly being scrutinized by the vast network of scientist worldwide. A well known fact revealed in these journals accounts about 3.5% of the ozone problem being man related. Yes John, Mother Nature accounts for the other 96.5%. I can state fact after fact about the ever changing planet as well as universe. It is great that people are building energy efficient homes, using more fluorescent lites, buying more efficient cars, etc (although I still worry about where we dispose of the mercury in the florescent lamps and lead in the batteries) but do we really need to take a panicked sensationalist approach to get there. The Earth may have gone up in temperature one degree in the last hundreds and unfortunately, it would have done so even if man did not inhabit the planet. I think we agree in a lot of areas, such as the stopping of the cutting of the rain forests, cleaner energy sources, etc. But why is there a need for the Global Warming sensationalism. Thanks for the opportunity to express my views and have a great day.

at 4/27/2007 6:35:11 AM, John Dodge said:
Bob, How do you know the temperature would have risen in the past 100 years if no humans were on the planet? my point is we need develop renewable energy sources and lower our dependency on fossil fuels.

at 4/27/2007 11:48:09 AM, Kevin Rhodes said:
John, I hesitated to write, recalling that old admonition to "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel". Indeed, you do and perhaps I shouldn't. Nonetheless... I can't get worked up or "set off" by the majority, it seems, that believes "the science is all in" or that it's a foregone conclusion that a) the Earth is warming and that b) human activity is causing it. Swings in the temperature of the Earth, some quite dramatic, have been discovered long before humans had the ability to document such events let alone cause them. There is an abundance of information contrary to the Frontline/NOVA axis of information, it's just not mainstream. An example of thoughtful discourse on the topic resides in an article entitled "And the winners are …" by Prof. Michael Economides in the April 2007 issue of Offshore Engineer magazine. I am not surprised that a minority of your readers believe that global warming is caused by humans. I am surprised that you do, but if you truly believe that the majority of Americans work very hard to obtain their news, I don't have the time (or the ink) to persuade you otherwise. Regards, Kevin H. Rhodes, P.E. Glendale, OH

at 4/30/2007 8:20:52 AM, Derek Norfield said:
Dear Mr. Dodge, I just read your article in the April 30 edition of Design News.While I agree that we need to be more active in being environmentally friendly there is a massive flaw in the currently publicized reasoning about the climate. The first item is that the greenhouse gas responsible for more than 60% of earth's heat retention (and some scientists use figures as high as 95%) is water vapor. Why is this gas totally ignored in almost every scenario? Water vapor is out of our control, directly related to solar irradiation and an amplifier of the effect of CO2. The second item is the CO2 is a trace gas and it has increased from 270 PPM to 380 PPM in the last 50 years. It has not yet doubled (a common claim) and is significantly less than 0.05% of our atmosphere. I see so many articles using emissions in terms of thousands of tons of CO2 - it sure sounds a lot, which is like discussing the profit of Exxon in billions of dollars rather than a percentage of their business volume - it looks huge! Since increased CO2 also means increased plant growth the increase is part of the solution to feeding the growing billions of people on the planet. The third item is that the earth is cooler today than it was in 1930. The 4th item is the earth was warmer 1,500 years ago than it is today. The Vikings used to farm Greenland which is under an ice sheet today. The 5th item is that the earth went through a severe cooling which resulted in the "Mini Ice Age" 300 years ago when the river Thames in London froze over in the winter and that gave us all the wonderful Victorian Christmas card pictures of snow scenes. We are still in the recovery phase from that. The sixth item is that it was the discovery and development of oil in the USA that enabled our current hydocarbon economy. The reason that America is such a consumer of oil is that our economy was built on domestic oil production. Without it we would not be the industrial powerhouse we are today. Don't forget your roots and kill the goose that has been laying our golden eggs! Since I was born in England I am more aware than most Americans of long term ocean level variations. Check out Pevensey Castle in southern England. It was the landing place of William the Conqueror's army in 1066 - today it is a mile from the sea. If the ocean level does rise by a foot or two we will only be returning to the level of 1,000 years ago. In many places around the costs of Europe you can see the effects of the ocean levels dropping with the old cities being remote from the sea and progressive growth on new land that emerged from the sea over periods measured in hundreds of years. I believe we have fallen into the trap of assuming that things as they are is how they should be. Climate change has been occurring for a long time and is primarily dependent on the heat output from the sun. Until we can control the sun's output we have to live with climate change. The final point I would like to make is that the infamous Kyoto discord did not put limits on the emissions of the developing countries and China just made the news by passing the USA on greenhouse gas emissions with a $2.5 trillion economy (the USA has a $13 trillion economy). To accede to Kyoto would make the USA less competitive and lead to higher production of greenhouse gases by boosting the emission heavy economies of other nations. Yes we need the reduce greenhouse gases but in an economically benefical manner. I believe the USA has the most emissions friendly industrial output of any country, an economy as large as all of Europe and the USA dedicates a larger proportion of GDP to helping developing countries than anyone else - so don't knock the USA! It is unfortunate that publications such as "An inconvenient truth" are so riddled with errors and inconsistencies and yet fuel the fire of politically correct (but wrong) conclusions. When the author of such a document is such a profligate user of energy where does his credibility come from? Fedex just converted their main distribution center to solar power, Kohls department stores are converting 80 locations to solar power, Verizon Communications are converting their fleet of trucks to hybrid operation and we need to encourage actions like these. The climate will continue to change and we need to accept that simple fact and adapt to the inevitable rather than believe we can control it. Derek Norfield Director of Applications Datastick Systems, Inc. www.datastick.com Tel: (408) 871 3300 Mobile: (434) 426 5671 Email: derek@datastick.com

at 4/30/2007 8:21:52 AM, Wally Armitage said:
John: Boy, you guys must have a lot of time on your hands because you have decided to write about such BS as “global warming”. Be assured, I don’t believe in GW; never have; never will. Where was global warming last winter when I was freezing my rear ?? As an engineer, I find it unbecoming of you to talk of GW. I am old enough to remember when the same crowd was preaching “global cooling”. They kept “throwing that against the wall” trying to make it stick, but alas, no one with a brain believed them. Thirty years ago, the same crowd said we would run out of petroleum by the year 2000. There are countless, self appointed, experts who have NO educational background in areas like GW. Why would I want to listen to anyone who is a self appointed expert in a field as complex as the weather ? Since they cannot forecast the weather correctly a week from now, why would I think they can forecast it 30 years from now ?? Would you take your car to your plumber to be repaired ? Then why listen to Gore ?? GW is a political movement and a “religion”. It is nothing more than that. Hopefully, more people will realize that as time goes on. You may be in “the same camp” as Sheryl Crow : we have to become frugal & use only one sheet---while she and her entourage uses 900 gallons of fuel to travel 500 miles !! Einstein was right. Regards; W. Armitage

at 4/30/2007 10:57:39 AM, David Taylor said:
All this talk about global warming is using the art of misdirection to avoid a far more inconvenient truth. Whether you're talking about global warming, the loss of rain forest, the likelihood of an epidemic of epic proportions, traffic jams, etc. - the most significant driving force is overpopulation. We address all the problems of overpopulation like we addressed the need for food. We fertilize the ground and irrigate. Now we have the problem of low nutrition food because the soil is depleted many minerals and trace elements. And we have an ever lowering water table. We keep the faith that we can get out of this hole by digging deeper. It's just like the folks who transfer balances from one credit card to another and open new accounts, confident that they can stay ahead of disaster. Besides the ever-increasing population, we seem to be hell bent on spreading technology around the world, thus enabling others to become more like us - super consumers. If population continues to climb, then no matter what measures you take, we are in for a day of reckoning. So far China is the only country to really face this problem. It's a nasty one. Global warming? It's more of a symptom or a metric. ----------------------------------------------- David Taylor Scientist MicroFab Technologies, Inc. 1104 Summit Ave. Suite 110 Plano, Texas 75074

at 4/30/2007 10:59:29 AM, Mark Bremer said:
It doesn’t really matter whether you believe that global warming is manmade or not. The fact that the global climate is warming can no longer be disputed. The crunch comes with the fact that all the greenhouse gasses (notably CO2) that we pump into the atmosphere can only make it worse or accelerate it, regardless of the base cause. Lets try to not do this, everyone, please. Because we, by our basic nature, are reluctant to change anything, and because we, by our nature, also want to have the best, most flashy, most exotic, most expensive, most,,, of everything (unfortunately, not necessarily, the most energy efficient), and at the minimum immediate cost (note all the people still buying SUVs for urban commuting), this being most especially an American mindset, the country will likely waddle along, gaining the distain of the rest of the world until New York and Washington suffer the same fate as New Orleans. At which time, maybe, someone will say Oops. Mark Bremer Benicia CA

at 4/30/2007 11:31:08 AM, Todd Grayson said:
John, A bright guy like you should understand the dangers of drinking the global warming Kool-Aid. Kyoto is a joke because doesn't require sign-off by some of the largest economies (and polluters) in the world like China, Mexico, India, and Brazil. Yes, the Earth is getting warmer. So is the sun, and so is Mars (whose polar ice caps are melting fast. Carbon dioxide levels do mirror the temperature of the Earth over time, but are a result of the temperature change, not a cause of it. The oceans absorb most carbon dioxide; more when it's cool and less when it's hot. That explains why there was less in the atmosphere during the last ice age. So as we have seen the world's temperatures rise in the past 30 years the CO2 levels have increased some. That is to be expected. If CO2 were a cause and not an effect of global warming, then what has caused the Earth's temperature to change so drastically over the millenniums when man wasn't around? What exactly does CO2 do to increase temperatures? It blocks only a fraction of the radiation as it tries to leave the atmosphere (3 wavelengths), and is minuscule compared to the effect of water vapor, which accounts for up to 90% of all the greenhouse gas effects!. We could double human CO2 output and have virtually no effect on climate because CO2 is a fraction of the greenhouse effect and we create but a small fraction of that fraction! Simple math dictates that water vapor has to be left out of all the popular formulas dealing with global warming by the environmentalist/anti-America/anti-capitalist folks out there these days because it makes CO2 look as irrelevant as it is. If it played such a big role in things, how is it that there were glaciers in Ohio 14,000 years ago? Did coal power plants melt those glaciers? The fact is we don't know what all the forces are behind our recent temperature rise. They fell between 1940 and 1970, so many 'scientists' predicted a mass ice age was coming (see Time Magazine 1974), but CO2 levels were rising then and were higher than in 1940 when the cooling started. There was also the fairly recent medieval warm period...caused by what, SUV's? I'm not saying we shouldn't be worried at all about our warming climate, but are we really the cause? No. Don't be ridiculous. If we were on the cusp of another ice age could we stop it by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? No. If the sun cooled down would the Earth keep getting warmer? No. If the sun were hotter, which it has been lately, would the Earth warm up no matter what we did? Yes. There is only one thing we know for sure: the American economy bites it if we get too carried away with CO2 controls, and unfortunately a lot of people would like to see that happen. Don't fall for it. Regards, Todd Grayson Ohio

at 4/30/2007 12:51:32 PM, Robin Hood said:
John, This evidence is undeniable, the earth is getting warmer. While greenhouse gases may contribute, how much of the effect is due to higher solar output? We possess technologies to make petroleum almost an afterthought, but will it be enough? My greatest concern is that while we argue over greenhouses gases, we ignore the question of how to deal with a longer term weather cycle. We have no control over solar output, so who is creating solutions for … you name the scenario: total loss of polar ice caps, rise in ocean levels, mass relocations, etc. The reality of the warming is less in need (not without) for blame assignment than it is for feasible plans for dealing with a radically altered Earth. Robin Hood Software Applications Engineer Stemco LP Longview, Texas

at 5/1/2007 7:00:58 AM, Michael Pana said:
Hi John: Here is my take on the subject: May be the global warming is happening (I am not very convinced, particularly when I see snow in April, and run my heat until June), but so far I did not see yet a truly scientific report on the matter. Is there any study to compare the total mass of CO on Earth, and then the percentage of it released by human activity, and how that varied in time (let's say thousand of years on the x axis)? Then, do we have the effect of all trees on Earth (because we know they eat CO and release oxygen - so how much is released and how much is consumed), and why are we cutting forests after forests and no one cares about? Why do we build houses from wood, when entire world uses bricks or similar? Does any body knows in this country that the Earth axis is positioned at an angle of about 23 degrees (I believe so or close, I learned that in high school, not in America of course - they don't do geography here) from vertical (compared with the Earth orbit plan), and that axis is oscillating based on a very very very long cycling process, and because of that angle we have all four seasons in the North and South hemispheres. And if that angle is changing, of course the local temperature is changing too (hotter in some places, colder in others). So far what I see is not a global warming, but rather a global shifting of seasons: summers are extending towards winters (it was unusually hot last November), winters starts later and also extends towards usually summer months. My point is if we are serious about warming, let's really do something, such as stop cutting forests (that would be a BIG CO offset)and, go nuclear (clean, safe, economic, efficient, cheap). Getting cheap electricity (nuclear), we can build fuel cell (they need a lot of power), get hydrogen, build hydrogen vehicles, etc., etc. Solutions such as using only one square of toilet paper per visit, will not save the planet. My filling is we are trying to get drunk with cool water. It will never happen. Put me on the naysayer list. Thank you. Michael Pana Principal Mechanical Engineer 400 Rella Boulevard, Suite 207 Montebello, New York 10901

at 5/1/2007 1:24:38 PM, Bruce Schafer said:
Just read your article in Design. We too are jumping on the band wagon and plan to make a mint on the mantra of global warming. Not that we are true believers but resistance is not profitable. We can retool and get everyone to cover the costs – not the market place. Some thing for you to consider; the poorest in the economy will pay the highest price in either scenario. No matter what, oil will dominate energy needs to the tune of 80% by 2100. Exxon is doing the right thing by focusing on efficiencies of oil energy – finding, drilling, processing. Let others do the GM thing. I pray that you do not have a false mantra God like that perpetuated by eugenics in the early 20th century. We still have not recovered from that one. By the way, CFL’s contain Hg and when broken in a house constitute a Hazmat situation. The local Landfill is proposing to band them from disposal. Here we go. God save us all. Bruce Schafer

at 5/2/2007 4:58:53 AM, George Evanick said:
John, First I want to say I enjoy reading Design News very much - great job. About human induced global warming; I neither reject (deny?) nor accept wholesale the claims made by yourself, Mr. Gore and the IPCC. This is because I understand I do not know enough about our Earth's climate to make any reasonable claims. I am however very turned off by the condenscending and in many cases hypocritical attitude displayed by many of the prominent voices that share your belief. First, in your article, instead of rebutting the contrary views of some people at Exxon, you simply demonized them as deliberate liars and in turn implied that anyone who gives consideration to their views is a gullable fool. I don't remember being taught this strategy in my persuasive speaking class in college. Second, computer models and scientific consensus are not enough to convince me of anything. Additionally, the strongest evidence doesn't make the slightest fact. Third, labeling someone a denier, Exxon fool and / or a person that doesn't care about the environment because they don't agree with a particular position is not science. Fourth, when I see Al Gore sacrifice his heated pool, John Edwards his 29,000 square foot mansion; and the other concerned citizens their unnecessary private jets, planes, yachts, boats, snowmobiles and other frivilous carbon emitting pleasures; then and only then will I lend a concerned ear. Please don't bore me with the carbon neutral gimmickry - it's not even a debate. I can always question what you say, but I can never question what you do. And last, if some time in the future less scientists are convinced of human induced global warming, will you be less convinced? Consensus reasoning is the root of delusion. Have you ever heard the phrase, "good intentions; bad execution?" Thanks for listening and good luck. Sincerely George Evanick Sterling Heights, MI

at 5/2/2007 11:08:42 AM, Lee Michael said:
For those who want to know what global warming can do, just look at Venus. On paper, they should not be so much hotter than us - except for their much high concentration of greenhouse gases. As engineers, we know that negative feedback is not a given. If the earth settles down at a new steady state temperature a few degrees C higher than now, those red states will fry (as well as a few blue one). Then we're all left to wonder why the conservatives did their best to ruin, not conserve our property values.

at 5/2/2007 11:09:29 AM, Mike Kiser said:
John, Just read your article about global warming in Design News. I don't know if it's a real threat or not but it sure gives people with a lot of time on their hands, something to do. I heard a commentary that stated, since they've keep track of the earths temperature, it's only warmed up one degree in the last one hundred (100) years. Now they blame the rise in consumption of fossil fuels. That might have something to do with it. However, let's look at all the construction that goes on. New houses, roads, factories. All that material holds heat. Go outside in the summer long after the sun goes down and feel the side of your house. It's still warm. Why do birds sit on the roof in the winter? Shingles absorb the suns heat and it's warm. I say, get off the global warming kick. Put the time into feeding the hungery, educate the masses, get jobs for the jobless and make a crime a crime with just punishment, and quit looking for an excuse. Your article accomplised what you wanted, it set me off. Mike

at 5/2/2007 11:28:20 AM, Richard Schmidt said:
John, I don't think the debate is so much over the fact that we MAY be experiencing a short term warming trend, but the actual cause. To say that man has placed himself on such a large platform and by his very will, change the earths climate is a bit of a reach. If you think about it, we should all be glad that the earth has warmed up as much as it has, otherwise would all be sitting in igloos built on top of the glaciers that covered most of North America at one time. I can still hear the cave men crying about the disappearance of the glaciers, "what are we going to do now, the ice is all melting and we won't have any ice cubes for our drinks !" Richard Schmidt Electrical Engineer Thermo King Corp. 314 W. 90th St. Minneapolis, MN 55420

at 5/2/2007 4:47:56 PM, Dan R said:
I agree that global warming is happening and will continue. Did man contribute? Probably so but, I seriously doubt mans influence amounts to much. It is a good idea to work on greener solutions because localized pollution is a serious problem in many cities. Getting more green can only help. But, it is no emergency and I think those that try to make it appear so have their own agendas. Where are the Glaciers going? Same place they have been going science the end of the Ice Age. Thankfully so, I grew up in the Finger Lakes region that was formed by glaciers. .It would have been mighty hard living there if they had not receded. When I was in school the popular theory was that the ice caps would melt and flood the coast of all the continents. This was being taught as fact since when the ice melted it had to go somewhere. Then someone finally realized that if you fill a glass with ice and then water it does not overflow when the ice melted. But for years the myth was taught. The reality is that Mt. Saint Helens put more pollutants into the air in one eruption than mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Imagine how much went in the air from the fire that had to ravage many areas of the country before man came along to fight the fires. I always find it amusing when someone thinks they are saving trees by reducing the use of paper. Hello we farm trees to make paper. Most of the deforestation is caused by urban development, and the harvesting of exotic woods. I believe in trying to save our natural resources and reduce localized pollution, but lets make the goals realistic without all the scare tactics.

at 5/3/2007 6:34:03 AM, Jim Baker said:
I am astounded that people still believe that global warming is a myth or that its affects will not be significant. Every week someone is saying "it is just part of a cycle" or something along those lines and I guess it is more comfortable to believe everything is OK that face the reality. However, many of us must still remember the "smoking is good for you" campaigns Jim Baker Australia SCADA Engineer

at 5/3/2007 6:36:01 AM, Joe Grabauskas said:
Mr. Dodge, Design news supposedly serves the engineering profession. At least the cover says: "Accelerating Engineering Innovation". So presumably most editors and and authors have some engineering or scientific education. However the 4/30/07 Dodge Report clearly demonstrates that this education is not being used. You do a great disservice to your readers and the population at large by failing to apply your technical education to the subject of global warming. Start with the Scientific method. (I learned about it in grade school.) From Wikipedia: "Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy." You can find it in Wikipedia. In other words, the three basic steps are: 1. Observe a phenomenon. 2. Propose a theory to explain the phenomenon. 3. Devise an experiment to prove or disprove the the theory. If the experiment does not prove the theory, it is not science. Al Gore's movie does not change this simple fact. The global warmers have produced no science. The proponents of global warming are always citing a scientific consensus that global warming is occurring. Well, a consensus is just an opinion, and as we all know that without data all you have is an opinion and opinions are like a**h***s, we all have one. Opinions are not it science. Frontline and Nova are not scientific sources, but propaganda outlets for people who want to control how we live. Now for some simple science. The average temperature of the universe is 5 degrees Rankine (or Fahrenheit) above absolute zero. (A Nobel prize was awarded to the people who figured this one out - they followed the scientific method to com to their conclusion.) The earth is about 525 degrees Rankine (or Fahrenheit) warmer than the rest of the universe. Why is that? As we all learned in grade school, virtually all of the energy on earth derives from the sun. A tiny variation in the output of the sun results in an ice age or a desert age - no human intervention is required. A quick check on this theory is what is now happening to the ice caps on Mars, they are shrinking. How many man made CO2 sources are on Mars? Oh my god! It must be the Mars rover! Or maybe it really is a small variation in the output of the sun. More on the global warming propaganda: The ice shelves are breaking up. That is the nature of ice shelves. The ice cap over Antarctica is getting thicker - a fact conveniently ignored by the global warmers. The ice cap over Greenland is shrinking, but archaeologists found vineyards on Greenland, This indicates that Greenland was not always under a thick sheet of ice. Another thing conveniently ignored by the global warmers. Every summer, during every hot spell global warming is trotted out to explain the heat. During this past winter, cold snaps were blamed on global warming too. Well is the globe warming or cooling? When I was a kid, these same "experts" were predicting the next ice age because we had a few cold winters in a row. And what happens with CO2? When I was in grade school, I learned about photosynthesis. This is a process that occurs in all green plants that uses CO2 from the atmosphere to provide energy for the plants so they can live and food to grow. Selectively picking facts supporting your cause and selectively ignoring facts that disprove your cause is called propaganda. Propaganda is not science. Never was. Never will be. There are plenty of scientists who have debunked the global warming propaganda, but the news media has ignored them because they do not fit the media's political agenda. You don't need a PHD, a grade school education will do. We have enough BS as it is. Stop spreading more of it Mr, Dodge. Joe Grabauskas

at 5/3/2007 7:07:05 AM, Timothy Dike said:
Of course there is Global warming. The earth has been warming up since the end of the last ice age, long before man industrialized. Man's miniscule impact on it is the question and your editorial dodges that point. If you really want to save the planet, go to an all electronic magazine and save a few trees. -- Timothy Dike Engineering Manager The Salvajor Company

at 5/3/2007 9:12:24 AM, Bob Spofford said:
John, I am still a skeptic. What is hard to swallow is Global "scientists" telling us our lifestyles are causing the global temperatures to rise 3-6 degrees in the next 50-100 years. However, the people most involved in weather predictions daily miss temperature predictions by 5 degrees despite massive computing power increases in the last 10 years dedicated to predicting weather. In the Midwest, we had one of the coldest Springs in recent memory; almost all of the high, daily temperature records are from 100 years ago. No one can argue that ice caps are melting. There have been global heating and cooling cycles forever. Who is to say this isn't another normal cycle and we can't do anything to avoid it. Then there is the Politics of Global Warming: the hypocrisy of Al Gore/ Hilary Clinton consuming vast amount of energy with housing and riding business jets around the country while telling the "American People" we need to consume less. The energy cost of a Hummer in its lifetime is less than a Prius if the true cost of battery raw materials and replacement is included, and the owner cost is about 2/3 for a Hummer vs a Prius in the projected lifetimes of the vehicles. One auto magazine stated if all the autos in the world were eliminated, the carbon dioxide worldwide would be reduced by 3% because natural processes account for most atmospheric CO2. One big volcano could pump orders of magnitude more emissions into the atmosphere than all the people in the world can generate. Global doom and gloom predictions may be right or wrong. No one will ever make an accurate prediction. I tend to think the end is NOT near. Bob Spofford

at 5/3/2007 9:26:31 AM, Bill Moorey said:
There are facts being conveniently ignored making me skeptical of the global warming "consensus", and no apparent facts supporting it. Why is the polar ice cap on Mars dissipating at an "alarming rate"? Also, ice and snow in Antarctica is increasing. Why? I was watching a documentary about Mars and the commentary said that the temperatures there are so low because the atmosphere has an extremely high percentage of carbon dioxide. Assuming this comment is accurate how is it that on Earth carbon dioxide is responsible for an opposite result? Scientists who study the sun unanimously agree that our sun is in a 20 year period of having increased solar flares and activity which are attributable to weather. This period is about the length of our current "man-made global warming" cycle. Science is not determined by consensus, but rather only by facts. And you did not present any. Bill Moorey

at 5/3/2007 10:18:01 AM, Stephen Phoenix said:
Your diatribe is common with all the other yuppies and their prodigy. "If we can just force people to buy the "right" car, then the world will stabilize forever at its current wonderful configuration". "Oh, and by the way, humans are somehow above nature because of their intellectual superiority". Hello, the world has been changing for millions of years and will continue to do so with or without the actions of those large ants known as humans. Kansas used to be a seabed and Wyoming was a steaming jungle populated with dinosaurs. My home grounds used to be under about 600 ft of ice. Turns out that nature (which by the way, humans are a part of) does develop corrective mechanisms for every excess. A more likely scenario than beachfront property in Pennsylvania is the peaking of oil production followed by the economic collapse of oil dependent nations. This, in turn, will lead to rather nasty wars and famine which will correct the excess human problem. These things, my friend, will relegate worrying about global warming to the ridiculous yuppie phobia that it is. Stephen Phoenix Olympia, WA

at 5/3/2007 10:18:36 AM, Stan Gray said:
Hello John, Reducing greenhouse gasses is only part of the solution. The "man is the cause" brigade refuses to add in one major player in global warming: the Sun. The atmospheric temperature of teh planet Mars is increasing. And, it sure is not being caused by greenhouse gases, or man. It is a function of the solar output in the heat side of the spectrum. Global warming is actually a normal cycle, part of the solar changes. It is usually folled by a solar minimum - cooling. There may be a few decades of "high" temperatures, then everything will reverse and we may well see an ice age. One good large volcanic blast could drive us into a mini ice age. there is historical evidence of this factor during the middle ages, and the early years of this republic. The year without summer. Stan Gray Chief Technology Officer GraSen Technology, LLC.

at 5/3/2007 11:48:12 AM, Raymong Awkright said:
Mr. Dodge, Naysayers, Bring it on! Huh? What is your definition of a naysayer when it comes to global warming? Is it someone who says the planet is not getting warmer? Or is it someone who believes the planet is getting warmer, but also believes that the warming is natural and not because of human activity? Or is it someone who believes the planet is getting warmer, but also believes that the warming is not threatening to life on earth? Is it all of the above? I believe global warming is real. I believe that the planet has warmed about 1° F over the past 100-150 years. I do not believe that global warming is man-made, and I do not believe that global warming is necessarily threatening to our existence. So where do I fit in? Am I to be labeled a “naysayer” or a “denier” simply because I feel that there is enough science out there to support my position? Do you really believe that the threat from global warming is more real simply because Dell has started a plant-a-tree campaign and Al Gore’s movie has made $45 million? Global warming is becoming big business because it is in the headlines and because right-or-wrong, people are passionate about it. That passion is not evidence that global warming is dangerous or man-made. (I like Dell’s plant-a-tree campaign, but I like it because we should be reforesting regardless of any perceived threat from global warming.) You state that the threat of global warming is real. How do you know? What evidence is there to state that everything must get worse if the planet warms? Is the climate optimum now? Was it optimum 100 years ago when it was one degree cooler? Was it optimum 400 years ago during the little ice age? Was it optimum in the 1970’s when the media was scaring everyone with news that the next ice age was upon us? (Check out Newsweek-April 1975 and Time-June 1974) There are scientists that state that temperatures during the medieval warm period and the roman warm period were warmer than they are now? Were they worse off because of it? I think everyone can agree that our planet has warmed and cooled many times during its long history. We know that it is possible for the Earth to warm and cool without any input from humans. That is why it cannot be stated that human-generated carbon dioxide is the definitive cause of this warming. There is no way to know if this warming would have occurred anyway. It can be stated that human-generated carbon dioxide may be the cause, or may be a contributor. We cannot know for sure. There are too many factors. The climate is far to complex. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the Sun is the major contributor to global warming and cooling: The NASA Laboratory for Solar and Space Physics states “There is evidence for a relationship between the solar activity cycle and global climate. The best known case is the correlation of a long period of solar inactivity called the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) with the lowest temperatures recorded during the "Little Ice Age" that occurred from 1500 to 1850. Almost no spots were observed on the Sun during this period.” A report prepared by the American Geophysical Union states “Contemporary solar activity has reached historically high levels as measured by sunspot number and cosmogenic isotope concentrations. The rise (in solar activity) since the Maunder Minimum period 300 years ago has roughly paralleled the climb in global temperatures from the depths of the Little Ice Age.” The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has plots of globally averaged temperature, sunspot number, and solar cycle length for the past 150 years. Sunspot number and solar cycle length are both indicators for the amount of solar energy the earth receives. The similarity of the curves is evidence that variation in solar activity has a dramatic influence on the Earth’s climate. Sun spot activity has reached 1,000-year high, said scientists affiliated with the Max Planck Institute in Gottingen, Germany, and the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich, Switzerland, in a 2004 report. More sun spots mean Earth will grow warmer; fewer mean it will turn colder. Solar radiation has increased by 0.05 percent per decade since the 1970s, concluded a NASA-funded study in 2003. There are scientists who say that the historically high solar activity is helping to shield the Earth from cosmic rays, which in turn is reducing cloud cover, which in turn is allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface. It has recently been reported that Mars is experiencing global warming. Man-made Global warming activists claim this is a coincidence. Of course it must be, otherwise they would have to admit they are wrong. Others say it is more evidence that the sun is to blame. There are scientists that question whether more CO2 in the atmosphere is a cause of global warming or an effect of global warming. There is plenty information out there on the “opposition” side other than Junkscience.com. Was that the full extent of your search? Have you watched the British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle?” Have you read the book “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years” by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer? The debate is not over. Your article tells me that you believe the planet is warming, and you believe that the warming is threatening us. You did not seem to state whether or not you thought global warming is man-made. Do you think it is? Raymond Arkwright

at 5/3/2007 12:26:48 PM, Derek said:
Let''''s move this from he said she said - What about designs to deal with higher temp, less rain, high energy cost. Magazine is Design news so what about some designs. Two major areas. One, close to home, personal solar electricity and hot water. Energy efficiency of our homes. Two, poor nations, low cost non polluting electicity etc. How can they develop and be self sufficient with a reasonable standard of living. We need some innovatie designs!

at 5/4/2007 6:34:12 AM, Ken Shuey said:
John: What you wanted to do was to get people going so to that end you were successful with your article. However, science fiction is defined as "fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals" or "literary fantasy including a scientific factor as an essential orienting component". At this stage of the scientific analysis these science fiction definitions get very close to describing global warming. The bottom line is it's relatively difficult to run scientific experiments on the earth to prove or disprove a global fact. It's just hard to get a few billion people to all jump at the same time to see if we can change the earth's orientation. It's also difficult to go back and review the pre-historic figuring books and detailed core temperature measurements of the CroMagnon for comparitive data. Is conservation a good idea? Yes, since it decreases peak generator requirements for the utilities. Is elimination of coal mines in favor of nuclear power a good idea? Certainly for the long term health of the miners it is, but not in the short term if the miners are out of work. Is it a good idea to increase fuel economy? Certainly, since it will help reduce our dependency on unstable foreign governments. But, you see, these answers are actually based on facts that can be measured. Utilities really do have to supply the peak power requirements of their customers. Miners really do get black lung disease and die in underground accidents. We don't need to discuss Iran. There is just a major difference in the approach an engineer uses to evaluate and solve a problem as compared a journalist. The engineer tries to never let his "feelings" enter into the analysis. As Jack Webb would say, "just the facts, ma'am, just the facts". Ken Shuey

at 5/4/2007 7:17:02 AM, Bob Lamonica said:
Living here in Santa Cruz, CA, where cell phone radiation is tied in to road rage, and 9-11 was an "inside job", I see more politico-religious pontifications on global warming than rational debate. In fact, the last thing desired is a dialog, not just on climate change but most issues. This is normal, since most people are insulted if they are disagreed with. Yes, humans have environmental impact and should strive towards cleaner approaches to energy and technology. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's admit that what is called clean, like solar, takes highly toxic processes to produce the new era of photoelectric thin films to make it work. The earth was volatile before the ascension of humans. We will need to figure out how to balance these effects as best we can, and not panic into a situation where science and reason is replaced by slogans and hypocrisy.

at 5/4/2007 11:36:35 AM, Pete Malone said:
Hi John, Whether you think the earth's average temperature is rising (it's really a bit early to tell), it wouldn't be the first time that has happened. Mastodons have been found frozen in Siberia with tropical vegetation in their stomachs. According to ice core data from the polar ice caps, the earth has been going through cycles of warming and cooling, with about 1500-year periods, for at least 10,000 years. The last time the earth was relatively warm, in the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Vikings were farming on Greenland (which is why it is called "Greenland"), cities on the sea shore (e.g., London, Shanghai, Tokyo, Venice, etc.) didn't flood. We don't have to "slash our wrists" to save the planet. The hysteria about "climate change" is based on a short-term look at specific data, like choosing to look at one week's stock market data for selected stocks, and extrapolating that to support the story you want to "pitch." It is manipulating the numbers to play "politics." That isn't how "science" is supposed to be practiced. All the data should be considered, before trying to draw conclusions. (It's like applying the Second Law.) If you look at a few thousand years of temperature history, what is happening now is not unusual, and the conclusion MUST be that man's "industrial activity" has little or nothing to do with the earth's average temperature. Certainly, the previous half dozen "peak" temperature periods were not caused by "industrial activity" or resulting CO2 levels. Higher CO2 levels cause more vigorous growth of vegetation, which absorbs more CO2. The system tends to be self-balancing. Again, referring to the ice core data, there have been periods of high CO2 levels before. The oceans contain about 3000 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, so even a fraction of a degree rise in temperature could result in more atmospheric CO2. There is a lot we don't know about the heat balance equation for the earth. One thing we do know, though, is that our heat input is from the sun, and that input varies with sunspot activity. Sunspot activity influences or controls cosmic ray levels, which cause more or less atmospheric ionization, creating more or less carbon-14, which influences formation of cloud condensation nuclei. An increase in cloud condensation nuclei is related to the number of low level clouds, which tend to cool the earth. In other words, low levels of sunspot activity are associated with "global warming," and vice-versa. The work of Svensmark and Marsh, on the statistical relationship between sunspot activity and the earth's temperature, covers more than 1000 years and looks a good deal more rational to me than "hype." Check it out and let me know what you find. Best wishes, Pete Malone St. Charles, IL

at 5/7/2007 4:39:41 AM, Darrel Lemon said:
HELLO, JOHN: You seem VERY defensive on your position. Why? I have tried to remain neutral on whether or not we have a problem or not in this area. So far, I have not seen any FACTS to support either position -- warming or cooling -- or for that matter remaining stationary. But would like to see some FACTS. I have asked folks who are supposedly controlled by scientific FACTS, but have not had any reasonable reply from NASA folks or anyone else. I have heard and read -- hundreds of times now -- that the earth's temperature has increased 1/2 to 1 degree (sometimes in degrees C, but usually not even stated!) in a century. I immediately began to question just how one takes the earth's temperature -- to within 0.01 C. [As someone who has performed heat treatments in highly controlled heat treat furnaces for 30 years in the Aerospace Industry, I know just how accurate furnaces are within the well-insulated and controlled furnaces.] Some of the best furnaces can control interior temperatures to no closer than +/- 3 degrees C. Hmmmm, interesting, no? [Humanoid body temperatures vary over a range of about 10 deg F, depending on where measurements are made, no?] So why are readings of 0.01 deg C necessary anyway? Well, as anyone knowledgeable of significant figures is aware, when you subtract one number from another number that is very close in value (e.g. 1/2 to 1.0 degree C in this instance), one loses virtually all the significant figures unless extremely accurate readings are taken! So the 1/2 to 1.0 deg C could be off SIGNIFICANTLY if measurements are not accurate in the extreme! [Temperatures in the Denver area can vary by up to 20 deg F on a given day. Ever wonder where the 'official' temperature was taken 100 years ago before the airport existed?] So then I see pix of glaciers calving off while someone off camera is warning that global warming is occurring, and we should start running for the mountains or stop smoking or eat organic foods or ???????? By the way, some folks don't know that SOME glaciers have been calving this way for several thousands of years. But most of the others have never calved off and aren't doing so now! So those pix are just eyewash -- akin to hogwash! NOT scientific, huh? And even if Hollywood stars or ex-politicians scream, 'The sky is falling', I am not convinced. Sorry. [By the way just where did these folks matriculate -- the church of Scientology?] Now, I am NOT saying that we aren't getting warmer (in spite of the above). I am also NOT saying that we aren't getting cooler. Or remaining constant. I prefer to talk after an investigation presents FACTS. That way I won't be in danger of being called a fool when FACTS reveal what is really happening. I just would like to have some SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented rather than all this blather. Thanks. Darrel Lemon P.S. I know, all the research monies are given to support warming theories. No wonder the 'cooling' folks are being drowned out. But TRUE science isn't a voting proposition

at 5/7/2007 4:42:13 AM, Barry Alexander said:
I have to agree that the globe is getting warmer and man's activities (not just CO2) have an effect. Now the impact of our activities in not certian. We should take common sense steps to reduce our carbon output, but we should not do foolish things that allow others to put CO2 into the atmosphere while we pay the price. About 300 Nukes are needed along with conservation, wind, water, solar, etc. to generate enough electricity to power our economy with a reduction of burning fossil fuel. Barry Alexander Jackson Tennessee Barry Alexander

at 5/7/2007 5:16:56 AM, Mitch said:
John, No one questions that temperatures have been rising over the last century but what is the cause? Is this warming trend a natural cycle or is it caused by human activity? I've listened to both sides, I've looked at the data and I've come to the conclusion that the temperature rise is not man made. It is a natural cycle that the earth goes through and right now the cycle is going up. Human activity is not the cause nor can man stop it from happening. Let me explain how I came to that conclusion. First of all, I'm sure that you'll agree with me that for CO2 increases to result in increased temperatures, the CO2 level would have to start increasing prior to the temperature increase. Are we together so far? Let's start with the very impressive graph that Al Gore shows in his global warming presentation showing how temperature and CO2 have moved together for a very long time. This data was obtained from the study of ice cores. I know of at least 3 studies that indictated that the temperature increase started between 600 and 1000 years before the CO2 increase. If temperature goes up before CO2, explain to me how CO2 caused the temperature increase. If these studies are correct, the whole cause and effect arguement goes out the window. If you assume that those studies are somehow flawed and you throw them out, what about the more recent data? Look at the temperature patturn for the last century. Most of the temperature increase happened between the turn of the century and the 1940's. Human production of CO2 would have been very small by current standards the temperatures were rising at least as fast then as they are today. Temperatures were going down from the 1940's to the 1970's which were a time of rapidly increasing CO2 production. In fact, during those times, the concern was global cooling. Anyone who tries to claim that human CO2 production caused this will have to do a lot of hand waving to prove their point. The arguement that human CO2 production is causing the current warming trend is striking in its lack of data and proof that does not come from someone's computer model. You can "prove" anything you want with a computer model if you make the right assumptions. That doesn't make it real. As for the arguement that the majority of scientists believe it doesn't prove anything. The majority of scientists believed (or at least publicly stated) that the sun revolved around the earth back when that was the politically necessary thing to say. Where's the proof? There is a reason why Al Gore does not take any questions when he gives his presentations. Real questions about real data (not computer models) is not consistent with his arguement. If there is no real proof that CO2 produced by humans is causing this and there is significant data that says it is not, is it really wise to build a public policy on that flawed theory? This is especially true when you look at the implications of what that policy could look like. I've given you an arguement based on data, not computer models and opinion. Is there something that I've missed in your position on global warming? Is there proof that you can show me to demonstrate that the theory is real that does not rely on polls of scientists or computer models? If there is, I'd love to see it. Mitch

at 5/7/2007 10:38:02 AM, Mark Weiss said:
The subject topic was mentioned only in passing in your global warming editorial. It is irksome how the overly-literal-minded American often misses other considerations. In this case it is not the great prose style of an author over the what-happens, but the thinking that lighting is solely about intensity and cost (and now global warming). Of course, beam spreads and like photometrics matter too, but on to the topic of fluorescent lights. Fluorescent light is irritating, not relaxing. Studies have shown that, even in business, performance was better when fluorescent light irritation was mitigated by filters. In one's home especially, the warmth (as in color temperature) of incandescent lighting brings a peaceful feeling that would be banished by fluorescents. The American overly literal mindset never deigns to consider anything beyond the most obvious and overt -- even when it is one's own peace that lies beyond the literal-minded pale. Incidentaly, I am a natural-born American. I put orangey filters over the fluorescent lights in my office and in my lab. I have my custom pink/gray/UV "fluorescent light glasses" when I go to a retail establishment with fluorescents brighter than an operating room -- and this is literal; I have had outpatient surgery with less illumination than used by some video stores and supermarkets that have five times the fluorescent flux they should have. My main point though is that "substitution" of fluorescent for incandescent is a mistaken notion. One is not a substitute for the other, even though they are both "light". When one becomes overly literal, then light intensity and cost-effectiveness become the totality of what there is to consider. But that's a wrong-headed notion. See how relaxed you are at home with fluorescent lights like the typical retail store.

at 5/8/2007 8:29:57 AM, Mike Weller said:
Mr Dodge: I am one of the 'many' that is set off by your column. Thank you for giving us your thoughts. Perhaps the climate is changing. WHO CARES? That's what it does. The Prius emits less CO2. WHO CARES? It is always a good thing that industries reduce the emissions of anything in their waste stream. I congratulate them. But to think that this will make any difference in the temperature variation of our planet, or the level of the oceans, or any other factor is the height of human arrogance! Of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, human endeavor only counts for 4%; is Ma Nature going to step up to the plate and reduce HER emissions? Not likely. A point that I have never seen adequately addressed by any of the Global Warming hype is this: What magic thermometers were in existance 150 years ago that never needed calibration (or re-calibration) and were never moved or changed? And were accurate within +/-2.0 degrees F. These are providing the "data" that is used to con us into believing this stuff. The climate models that Gore quotes in his cartoon are just that - models. Not much better than video games. Talk to some of the climatologists and ask them how often their models predict another ice age in the coming century. That happens more often than they like to discuss. Global warming has a checkered history of poor science, political manipulation, and hysterical attention-grabbing. It also has a lot of sincerely passionate people who are trying to do a good thing. Too many are too interested in getting their "pet theory" in the limelight, however.

at 5/8/2007 9:45:15 AM, Larry E. Fry said:
John, Yes, global warming is real. But it is also normal. The earth has been going through cyclic temperature changes since its beginning. This is far more widely accepted than the theory that man is creating permanent climatic changes. Global warming reminds me of the Y2K bug that had so many of us alarmed eight years ago…and that had much more logic behind it than this does. Does my 1996 car permanently raise the temperature of planet Earth, by even .000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degree? No. (prove me wrong! J ) Do a billion new cars, many of whom exhaust cleaner air than they ingest, by the way, raise the temperature of the planet Earth? Maybe. By how much? No one knows…it’s all just speculation. Most logical persons aren’t really worried about it. After all, a thousand years from now, when the average yearly Earthly temps are =/- .5 degrees of what they are now, it won’t make much difference to our progeny. Just remember: about twenty years ago, we were all running around like Chicken Little over the Global Cooling that was supposedly occurring… Keep up the good writing!! Larry E. Fry Senior Engineering Technician GKN Aerospace Chem-tronics, Inc

at 5/9/2007 1:59:13 PM, Neil Speer said:
GW is big business: Thats a fact GW is real: Hardly a fact. Using a 100 year's worth of trend data, compared to over a billion years of data that contains shows many, much more dramatic climate variations have occurred on the planet due to natural causes makes GW a scientific joke. Prius: The new EPA standards now factor in 70mph highway speeds with AC and some accessories on. This turns these into tinker toys. You dispute that all these batteries being used are "green" (and are affordable to replace in few years)? There will be a large enviromental charge in addition to purchasing/installing new batteries. CF: They are much less functional (turn on time, can't use dimmers) and they are expensive. You will be more prone to leaven them on all time, defeating your power savings. They contain a very hazardous element mercury that must be disposed of if broken and they are installed by morons who will break them often. Some say the coal plants produce more mercury, but a good nuke plant is much better and cleaner than any coal plant will ever be. Bottom line, invest in companies that market this BS. But don't buy any of it!

at 5/10/2007 5:56:42 AM, Neil Speer said:
Your lack of engineering skeptism is what is drawing the comments. I would be more than willing to look at a fair reiew of CF, but the post I saw was hardly convincing of even the monthly savings. I agree their will be some though. Any analysis needs to compare the same month and address ownership costs. And then you can throw in other factors like inconvenience, mercury, etc. We now hear how frequently the rich liberals are more than willing to spend their money purchasing "convenience credits" through these scam carbon credit programs. Recently I helped a friend remove a smog pump (and the dual cats) on an old car as fixing it would be very expensive (when the rest of the car is great). Then I read the main purpose of the smog pump mostly just pumps fresh air into the exhaust to delute the HC emitted (not reduce) so it appears to be cleaner based on volume, but its not and any burning done from it outside of the chamber is a waste of energy. Engineers simply did whatever it took to pass the regs at the time. We did actually research using the carbon credit places to offset this, and concluded it was a joke. The car runs much better, getting 4 mpg better (it has a computer on-board). I have no green guilt from doing this.

at 5/10/2007 9:32:23 AM, Jeff Leith said:
John, You made the Great Leap from acknowledging that global warming exists to accepting that carbon dioxide emissions will have any effect on it. Science does not prove that conclusion. The state of the earth in recent human history is no more correct than one in which the glaciers are melted. It is better to accept change and adapt to it than to blindly attempt to maintain the status quo. -- Jeff Leith

at 5/10/2007 9:33:40 AM, Phil Malowitz said:
Hi John, Very good article! Keep it up! The one issue I'm hoping you can research is this: How much CO2 is created from the energy used to manufacture an item, versus how much CO2 is created from creating the energy that is used to use an item. I'll explain. A lit candle gives off carbon dioxide, so how much co2 created by a lit candle in comparison to the CO2 created to generate the electricity for a 40-watt bulb for an hour? A candle is made of color, fragrance, and paraffin-a by-product of petroleum. And how much CO2 is created to generate the energy to create a candle made of paraffin, compared to the CO2 created to generate energy to manufacture an incandescent, compared to making a compact fluorescent? If you can provide any feedback to these questions, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks and best regards, Phil

at 5/10/2007 11:24:24 AM, Thomas Stacey said:
Dear Mr. Dodge: I read your editorial in Design News (vol 62 no.6) re global warming. I challenge you to get a copy of the Glenn Beck's (CNN Headline News)show that gave the other side of the global warming issues. It doesn't deny the fact that the globe may be warming but it shows the statistics that were "used" in Gore propaganda movie to convince little schoolchildren (My grandchildren included) that we are murdering polar bears. He went into some detail about the "scientific community's" scare tactics some 30 years ago that we are headed for an ice age. After you see the program with an unbiased view it might make another topic for your editorials. Sincerely, Thomas Stacey

at 5/11/2007 12:05:51 AM, Ken said:
John: I am surprised you would write a column in a magazine geared towards engineers without giving even a link to webpages that cite scientific papers. As engineers, we are much more likely to be swayed by solid research papers than by journalists and politicians debating endlessly. I would like to recommend your readers visit www.realclimate.org where they can read comments by scientists for scientists about climate research. The occasional engineer manages to get a word in as well. The scientific rigor is much better than at sites such as those you mention in the column or your readers have mentioned above. Among the topics covered are: 1. Mistakes and truths in Al Gore''''s film "An Inconvenient Truth". 2. Why the majority of climate scientists believe global warming is occuring. 3. Why they believe it is caused by man (antroprogenic). 4. How ice cores are examined for the source of CO2 in the atmosphere up to 700,000 years ago (using isotopic analyses) 5. Why correlation does not imply causation, and what factors are "forcing" versus "feedback" in climate science.

at 5/15/2007 7:33:52 AM, Marvin Darling said:
John: Your Report on global warming in the 4/30/07 issue of design news was very interesting. The part about the Toyota Prius producing 1,875 kg less carbon dioxide than other cars seemed a bit high, though. I hope it was just a typographical error by the good folks at Hybridblog.org and not an Al Gore-type exaggeration. If 169 gallons of gasoline is burned completely to carbon dioxide and water, it would produce about 1,479 kg of carbon dioxide, based on a molar ratio of 1mole of octane to 8 moles of carbon dioxide. The average specific gravity of gasoline is 0.72 to 0.76, so 169 gallons represents about 480 kg of fuel. Marvin Darling

at 5/15/2007 9:47:04 AM, Bob Kazmaier said:
John This is in response to your editorial on Global Warming. I’ll try to be brief. I guess you missed the story out of NASA about Mars temperatures also rising. It turns out there is an apparent large hotspot (?) on the Sun that is more likely the culprit of our rising temperatures. The article I recall posed the following multiple choice question (I paraphrase): The temperature on Mars and Earth are rising. The cause is: A. Large SUVs B. Coal burning factories C. Our SUN Let’s see, what is there in common, dah? Don’t buy into the stampede to think that we mere mortals could do anything of significance to change the weather. With extreme measures – sure to cause economic hardship or even collapse – we would only reduce the greenhouse gases by a very small percentage. Heck, grazing cows emit much more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs combined. Maybe we should get rid of all those polluting cows! [Note – I don’t own an SUV or truck]. Can we reduce polluted air, yes. Stop melting glaciers, forget it. It appears to be the same scare tactics that government likes to use to control every aspect of our lives (think 9/11 and the Patriot Act) – if we let them. Remember back in the 70’s when the scare was that the temperatures were dropping and we were headed for another Ice Age? We’ve gone through periodic climate changes long before we humans existed / started polluting. You believe what you want to believe, but I for one refuse to accept a politician’s movie venture (with holes big enough to drive a large SUV through it) as being credible science. Exaggerations about the oceans rising 10 feet have been withdrawn revised to be maybe a couple of feet at most. Unfortunately that doesn’t make front page news though. Well you were right about one thing – you did manage to set me off. Bob Kazmaier L-3 Communications

at 5/15/2007 6:38:56 PM, Ken said:
Bob, here is a scientist's response to the 'Mars is warming too' argument: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars

at 5/16/2007 6:58:15 AM, Arthur Smith said:
Hello John, I suppose you've gotten an earful by now but I wanted to make you aware of a couple of points. 1. The USA has not signed the Kyoto protocol but we are still meeting the guidelines while in Europe, countries which are signatory, have not. China and India are exempt and China creates more pollution and CO2 than the USA. 2. The amount of warming is very small. Only about 1 degree F. The hockey stick curve in Al Gore's movie has been discredited and even the authors have confessed that they had to fudge the figures so grossly that even stable data shows an upward trend. But Al keeps using it anyway for political purposes. 3. The computer models they use to prove global warming are so primitive that they can't accurately predict known trends from the past. They give the wrong answers. So we know now that based on the computer models that if they predict gross climate change then that's what won't happen. 4. Global temperatures track the solar output and cosmic particle flux. We are currently in a low part of the 11year sunspot cycle which means more energy from the sun. 5. CFLs have a small amount of mercury but environmentalists have totally banned mercury in batteries saying that no amount is safe. But for their own causes then I guess a little is OK after all. 6. Yesterdays NY Times article quotes UN scientists as finally deciding that the Gulf stream will not be significantly interrupted by even worse case scenarios of melting polar ice. A few years ago global warming critics were told that the current would shut down and ultimately cause an new ice age. Al Gore insisted that we all go see the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" to show what was going to happen. Critics were called "deniers" but now I guess they were right. 7. Some glaciers are growing. I was at the Mendenhal glacier in Juneau AK last summer and they have a nice model laid out showing the local mountains and the glaciers with markings of their status over the years. Sure enough at the main tourist spot the glacier has retreated recently but has move forward and backward over the years but what got my attention was that on other parts of the mountains the glaciers are surging The ice fields go back a hundred miles or so and a retreats and surges have only been a few miles. The glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa has receded because someone cut down the trees at the base which cause humidity to condense as snow at the top. It has nothing to do with global warming. 8. The increase of malaria in Africa is due to the banning of DDT not Global Warming. 9. The ice cap in Antarctica is thickening. Despite concerns of the ice sheets breaking off, one reason is they are being pushed by more ice coming from inland. 10. Scientist who dispute the popular myths of global warming are threatened with there jobs. See the documentary " The Great Global Warming Swindle". The money is in proving global warming and the more the outrageous the hysteria that can created then the more money they can get. 11. It is not possible to deduce temperature data from tree rings and other secondary measurements to the precision needed, a fraction of a degree, to study global warming. Data going back more than a hundred years is simply not precise enough. 12. The temperature rise in the 20 century occurred mostly in the first part when CO2 was arguably lower than today. We are still recovering from the little ice age of the 1600s. 13. The global temperature leads the CO2 levels which means the high CO2 is effect not cause. 14. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor not CO2. And man made CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total in the environment. Cutting back man made CO2 by a small amount will reduce the green house effect a fraction of a tiny fraction. 15. I like incandescent bulbs. But they want to ban them. That's ignorance because even though the CFL is more efficient and the incandescent bulb is a better heat source than a light source, I need the heat in my house anyway. People with electric heat are no greener by using CFLs. Disposal of incandescent bulbs is trivial and they're cheap to make requiring almost no resources. Incandescent bulbs also make good electrical loads with unity power factor and no EMI. They will draw current down to zero volts. CFLs are nonlinear and create EMI (electrical pollution). 16. The polar bears are not dieing off because of global warming. Only one of many groups are in decline and in fact the Canadians still have a polar bear hunt to keep the populations down. Even if there was a significant loss of the Arctic ice the polar bears would not die off they survived other climate changes when it was even warmer than today. 17. Ardent environmentalist and Arctic explorer Ann Bancroft led an expedition to the north pole last spring to document the destruction from global warming. They had to turn back because it was too cold. About 100 below some nights. You didn't hear about that on public radio did you. Will Steger also left this spring to do the same thing, he apparently was disappointed as well. That's enough for now. Regards, J. Arthur Smith Iron River, Wisc.

at 5/16/2007 6:59:08 AM, H. Shamir said:
Dear Mr. Dodge, a recent article has been clsimed to say that both Mercury and Mars have warmed due to the Sun's increased emissions, which would alternatively explain the Earth's warming, in whole or in part. I and lots of others would appreciate a reply or clarification, based on numbers, not platitudes. Thank you, H. Shamir Engineering

at 5/17/2007 6:53:45 AM, Jerry Neuhauser said:
I dont normally write letters tot he editor, but this one REQUIRES some input! Yes, Global Warming is real. NO! It is NOT being caused by us ants crawling around on this rock called 'Earth'. Fact: NASA has detected Global Warming on Mars - WHAT are we DOING THERE??!! NOTHING! Two little solar powered rovers? Hardly! Fact: There is an Ice Age Cycle. We are approaching the 'Summer peak' of this cycle. In a couple of thousand years, when we pass the peak, there will be GLOBAL COOLING - right into the NEXT ICE AGE! Then the Gore Chicken Littles can run around and screem " The sky is falling. The sky is FALLING!!!" Yup. Called SNOW. And it will STAY AROUND for several more thousand years, again. Just like the last times. Hope we still have Fleece and Thermax then... Fact: The Sun does NOT have a 'constant output'. Being large, its time constants are long (years), and has several cycles, the 11 year sunspot cycle being most notable, but we are discovering longer cycles with contunued observations, core samples, etc. Forrier Analyses of what we know about these cycles reveals some interesting phenomenum, with peaks and valleys in the sun's output. Back about 200 years ago, there was the 'Maunder Minimum" where there were very few sunspots for several of the 11 year cycles - which resulted in a Mini-Ice Age. Did the Chicken Littles go runniing around screeming "Global Cooling!! Lite more camp fires!!" Nope. Fact: As the Sun (a Main Sequence Star) burns off its hydrogen, it will expand - eventually into a Red Giant - larger than the earth's orbit, in about 4 - 5 Billion years. Could we be at the beginning of this Final Expansion - NOW? Possibly. There IS an increased output being measured at Mars, Jupitor and Saturn. We can HOPE that this is just one of the Forrier Peaks - 'cause ONCE THIS FINAL SOLAR EXPANSION STARTS, it will only take a few hundred million years to finally boil the oceans dry! Not to worry, tho - neither WE, nor our Great Grand Children will still be here, then. And we can HOPE that mankind doesnt blow itself up, and finds a way to other, younger solar systems ot survive. There IS time - IF we can just survive NOW! Fact: Mt St. Hellens, Pinitubo and other recent volcanoes each put more crud into the earth's atmosphere than all the fires and smoke of WW's 1 and 2 combined, and did so in less than a WEEK each! Gobs and Gobs of Carbon Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide and who knows what else! Did they cause a 'Nuclear Winter'? Did they cause a sudden Global shift of ANY kind? Nope. Only a few months of Pink Sunsets till the dust settled out of the atmosphere. That's ALL! Our enemies cant defeat us militarily, so how to defeat us? Perhaps with this environmental crap - get us to shoot ourselves in the foot, so to speak. WHO is complaining about all those Soot Spewing Stacks in China? Listen CLOSELY. Do you hear ANYONE? Hmmm... Me Neither... Enemies? Today? ABSOLUTELY! MOST foreign Governments - but NOT their PEOPLE - who are trying to GET INTO AMERICA to ESCAPE thier own governments Tyranny, any way they CAN! Buy Gas lately? I rest my case, on this issue! It appears Al Gore is just prostituting himself again for Political Gain with his 'Inconvenient Truth'. Will he become the new Coresh for the Enviro-Branch Dividians? Hmmm... Well, when they all commit mass suicide, maybe we can get back to REAL business. On RoSH, I send THIS little E-mail to each of my Vendors when the call me to tell me the GRATE NOOZ that THEY are NOW RoHS COMPLIANT! RoHS is the most STUPID, STUPID!, STUPID!! THING I have ever heard of!!!! Tin Whiskers will short out your car computer and leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere. In a storm. Or the Desert at 120+. Tin Whiskers will short out your cell fone in the middle of the 911 call. But it wont matter. Tin Whiskers will short out your Pace Maker and you will DIE. ( The RoHS Lemmings are rushing headlong to the cliff... ! ) Do a Google search for "Tin Whiskers". Horror Stories ABOUND already! 270,000 hits! The Enviro freaks are USING this Anti Lead BIG LIE to STOP America, and western civilization in general! Where DO they think Lead comes from? Pluto? The EARTH is FULL of it! Show me ONE of them who has taken the LEAD-acid Battery out of their car and installed a crank to start it! Which battery, by the way, winds up in the SAME land fill as your old TV or computer... How many does it take to equal ONE lead-acid battery? I rest my case. Solder has been made WITH Tin - Lead for OVER a HUNDRED YEARS! There ARE Very Good Reasons for this! Thanks. Jerry Neuhauser Electrical Design Engineer Moog

at 5/17/2007 6:56:54 AM, Jay Kephart said:
John, I don't think any of us can demonstrate with 100% accuracy what is really happening with the environment. I take exception with your editorial, only from the standpoint that you totally neglect past climatological changes and the cause/effect of these instances. Yes, industrial/automotive pollution needs to be addressed, but do we really need all the finger pointing? Who was around the last time we got a little too warm??? (Too many Neanderthal camp fires?) I'm also concerned that "dire consequences" is an often overused phrase that does more harm than good. (Crying Wolf) If we could get the news media to just 'report' the news and not sensationalize it, maybe the 'thinking class' could make informed decisions and not have to be swayed by the left and right fringes that only want their agendas to be on the table. If you want another suggestion for 'scare tactics' why don't you address the decreasing honeybee population. They are desperately needed to pollinate our crops! We won't care how hot it gets if we can't get any food to grow... Thanks for making us think! Jay Kephart Software Engineer WattMaster Controls, Inc.

at 5/17/2007 11:43:41 AM, Mike Thornton said:
John, you indicated in your reply posted at 4/26/2007 11:52:06 AM that there have been 4 ice ages in the past 2.3 billion years. A quick Google search would seem to indicate your assertion to be inaccurate. One site indicates there have been at least 60 glacial advances and retreats in the last 2 million years. I know information on the internet shouldn''t be trusted, and I intend to research this further for my own edification. I would hope you as a journalist, would do the same and with integrity either confirm your source or offer a retraction or clarification on this specific assertion.

at 5/22/2007 11:20:07 AM, The Wizard said:
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on? Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don''t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance

at 5/22/2007 11:30:18 AM, Wizard said:
****My comments got cut off in my first attempt so I'm re-posting them**** What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on? Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We a