# Interesting read on global warming



## kyle1745

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110009693

Some quotes from the article:


> Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.





> ...a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."





> The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.


----------



## christina hanson

Hi Kyle,

If you search the web about the organization that this author is Chairman of (National Center for Policy Analysis), his credibility begins to wane. Here's an citation about some of their funding coming from Exxon Mobil. 

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55

Again, always question the credibility of the source.

Christina


----------



## kyle1745

While I agree with questioning the creditability of the source I think it maybe more important to question the credibility of the data. There is always 2 sides to every story and everyone is as corrupt as the next when it comes to this stuff.

My concern with this very topic is the gloom and doom mentality of our media, and the support it gets from the public. Does that mean the facts are not true? No, but they are stretched and expressed in a way that makes things seem much worse than they really are. I personally believe there is more truth to the "solar radiation" and general cycle of things than many want to give credit to and or can prove or disprove. It just can not be forgotten as while we do play a part, our part may not be nearly as bad as it seems.


----------



## joshsfrogs

I think the sad part of the global warming issue is the whackos on both sides of the issue. It is hard for the average person to wade through the all the crap (passed on as scientific data) and see the real effects and causes (and degrees of causation) of global warming. There is just too much emotion in the issue. It really is sad.

I have to admit, I haven't taken the time to dig into the issue and look at all the "facts". Somehow in the hussle and bussle, this issue seems too far away to devote any time to it. Time to make some new goals to be greener...

The idiotic masses 
+ 
money-driven media (the source of "facts" for the average person who has a finacial incentive to sensationalize everything - did anyone see last nights 20/20 on ABC?)
+ 
scientists not trained to debate (lack of philosophy training - using the dirty words "we KNOW...", fallacies galore, etc.).
+ 
politics 
= 
a gigantic mess the vast majority of people are not going to wade through nor have the resources available even if they wanted to.

Just my $.02...


----------



## elmoisfive

Kyle,

The debate on global warming and its causes generates much passion and unfortunately spills over into and is dominated by political agendas. Despite all that it is clear that within recent history, climatic change is leading to rather dramatic results. I tend to focus on early warning signs in the Artic and Antarctic as opposed to watching people debate overall global temperature change that can obscure the real issue.

I try to be practical here. Let's say for the sake of argument that the overall global warming trend is a function of both changes in solar output, macroscopic global climate cycles and increases in greenhouse gases. The one factor we (humans) can control are greenhouse gases. Personally I suspect that the greenhouse gas increase probably represents the tipping point between serious but survivable climate change and something much worse.

Even if one wanted to shrug off the implications for plants and animals in general (which I don't), the implications for humans aren't very pleasant. 9+ billion people living on a planet where divide between the haves and have nots in terms of access to basic necessities of food and water is a ripe breeding ground for war, disease and terrorism. Not much of a legacy to bequeath to our children and grandchildren.

I'm 48 now and while I don't enjoy the idea of growing old, there is a part of me that selfishly welcomes the fact that I likely won't be alive when the worst of the sh*t hits the fan. But I fear for my children and their children....I truly do.

Bill


----------



## kyle1745

Josh,

You are correct, and put it much better than I did. 

I think both sides have facts that play a part, and Id bet if put together properly not a whole lot we can do about it. Thats not to say we don't control what we can, but there maybe a good bit we can't.


----------



## kyle1745

Bill,

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to shrug any of it off, but I do think scientists owe us the whole truth, and to include all the factors. I'm sure we as humans play a part and we all need to do our part to help out, but I think the politics and hidden agendas get in the way of the truth.


----------



## Rain_Frog

I hope we realize that global warming in the end may NOT be our demise. The gulf stream is slowly shutting down because of global warming, which could result in an ice age eventually. This winter was colder and wetter than normal (for instance, NY was hit hard by lots of precipitation from global warming).


----------



## Rambo67

> This winter was colder and wetter than normal


Are you saying this for your area or the nation as a whole? If the nation, id have to disagree. I know a lot of the east got off to a late start this winter, we hit 70 here in mid January (which, of course, may not be saying much for the global warming issue) and got relatively normal amounts of precip. Im by no means shrugging it off, but currently Im not so sure if we can link things like NYs snowfall amounts to global warming instantly. Abnormal weather events do occur naturally, so I think its hard to pinpoint it to warming. Ive also heard El Nino thrown around earlier this year, but thats another story. 

That said, its hard for an average Joe like myself to see through all of the biased "scientific" data being presented to us.


----------



## stchupa

Rambo67 said:


> This winter was colder and wetter than normal
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure in your localization. They key word here is global. The earth is doing all it can to equalize before it throws out, as a last ditch effort, before it gives up and rids itself of its' parasites. Layers are switching. The production range is increasing. Deserts and rainforests are soon to share a given amount of precip. There will be no split off in uniqueness between once seperate environments. They will be level and spread
> out (mingle). I think of the layers of Jupiter when I see the world today, the flow be straight and without varying contour to the stream. Even spread out. Each thin band or layer being it's own climate, instead of having varying climates (such as temperate, desert and tropical) Sharing the same latitude. WE will be at the mercy of the Earth's position to the sun that'll determine differing climates.
> 
> Something that corrasponds to 'the switching of layers' I was speaking of and absolute proof, is that Canada and Siberia (just to name a couple), North latitude to us, same latitude to each other (opposite sides of Earth). Both. In fact mostly everywhere w/in that latitude have had the DRIEST and WARMEST winter on record.
> Then again, lower parts of Canada (our band THIS year) has seen the heaviest snow on record. So heavy the Moose (an animal adapted to this climate) have become trapped in their own environment and the ones that were lucky enough not to get trapped/starved must use paved roads to get around.
> 
> When was the last time you remember seing the U.S. sharing this type of precip. and still having tornados (at least) every week IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER.
> 
> This is nothing to debate, we throw out the ones that are blind (mind's eye) and the ones that see, DISCUSS and work off what they know. We require those that disagree to come up w/ a solution?
> A debate to this is just a side track to what we should focus on. It'll never get us anywhere. The people that still debate it are the ones that would never except the fact, *no matter* how much proof is put before them. It is their duty to make sure we solve nothing. It'll still be a debate until the last second, I give you my word on that.
> 
> [quote:md32ftoq]Are you saying this for your area or the nation as a whole? If the nation, id have to disagree. I know a lot of the east got off to a late start this winter, we hit 70 here in mid January (which, of course, may not be saying much for the global warming issue) and got relatively normal amounts of precip.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 70 one day, snow the next, and then the tornados right after. Every time I called up to MA their were tornados expected. Usually


> only


 around ten or so, A DAY



> Im by no means shrugging it off, but currently Im not so sure if we can link things like NYs snowfall amounts to global warming instantly. Abnormal weather events do occur naturally, so I think its hard to pinpoint it to warming. Ive also heard El Nino thrown around earlier this year, but thats another story.


TheYuse that to spur thought it's only a repeat of the process. El Nino doesn't exist, it was a name given for the happening OF THAT TIME PERIOD.

Call it what you want, if you 'believe' that you'll 'believe' anything.



> That said, its hard for an average Joe like myself to see through all of the biased "scientific" data being presented to us.


[/quote:md32ftoq]

Look out your window, take a road trip.

Try to keep in mind why this label was given and who presented/picked it. They know how to use words and what phrases to use to get the "appropriate" reaction. They could have called what it actually is, but that wouldn't be very subtle would it. The reaction would've been action. The flow/focus of our society would be completely altered or even halted.

Call it what you want, I would never use ANY of the terms given, for me it NO name. That's the focus of everyone else instead of the effects/problemo.

What is that you're missing/looking for, it's all right there, you're in it. What more?

OPEN SHUT.


----------



## stchupa

I forgot to add something.

I'm surprised that everyone else is so surprised at how this winter turned out, considering the farmers' almanac more or less predicted this to happen. Should've been expected/prepared for.


----------



## slygecko

Rain_Frog said:


> (for instance, NY was hit hard by lots of precipitation from global warming).


No, NY was hit by lots of precipitation from lake effect (at least the parts of NY you're likely to hear about in the news). We get that every year.

I'm no expert on climate change myself, I study biology, but I can say that if you want to debate it, you need to go straight to the science. Ignore all of the babble you hear on the news. It's all spun crap. Al Gore's documentary was great, but he puts just as much spin on it as 'the other side' does, yet we only call the oil companies on it. Doesn't necessarily mean Al is wrong, but you can't debate scientific facts from what he tells you. Without getting into the details, one potential source for you guys to check out is the IPCC report that is in the works. It represents the world's best summary of the latest climate science and scientific consensus. There is a summary here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf . Warning, this stuff is dense. I don't even understand it all. You need to read it carefully, and probably look a lot of stuff up. But doing that is pretty much a necessity before you can debate climate science. I don't have time to get into the details and debate with you guys, although I would love to when I do. Have fun. 

Cheers,
Nick


----------



## Ed

The main problem is that we can't differentiate between what is a normal climatic variation and the what is actually caused by global warming at the moment... We may still be in a climatic variation mode that may or may not be exacerbated by global warming at this moment... Keep in mind we are attempting to predict the weather trends for decades when we still have problems with forcasts that are more than 3 days out.. 

When you are looking at general trends that can be several centuries or more in length, abnomalies in the data that are only a couple of decades in length may be nothing more than that... however continued release of greenhouse gases can have serious longterm effects on life see http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm? ... 3498573845 for an interesting discussion... 

Ed


----------



## mike 1124

I may just not understand because I am only 14 (I am in the highest science classes though) But every time I think about global warming I cant make since of it all Because several things contradict in my opinion. The main one being that if there is more carbon why dont plants grow faster and use it up.


----------



## slygecko

mike 1124 said:


> The main one being that if there is more carbon why dont plants grow faster and use it up.


There is an answer to that, and I'll try to find it. I think it has to do with plants being limited by other nutrients than carbon, but I can't remember.

~ Nick


----------



## Ed

see 
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106861 and 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 075233.htm


Also you have to keep in mind that in today's world sequestering of CO2 in plants is a temporary fix as the CO2 is released when the plants are burned or allowed to decompose. This is only a temporary sequestering of the CO2 that doesn't reduce the CO2 levels in the long run... 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

The big question is, do all my frog tanks off set all of my computers... I bet not from some data I had read at one point.


----------



## r90s

> The main problem is that we can't differentiate between what is a normal climatic variation and the what is actually caused by global warming at the moment... We may still be in a climatic variation mode that may or may not be exacerbated by global warming at this moment... Keep in mind we are attempting to predict the weather trends for decades when we still have problems with forcasts that are more than 3 days out..


Here Here, Ed, and same for your other point too.




> The big question is, do all my frog tanks off set all of my computers... I bet not from some data I had read at one point.


Kyle, buy some carbon offsets, or you will only be allowed one sheet of therapeutic paper per visit to the small room. :shock:


----------



## npaull

Interesting article here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070425/global_w ... .html?.v=1

Note how the film's creator ACKNOWLEDGES a couple of *huge* errors - including a statement about volcanic eruptions and their CO2 contributions, but decides not to correct them until "the expanded DVD version."

It is *very* hard to impeach the credibility of the scientists who signed this letter, unlike many skeptics (ie Tim Patterson) who are pretty much directly funded by Exxon Mobil.

I asked an uncle of mine, who is a geologist at MBARI, about how volcanic C02 may relate to warming. Here's what he said:



> Big volcanic eruptions probably can
> emit huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, one
> needs to put this into a temporal prospective.
> 
> Humans have never seen a "big" volcanic eruption. Krakatau for
> example, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the ones that
> are believed to have wacked out the earths CO2 budget. Moreover,
> modest "plinian" eruptions like Kratatau are also associated with so
> much ash getting into the upper atmosphere that it forms an blanket
> that prevents incoming UV light from getting down to the Earth's
> surface. Thus, such eruptions actually result in decade long global
> cooling events. The volcanic events that are discussed as having
> significant lasting impacts on the Earth CO2 budget have recurrence
> intervals of 10-100 million years. On the other hand the cumulative
> amount of fossil fuel CO2 that humans have and will burn over ~100
> years will compete with one of these big eruptions.


The tricky thing with this issue is that it is *so* easy to swindle a public that doesn't have good training in science and BS detection. 

I agree the media is a problem, but the problem is that all of today's media makes much information appear to come from equal playing fields. This is not how science works at all, and so we hear cries of "censorship!" and get riled up, when in fact science has *always* operated on the strictest "censorship" of those hypotheses and ideas which do not stand up to tests, evidence, and intellectual scrutiny.


----------



## kyle1745

One thing that bothers me, that I often think about on these topics. Almost every scientist I have met says they will work their whole lives to attempt to understand one small aspect of their field. So how on earth can we say without out a doubt that we understand how all of these sciences interact? I don't think we can. I know my comments are seen as against global warming, but that is not the case. I just feel statements are being made that can not be backed up, and odds are with most things we really don't have a clue. I do find the facts that other planets are seeing the same rise as a very intriguing thing that should be investigated further. Sure we should try to do our part, but I don't think we can say we fully understand the issue.


----------



## npaull

Do we or do we not understand that amphibian biodiversity is decreasing?

Do we or do we not understand significant aspects of this problem?

Are there or are there not some things we may be able to do to intervene?

Is a complete understanding of the global phenomenon of amphibian extinction necessary before we do anything to act on the problem?

Should we wait to act on amphibians behalf?

I think all scientists would agree with you that our understanding isn't perfect. 

Already ponderous, the evidence for anthropogenic contributions to climate change continues to mount. At what point does a lot become enough?


----------



## r90s

npaull said:


> Do we or do we not understand that amphibian biodiversity is decreasing?
> 
> Do we or do we not understand significant aspects of this problem?
> 
> Are there or are there not some things we may be able to do to intervene?
> 
> Is a complete understanding of the global phenomenon of amphibian extinction necessary before we do anything to act on the problem?
> 
> Should we wait to act on amphibians behalf?
> 
> I think all scientists would agree with you that our understanding isn't perfect.
> 
> Already ponderous, the evidence for anthropogenic contributions to climate change continues to mount. At what point does a lot become enough?


I don't see how that really relates to Kyle's statement. I mean really!

I think Kyle is reasonable in his statement.


----------



## kyle1745

My point is we have theories... We do not by any means understand or are able to prove these theories, and or how the different ones impact each other. We can't predict the weather let alone understand how without a doubt we are impacting it.

Also I believe I said "Sure we should try to do our part, but I don't think we can say we fully understand the issue."

Should we try to be better to the environment? YES

Should we continue to try to understand what impact we have on it? YES

Should we stop trying and think we have it all figured out? NO, we are not even close. If so ever scientist would be out of a job, there would be no cancer, AIDS, and other diseases...

I do have concerns with how some would like to see us change based on things that may or may not help, or that we have very little understanding about.


----------



## Roadrunner

I can live w/ being wrong and doing everything in our power to curve our apetite for energy when it doesnt really matter either way. I think a conservationists standpoint on energy consumption and the way we use our land could bring a little life quality back in our direction. I can not live w/ us being right about global warming and doing nothing about it. 
As I`ve stated before, whenever we were wrong about stuff such as ddt and chemicals and whatever else, the results were catastrophic. I can deal w/ a little of the pendulum swinging the other way and standing in the way of "progress".
And npaul`s statement was completley relevant. At what point do we start doing something about it instead of asking for all this "proof" that may never come. Do you really think it`s coincidence that we have spewed all these chemicals into the environment and carbon that was stored away millions of years ago, when ,in fact, the earth was much warmer, and all this stuff is just a chance of happening. 

I could even buy into "well another round of asteroids are going to bombard the earth w/in the next million years or so, so it wont matter anyway. Life will come back from the hydrothermal vents and it`ll start all over" rather than "we don`t have any "proof" that we`re doing anything wrong".


----------



## kyle1745

Again I am not saying we do not try. Has anyone thought about if drastic changes were made if they could have a negative effect being so fast? Just a thought and as I have said of course we should try. We should also be realistic and know they we have most likley only scratched the surface on such things at a planetary level. It is fine to act on what we know today, but it is dumb to think we have it all figured out. We could learn tomorrow that we were drastically wrong.

Interesting topic on the asteroids... and do you think they would tell us? A world panic would not be worth it to anyone. Granted it would most likely be leaked in this day and age. I watched a interesting show some time ago on Discovery about how we have so few people looking for these things that it could very easy for something to be missed.


----------



## Smashtoad

*Greetings...sorry to make my first post a bummer...*

I'm with Kyle on most points.

Meteorologists are horrible at predicting local weather five days out, which does not bode well for their ability to look far into the future. That makes sense, right? The marine toad comes to mind, as well as Goldblum's character in you know what. The variables are beyond our comprehension.

Algore's political aspirations evaporated, and he has seen this as his meal ticket back into Washington. Politicians are dogs...all of them. The guy became a punch line...and now he's back. He's been talking about this stuff for a long time...you think it's a mistake that he tossed it into overdrive right after he lost the biggest election of his life and essentially was black-balled from the party as a buffoon? He needed a vehicle to drive back into town...Presto! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! What's Gore gonna do when China passes us in emissions? Nothing...that's what. He can't manipulate them...he's afraid of them, just like the United Nations is, so they won't push anything on China. Yet we are supposed to destroy our economy for something that is a universe away from being proven?

No one talks about what this protocol is doing or will continue to do to third world countries in Africa when it comes to the availability of electricity. Coal is all they have and can afford, yet they are being told not to mine it? That is one gigantic heap of crap right there, folks.

It's great to save an elephant unless it finds YOUR corn patch, your source for food and income for the next year...in that case (in my view) it's great to kill one.

I honestly don't intend to tick anyone off...just wanted to say hello and stumbled onto this thread. I don't believe being opinionated makes me lonely, huh? Sometimes I'm just a little lacking on tact, I guess.

Hello Everyone,
Jarrod


----------



## r90s

Don't worry Europe is on the job!

BARMY Euro MPs are demanding new laws to stop cows and sheep PARPING.

Their call came after the UN said livestock emissions were a bigger threat to the planet than transport.

The MEPs have asked the European Commission to “look again at the livestock question in direct connection with global warming”.

The official EU declaration demands changes to animals’ diets, to capture gas emissions and recycle manure.

They warned: “The livestock sector presents the greatest threat to the planet.” The proposal will be looked at by the 27 member states.

The UN says livestock farming generates 18 per cent of greenhouse gases while transport accounts for 14 per cent.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007190671,00.html

P.S. -- America is at work too!

Cause of global warming found

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/27/global_warming_discovery/
:shock:


----------



## npaull

> Meteorologists are horrible at predicting local weather five days out, which does not bode well for their ability to look far into the future. That makes sense, right?


No. Meteorologists are not the ones making these predictions. Climatologists and geologists are. Comparing climate predictions to weather reporting is a confusion tactic, one of many which work well on the uninformed. Short-term predictions are fickle and more prone to statistical fluctuation than observations based on the geological record and extrapolations of current fuel usage.



> The variables are beyond our comprehension.


No one claims mastery of all relevant information in any topic whatsoever in science. Somehow, we yet putter along and seem to do some good. This line or some variation of it has been used by everyone in this thread taking this position; it is again, essentially a worthless distractor.



> Algore's political aspirations evaporated, and he has seen this as his meal ticket back into Washington.


To ascribe the entire body of the scientific evidence (none of which was collected by Al Gore), the weight of scientific consensus, and the growing concern on this issue in the scientific community to Al Gore is to attribute to him more influence and power than I am sure (from your comments) you want to award.



> He's been talking about this stuff for a long time...


This undermines the rest of your thesis with regards to Al Gore.



> Yet we are supposed to destroy our economy for something that is a universe away from being proven?


On the contrary, our economy is lagging because we are failing to take action. It is no accident that Toyota is quickly outstripping GM and Ford; their production of more energy-efficient technologies is spurring their markets, not holding them back. Were we to become leaders in energy efficient technology, we may be able to reclaim the economic and technological leadership we have begun to squander.



> No one talks about what this protocol is doing or will continue to do to third world countries in Africa when it comes to the availability of electricity. Coal is all they have and can afford, yet they are being told not to mine it?


Short-sighted. Oil exploitation in countries like Nigeria is a major corrupting force and hinderance to equitable democratic progress. Oil politics do more to damage third world development than help them. Coal is not all these countries have - many have incredible potential for solar power, which (unknown to many) is a rapidly rising technology with the potential to provide tremendous wattage with very little infrastructure - exactly the kind of power these places need. It is currently expensive but the proof of concept is there, in countries such as Germany (not exactly sun-soaked). Clean extraction of energy from coal may also be a good possibility.

It is, additionally, fantastically disingenuous for politicians to begin arguing about the developmental impacts "in Africa" in this context when the majority of problems faced by the continent up to this point have been blithely ignored, from genocide to corruption to environmental destruction. They never cared before - makes you wonder why they care now.

It is difficult to see how the development of clean, efficient technologies here will work to prevent better energy utilization in the third world. 



> It's great to save an elephant unless it finds YOUR corn patch, your source for food and income for the next year...in that case (in my view) it's great to kill one.


I don't quite see how this relates to global climate change. I agree that species conservation is riddled with more immediate complications such as this.


----------



## kyle1745

I think the comments are being taken out of context... My general point was that we can not accurately predict the weather tomorrow, let alone fully understand our impacts on the climate. Many are attempting to sell the story that we have this all figured out with out a doubt and should do X, Y, and Z as soon as possible. Sure X, Y, and Z should be investigated and possibly implemented, but to tell the public it is because of these reasons, without a doubt, is absolutely inaccurate. Im sorry 9 times out of 10 times 2 scientists can not agree on the color of the sky let alone how all of these major planetary factors work together. The truth of the matter is we have theories and some that should be acted on, but that does not mean we understand it.

As for the car companies... Its very simple.
1. Unions, people making $50 an hour for a $10 an hour job pushing a button.
2. The foreign companies are not afraid to try new things were American companies are living in the past... (mustang, Camero, etc etc)
3. They make a better product.


----------



## npaull

> My general point was that we can not accurately predict the weather tomorrow, let alone fully understand our impacts on the climate. Many are attempting to sell the story that we have this all figured out with out a doubt and should do X, Y, and Z as soon as possible. Sure X, Y, and Z should be investigated and possibly implemented, but to tell the public it is because of these reasons, without a doubt, is absolutely inaccurate. Im sorry 9 times out of 10 times 2 scientists can not agree on the color of the sky let alone how all of these major planetary factors work together. The truth of the matter is we have theories and some that should be acted on, but that does not mean we understand it.


And my response is that whatever picture the media paints (and we agree on this point - it's almost always dumbed-down, oversimplified, and made to seem sensational), our understanding of this is not complete, but it is complete *enough* to warrant strong action. I am not saying we understand the problem 100%. I am not saying the media's portrayal of the issue is always accurate. I AM saying that the current scientific consensus is robust enough to warrant significant action. My impression is that we disagree on that last central point, but I could be wrong. If we do agree, then we've been dancing different circles around the same tree for some time now.



> Sure X, Y, and Z should be investigated and possibly implemented, but to tell the public it is because of these reasons, without a doubt, is absolutely inaccurate.


Are you sure? What is the research that backs up this point? How does it compare to the research on the other side? Is that research absolutely certain? Can we be absolutely certain that the research saying the other research is absolutely inaccurate is absolutely certain?

Aren't you speaking with the same excess of authority of which you accuse those scientists who've worked years on this problem?

What if we are just tentatively certain? If we are tentatively certain about a process with enormous consequences, don't steps to address those consequences make sense, particularly if they will yield benefits in other areas (who could argue that clean, renewable, Mid-East-free energy secured by technologies innovated and sold here in America would be a bad thing?). 

You have yet to respond to the amphibian biodiversity crisis analogy - it is the *exact* same type of situation without as much political support / opposition, and fewer people trying to confuse an uneducated public.

Should we stop supporting INIBICO and TWI, should we not be concerned about declining amphibian populations? Isn't it a little bit "gloom-and-doom" to talk about all amphibians going extinct if we don't take careful action? Because we don't totally understand what's going on (why are the bullfrogs spreading like crazy? Why aren't all neotropical tree frogs crashing? What's up with Xenopus laevis? Bufo marinus? What kind of data would industry be throwing out there to obfuscate the problem if there was an incentive to keep up practices destructive to amphibian habitat?) Do we understand enough to warrant action?

Or, from another angle, are there enough positive fallouts from INIBICO and TWI to support them even if the picture they paint isn't complete?

What sort of calculus should we use to make these decisions, and how does the system we use to judge our actions in the context of the amphibian situation apply to the larger issue of anthropogenic climate change?



> As for the car companies... Its very simple.
> 1. Unions, people making $50 an hour for a $10 an hour job pushing a button.
> 2. The foreign companies are not afraid to try new things were American companies are living in the past... (mustang, Camero, etc etc)
> 3. They make a better product.


These are good points. But Asian companies (and European companies) are also making a cleaner, more efficient product - so clearly it's not a devastating step economically to innovate in this direction. Moreover, Europe has vastly more strict regulations on emissions than does the US, but the pound and euro are rising almost daily to new heights above the dollar. The economic argument doesn't seem to hold a lot of water...


----------



## kyle1745

Again I am not saying we do not take action, I may though think some of the proposed actions are too bold and unsubstantiated. What is not to say quick action would not have a even more damaging effect? If we did create the problem it was by no means over night.

The concern I have is this:
We will now focus on the solution to the problem, and not the problem itself. This means we will spend 5-10-20 years trying to reduce emissions and etc. and slow or stop investigating the cause. 

We should take steps now, but we should not stop looking, as we DO NOT fully understand how all of these things interact. In the grand scheme of things we know very little, and for some people that is very hard to grasp. The general public does not accept or understand how we can just not know. Someone must know right? Nope... there are things we don't and never will know.


----------



## npaull

> The concern I have is this:
> We will now focus on the solution to the problem, and not the problem itself. This means we will spend 5-10-20 years trying to reduce emissions and etc. and slow or stop investigating the cause.


This simply isn't how science works. The minutia of phenomena discovered generations ago are still literally being worked out. In the meantime, society *should* focus on the solution.

I understand the concern, but I think it is unwarranted. The research on this isn't going to stop because the research thus far has indicated a course of action. Wound healing has been the subject of research for over a century, and we're pretty good at helping wounds heal, but people still study it *all the time.* We "understand" evolution, and the atom, the structure of DNA, origins of thunderstorms, etc. But I don't think I have to tell you how many people are still obsessed with finding out more, (even in those fields which already have yielded information which has modified our behavior).

If anything, the enormity of the issue of climate change is going to push research to continue long after any tangible benefits to society can be gleaned from the new information.



> I may though think some of the proposed actions are too bold and unsubstantiated


That's a legitimate position and I would have to know which steps specifically you are referring to, but we probably agree in some areas here. However, of much more concern to me is how meager (or non existent) the *actual* steps taken have been.


----------



## kyle1745

You have a point on how science works, but I think when you factor in funding my points may hold a bit more weight. There is no reason to beat around the bush as Global Warming is a "Hot" topic at the moment. Thus it is getting funded and the political backing. 

I personally would much rather see some of that money go to cancer or AIDs Things that are most likley a more recent concern. We can sit and worry about global warming or plan for the next plague. Either way I expect we will lose the battle. Historically this planet manages itself, and in time that may mean wiping most of us out. We are already seeing where antibiotics do not work, and that some of our vaccines may not be as beneficial as they had seemed. These are only a couple of examples where science thought they had it all figured out, and we are now learning that viruses, and etc evolve to overcome our methods of treatment. What happens when the bacterial soap no longer works?


----------



## npaull

> Thus it is getting funded and the political backing.


Sure, but to some degree that may be appropriate.



> I personally would much rather see some of that money go to cancer or AIDs Things that are most likley a more recent concern.


I agree that these things are important, but it is interesting that you trust the research on these diseases and their potential future impacts more than on global climate change. Why? Could it be that there are fewer forces out there trying to confuse you with misinformation? Isn't the AIDS awareness movement full of crazy liberals who are out to save the planet (insert sarcasm)? 

Recall the massive campaign launched by the cigarette industry against physician scientists warnings about the dangerous of smoking... we're seeing the exact same situation today with oil companies etc trying to smear the theories of anthropogenic climate change.

I am not so certain that any one disease poses a larger threat than climate change in the long run.



> Either way I expect we will lose the battle.


I'm still pretty stoked to be alive, though, and I think Earth is pretty sweet, so I'm willing to try and overcome the challenges as they arise.

This is another distractor point - "ultimately it means nothing, so x y z." You could say that about preventing murder too, but where does it get us? At best it's purely philosophical, and at worst it is a call for non-action...



> These are only a couple of examples where science thought they had it all figured out


People may have thought it was all figured out; science never does. And it was science that discovered these new phenomena (such as the evolution of virulence and antibiotic resistance), and developed/ is developing ways to deal with them. The scientific method allows for adaptation, re-evaluation, and error-correction. It is perhaps the principle source of its incredible power.



> What happens when the bacterial soap no longer works?


On a complete side note, STOP using bacterial soap. EVERYBODY! STOP NOW! I'm not kidding - it's like teaching our worst enemies every trick in the book, and one of the big reasons (along with overprescription) that we are seeing antibiotic resistant bacteria appearing. Washing with normal soap is *fine* for practically every human application. If you want to be sterile, use alcohol or iodine, but *not* an antibiotic soap.


----------



## kyle1745

> I agree that these things are important, but it is interesting that you trust the research on these diseases and their potential future impacts more than on global climate change. Why?


Im not saying I trust any research more than the next, but that there are higher risk items that should most likley be a higher concern to the general public. The soap thing was joke, but like you said a very scary thing. Its almost impossible to buy normal soap anymore.

We should look to do basic things to help, but if anyone thinks everyone will be driving electric cars or even alternate fuel cars in the next 10 years I think that is a bit unrealistic.


----------



## npaull

> driving electric cars or even alternate fuel cars in the next 10 years I think that is a bit unrealistic


I very much hope that we will both be astonished at the magnitude of change that occurs in the next ten years.


----------



## r90s

Climate change hits Mars
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Oh The comments!:shock: 
Didn't the scientists say their was a delay between solar max and?

Global Warming: A non falsifiable hypothesis.

P.S.
Another View
Ocean currents to blame for warming
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21636036-5012769,00.html


----------



## kyle1745

Here is an Interesting e-mail I received:



> Below, read about the kind of event that actually DOES impact earth's
> significant climate changes. It is events of
> this nature which are considered the most likely culprits behind the rare
> past reversals of earth's magnetic field, which cause almost instant
> extinctions of enormous numbers of species along with truly massive
> climate changes -- so massive (eg, the onset of ice ages), they really
> deserve a "bigger" name than "climate change."
> 
> Those who, today, concern themselves with man's emissions are like people
> in the valley at the foot of a volcano, obsessed with a panicked urgency
> to fend off a looming armageddon by upgrading every home's insulation
> ASAP -- while totally oblivious to the tsunami of molten lava about to
> engulf them.
> 
> The world is, has always been, and unfortunately will probably always be
> filled with a great many fools. History
> proves this for the past, and current events prove it's still true in the
> present. Can't say I'm terribly optimistic about
> the future on this score. The equivalent IQ of any crowd, some clever
> fellow long-ago observed, approximates the square root of the IQ of its
> least intelligent individual member. To appreciate the prescience of this
> claim about
> human nature, all we need do is observe the current hysteria infusing
> today's self-deluded crowd of man-caused-global-warming fanatics and the
> teeming herds who follow their lead. Follow the crowd. A billion lemmings
> can't be wrong . . . right?
> 
> PS -- "Cycle 24" in the below refers to the most recent (ie, the current
> one) of the well-established 11-year cycles of solar activity, the one
> which began in mid-2006.
> 
> 
> Science Community Prepares Emergency Services and Citizens for Coming
> Solar Cycle
> Earth Changes Media -- April 28, 2007
> 
> 
> Several reports, analyses, and the latest research statistics have been
> released over the last 7 days telling us of the coming solar cycle and
> its potential damaging consequences.
> 
> It is known as Cycle 24 and is expected to be as much as 50% stronger
> than its predecessor. Most solar scientists agree Cycle 24 began on July
> 1st 2006 when the first sunspot distributed a 'reverse' magnetic field.
> Over the last several months, the sunspot and solar activity have been
> extremely mild. This is known as 'solar minimum'. From this point on,
> solar activity will begin to ramp up with more significant activity
> becoming noticeable by the end of this year.
> 
> To present a framework of just what "50% stronger" might look like, lets
> go back to Cycle 23. In that cycle we witnessed sunspot counts into the
> 400's. The prediction for Cycle 23's 'apex' or maximum issued by NASA had
> been 150. So the actual count more than doubled that. We also witnessed
> the largest solar flare every recorded on November 4th 2003 know as the
> "Halloween Flare". That solar flare and its following CME (coronal mass
> ejection) were so large, it literally pegged the needles on all guages.
> It buried all the instruments which measure magnetic flux and charged
> particles. It literally shocked the scientific community.
> 
> At the time, the measuring instruments to measure the strength of a solar
> flare/CME and its effect on our (Earth's) magnetic field only went up to
> 9. Until that day, an X-9 was the largest flare recorded. On November 4th
> 2003 a solar flare and following CME (coronal mass ejection) exploded
> just as it began rotating over the western limb of the Sun. If it had
> been just 48 to 72 hours earlier, the flare would have Earth directed and
> we would have experienced a direct hit. The strength of this event
> measured an X-45, of which such strength had never before been witnessed
> or anticipated. Even to this day we can only speculate the damage it
> would have caused to our power grids, satellites, GPS, and any number of
> devices which depend on communication or directional satellites.
> 
> I was there right in the middle of it and I have never forgotten the
> exhilaration of the moment. I have never experienced such a moment in
> "live" radio as this one, and probably never will again. As the event was
> unfolding right in front of our eyes, I had Dr. Ernest Hildner, Director
> of the NASA/NOAA Space Weather Center on the phone doing an interview. At
> that moment the solar flare exploded and the information was coming in as
> we were talking. Hearing Dr. Hildner saying "oh my gosh, the instruments
> are off the charts. I've never seen this before". We were getting first
> hand information from the world's hub on space weather. Nothing, and I
> mean nothing hits the news services without going across Hildners desk.
> Earth Changes Media was in the right place; at the right time and we have
> never stopped perusing the most recent cutting edge breaking news since.
> 
> You can hear this breath-taking interview on our "Audio Archives" page
> and select the year 2003 and Day Nov.3rd
> http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/secure/olderaudio.php
> 
> Dr. Hildner reminded us of the luck we had by this sunspot region just
> passing over the western limb before it exploded. Even with this, an
> emergency call to the FAA was placed, and commercial and military
> aircraft were ordered to lower altitudes to avoid solar radiation
> hazards. The electrical charge was so strong, the 'Aurora Borealis'
> (northern lights) had dropped down to the 36th parallel. This would
> include Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma. This is a very rare
> event. Usually the Aurora's are only seen in Alaska and occasionally
> Washington State, Wyoming, Montana, and Maine.
> 
> NOTE: The new 'Cycle 24' has been predicted to be up to 50% stronger. I
> don't think you need a scientific degree to understand the possible
> outcomes as a result of this escalation. In fact, the news of this
> prediction was 1st to broadcast on Earth Changes Media prior to any other
> news agency in the world.
> Below are a few headlines which have come out over the last 5 days:
> 
> Solar Storm Warning: You Have One Year to Prepare
> 
> The federal government now predicts a new cycle of solar storms will
> begin to intensify by spring 2008. Actually, it already began on July 1st
> 2006. but by spring 08' we will start to see even larger events and the
> possibility of dangerous consequences. The new set of storms is expected
> to peak around the end of 2011 and beginning of 2012. That's the
> conclusion of some scientists at NASA and NOAA.
> 
> Solar storms lead to violent eruptions on the Sun's surface. There'll be
> solar flares and explosions sending highly charged matter toward Earth's
> atmosphere. This jolts Earth's geomagnetic field and ionosphere, which
> can lead to disruption of electric grids and communications systems
> (along with lots of unusual/extreme weather events).
> 
> Full Article:
> http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/secure ... _17092.php
> 
> We Complain About Weather on Earth, but what About Space Weather?
> 
> Space weather concerns various conditions that occur in outer space. But,
> does it affect us on the Earth? Yes, space weather affects us here on the
> surface of the Earth. According to the National Academy of Science,
> “Space weather describes the conditions in space that affect Earth and
> its technological systems. Our space weather is a consequence of the
> behavior of the Sun, the nature of Earth’s magnetic field, and our
> location in the solar system.”
> 
> Space weather deals with weather within planetary atmospheres such as on
> the planets Mars and Saturn, but also involves radiation and matter
> within interplanetary space (existing between planets) and sometimes from
> interstellar space (existing between stars).
> 
> Full Article:
> http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/secure ... _17019.php
> 
> 3D Images of the Sun to Be Unveiled
> 
> The first 3D images of the Sun are to be unveiled this afternoon by NASA
> scientists. For the past six months two satellites under the Stereo
> mission (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) have been orbiting the
> Sun to provide a unique view of its effect on space weather and the
> Earth. Structures of the Sun's atmosphere in three dimensions will
> improve space weather forecasting and help scientists' ability to
> understand solar physics, NASA claims. One of Stereo's satellites travels
> ahead of the Earth in its orbit of the Sun while the other trails behind.
> 
> Included in their images beamed back to Earth are shots of coronal mass
> ejections – violent eruptions which can disrupt satellites and power
> grids. As well as providing new views of the Sun, Stereo will also
> provide more accurate alerts for the time of Earth-directed solar
> ejections.
> 
> Full Article:
> http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/secure ... _17052.php
> 
> Japan's 'Hinode' Spacecraft Reveals Major Solar Eruption
> 
> A new movie from the Japanese Hinode spacecraft is one of the most
> detailed glimpses of a solar flare ever made and has helped scientists
> see what's behind the colossal eruption. The striking video, released
> this week, shows a major flare that lifted off the Sun on Dec. 13, 2006.
> The flare erupted from a sunspot catalogued as No. 930.
> 
> Sunspots are cooler regions of the Sun's surface where magnetic energy
> caps the superheated material below. Sometimes the cap unleashes a flare,
> similar to soda exploding from a shaken can. 'Hinode' can spot solar
> details as small as 90 miles wide, even though it's 93 million miles from
> the Sun. Other data gathered by the spacecraft gave astronomers an
> unprecedented view of the magnetic underpinnings of the flare. "Solar
> flares are essentially magnetic," said John Davis, NASA's project
> scientist for Hinode at the Marshall Space Flight Center.
> 
> Full Article:
> http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/secure ... _17080.php


----------



## kyle1745

Interesting that they are reporting that Mars temperature rise is almost as much as noticed here:


> Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s.


I believe ours is about 0.6C.



r90s said:


> Climate change hits Mars
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
> 
> Oh The comments!:shock:
> Didn't the scientists say their was a delay between solar max and?
> 
> Global Warming: A non falsifiable hypothesis.
> 
> P.S.
> Another View
> Ocean currents to blame for warming
> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21636036-5012769,00.html


----------



## npaull

Did you notice in all of that that no where was it mentioned that solar flares can be responsible for transient or prologned increases in Earth's atmospheric temperatures? One sentence mentioned weather changes but did not discuss the mechanism.

Multiple lines (true statements) about the disruption of our magnetic field, the danger posed to devices relying upon it, etc. but not much talk about temperature increases.

Charged particles and any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum carries energy, so it at first it would seem that an increase in energy delivered to Earth could cause warming no matter what. However, certain wavelengths are much better at delivering that energy than others. Moreover, the Earth is good at trapping some wavelengths (ie infrared) and bad at trapping others (ie the visible spectrum, among others). This would play into the relative effects of these events.

I am not qualified to analyze solar physics as they pertain to this issue, but even from an unqualified position it's fairly easy to ask potentially devastating questions to this line of explanations. We would need the expertise of a physicist to answer the fundamental question: does a localized burst of solar energy produce the right kind of energy, in adequate quantities, to cause warming? Or is it chiefly a magnetic phenomenon? Of course, one scientist in those emails is quoted as saying "Solar flares are essentially magnetic." What this means exactly I don't know. I remain doubtful of this as a chief explanation.



> Interesting that they are reporting that Mars temperature rise is almost as much as noticed here:


Of course, it doesn't take a PhD in physics to understand why this proportionality doesnt have to (and maybe even cannot) imply a common mechanism.

1) Solar radiation obeys an inverse square law (roughly) such that objects farther away should be receiving less intense radiation. Mars is roughly equal in size to Earth, so a proportional rise in temperature due chiefly to increases in solar output doesn't make sense - we'd expect Earth's increase in temperature to be higher.

2) Earth has an atmosphere, trapping heat as we all know. This would make one think that Earth would be experiencing even more warming than would be predicted by the relative distances of Earth and Mars from the Sun.

It may be that Earth's atmosphere is also playing a role as a modulator, somehow decreasing the absorption of incident radiation and offsetting the different factors listed above. I can't comment on this but I would have to read a pretty fantastic argument in order to buy it in the light of the above arguments.

The localized nature of solar flares (referred to in the above quoted articles/emails) would seem to further undermine them as a mechanism for warming both of Earth and of Mars.


----------



## Smashtoad

Third world countries can't afford indoor plumbing...but they'll be able to afford HORRIBLY inefficient and expensive wind and solar power? Please....are we going to buy it for them? I guarantee you their local leaders won't.

You think our economy is lagging now? Just wait...if this stuff continues to gain speed...you ain't seen nothing yet.

And Kyle is dead on about the unions...they destroyed themselves.

Climate change is natural, and scientists that hold this claim are coming to the fore more and more every day. The consesus of which you speak does not exist. Many scientists that did not agree with the U.N. report could not get their name removed from the final draft because they contributed to the "findings".

The climate may be warming, but we are not causing it...and no one has proven that we are.


----------



## kyle1745

Yes I understand it did not mention climate, but does begin to discuss how the changes in the Sun could effect us in other ways. My main point in posting it was to first share the interesting information, and second give an example of how much of this is very new and not understood. We barely have a clue about our own climate let alone "space weather" as they called it. I think we will find that much of the "space weather" effects us more than we know, and could possibly be a lot of our climate change. There are entirely too many factors to say that without a doubt it is all related to us.

Our planet has historically recovered from much worse than we are doing or could ever do out side of a nuclear war. Massive volcanoes, meteors, and in time it recovered. So how can one say that in the grand scheme of things we cause enough pollution to equal things that have completely blocked the sun for years and years? The truth of the matter is that we think we may have a impact and it has got the backing of enough people who's jobs depend on it to start a movement to change. While the change may not be bad and maybe warranted I still think it is wrong to claim we have proof, and understand the planet on such a grand scale.

The fact is that the average person cares more about their SUV than the environment, and while its selfish and sad no report or anything outside of a global disaster is going to change that. More and more countries and societies are becoming like this as well, and its a trend that neither you or myself is going to stop. Believe me when I say I am all for getting the moronic people on their cell phones in HUGE SUVs off the road. Too many times have I had to save my own life from this one.

Understand that I am not really on one side or another with this topic, but from a broad perspective I can see that we have no idea what is causing it or not. As I have said countless times this does not mean we do not take action, but the media and etc should also not sell to the public that they have it figured out. There is no dooms day and we are more likely to die from the next plague or etc that global warming. Global warming has become and excuse for the unexplainable in many cases, and it is just not right.


----------



## npaull

> The consesus of which you speak does not exist.


This is untrue and a casual perusal of the published literature reveals that. I lack the energy to continue this particular angle of the discussion, but take the time to find the information for yourself from reliable (reviewed, criticized studies) sources. Disagreements in science are constant, sometimes over finer points and even over fundamentals - there are "scientists" (this is an extreme example) who do not believe in evolution... broader consensus is what matters, and it overwhelmingly exists.




> but they'll be able to afford HORRIBLY inefficient and expensive wind and solar power?


Again, take the time to look into the development of solar power in third world settings. It is already happening. And as costs come down it will continue to do so. What are their better options for energy? The petroleum industry has screwed them about as hard as it can, they'll never develop the sort of oil-based economies that we have, so they should be looking elsewhere. 



> The climate may be warming, but we are not causing it...and no one has proven that we are.


I just don't think you've made any effort to learn about the issue from reliable sources. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Go to the literature.



> You think our economy is lagging now? Just wait...if this stuff continues to gain speed...you ain't seen nothing yet.


Given the rise of the EU and Asia, the claim that more efficient production and transportation technologies are economically damaging are ludicrous.



> My main point in posting it was to first share the interesting information


Thank you, it's unquestionably cool.



> There are entirely too many factors to say that without a doubt it is all related to us.


No one does say this. But the evidence that we are a large component is overwhelming.



> So how can one say that in the grand scheme of things we cause enough pollution to equal things that have completely blocked the sun for years and years?


Again, no one is saying this. Life will be totally fine. But I DO care about OUR life, and do you have any idea how royally shitty some of those times were? I don't care about the grand scheme - because everything on Earth will end. But I do care about my (as yet unrealized) children, myself, and my grandchildren etc. I also care about current biological diversity.



> The truth of the matter is that we think we may have a impact and it has got the backing of enough people who's jobs depend on it to start a movement to change.


This is how any change, on any scale, is affected.



> I still think it is wrong to claim we have proof, and understand the planet on such a grand scale.


With all due respect, i do not think you have made an effort to acquaint yourself with the available evidence. What scientists are actually claiming to understand is a relatively small phenomenon with relatively huge impacts. An increase in CO2 = increase in average atmospheric temperature. The fallouts are, as you indicate, hard to predict, but many are already apparent in the form of glacier melting (not worsening weather, that's probably BS from what I understand, and I don't think many scientists at all would claim recent weather is a result of the warming trend).



> The fact is that the average person cares more about their SUV than the environment,


Yup



> no report or anything outside of a global disaster is going to change that.


Change is already happening, let's both to avoid global disaster.



> More and more countries and societies are becoming like this as well


I believe this is incorrect, and that our country is fairly uniquely (among developed nations) moving in a retrograde, anti-intellectual, and inefficient direction. Again I point to the EU and some of Asia.



> from a broad perspective I can see that we have no idea what is causing it or not


We have lots of ideas, some with more evidence than others. Go to the evidence. (This is a pain in the ass to do, and something of a problem that the scientific community has perpetually failed to address).



> As I have said countless times this does not mean we do not take action


I hear you.



> the media and etc should also not sell to the public that they have it figured out.


We've agreed multiple times that the media is a failure run by sensationalists, in a nutshell. I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about the science. 



> There is no dooms day


Probably not, but a steadily worsening situation could be just as bad. Progressive droughts, floods, northward migration of infections on which the western world has turned its back, conflicts over land and water resources, mass movements of refugees, loss of biodiversity (a subjective bad thing to some) famine, etc start to look pretty nasty if they progress in uncontrollable ways. When viewed in light of the potential positive consequences of changing our actions and continued development of new technologies (less dependence on foreign oil and a more stable middle east, local energy production which is less vulnerable to interruption via natural disaster or human conflict, decreased air pollution, increased energy availability, superior public transportation and decreased traffic, etc) you could almost be justified in setting a really low bar for the evidence in support of climate change. Almost. But in fact the evidence is strong and growing. Input from skeptics will be incorporated to the extent that their viewpoints withstand the gauntlet of critical questioning, comparison with the evidence, and hypothesis testing.



> e are more likely to die from the next plague or etc that global warming.


I assume you have unassailable evidence for this.

You and I almost definitely will not die from the effects of global warming. People we love almost definitely will not either. But to what extent do we care about the future quality of life for our species?

Also, you have yet to respond to my comments with regards to the analogy of the amphibian biodiversity crisis.


----------



## slygecko

Smashtoad said:


> The climate may be warming, but we are not causing it...and no one has proven that we are.


I completely disagree, and submit two key points among many to prove it.

1 - The link between increasing greenhouse gasses and us.

This link was firmly established by the work of C.D. Keeling in the 70's. The fossil fuels we are burning are depleted of the radioactive isotope carbon-14, because they have been underground far longer than the half-life of C-14. Keeling looked at the percentage of C-14 in the atmosphere and found this:



The decrease is due to the diluting of atmospheric C-14 with our C-14 depleted fossil fuels.

2 - The link between increasing greenhouse gasses and rising temperature - the greenhouse effect.

The paper that directly shows the greenhouse effect on a global scale is: 

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo and Richard J. Bantges. 2001. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001)

I can email a pdf if requested.

The summary:

Greenhouse gases, CO2, water vapor, CH4, and many more, all absorb or reflect particular spectra of infrared radiation. These gases, as the theory goes, warm the earth by trapping certain wavelengths and radiating them back to earth. Harries compared measurements of the infrared radiation being reflected off the earth across 27 years, and found a significant decrease of the particular spectra that each greenhouse gas traps. This means that more energy is being trapped on Earth by these greenhouse gases. More energy trapped is generally equated with rising temperatures.

The greenhouse effect at a global scale is real, and we are responsible. That is an indisputable fact. I wont debate what component of overall warming this is responsible for right now, but I wanted to get these two facts out there.

Cheers,
Nick


----------



## npaull

> Third world countries can't afford indoor plumbing...but they'll be able to afford HORRIBLY inefficient and expensive wind and solar power? Please....are we going to buy it for them?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6600213.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wale ... 371812.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3209239.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3623864.stm


----------



## slygecko

Thanks npaull, I was going to search for links like those. I had heard of the small-scale loan program to light houses with solar. Programs like these do so much good... they're increasing in number every year. The business side of sustainability is gaining steam. I hope it paves the way into the future.


----------



## kyle1745

slygecko,

So how would you explain the potential equivalent rise in other planets temperatures? Is that our cars too? How can we say its us when we have no clue what weather trends and etc exist? or space weather? If we could, exactly when will the next ice age start? I also think we underestimate the planets ability to adapt.

I still find it virtually impossible that some and even scientists think they have this all figured out. There are so many factors, and many which we know little to nothing about. 

I have read a decent amount on both sides of this topic, and my own conclusion is that there is not a consensus at all, and there is much we do not know. Again this does not mean we do not act, but this will be debated for years to come.


----------



## slygecko

"So how would you explain the potential equivalent rise in other planets temperatures? Is that our cars too? How can we say its us when we have no clue what weather trends and etc exist? or space weather? If we could, exactly when will the next ice age start? I also think we underestimate the planets ability to adapt."

This explains things pretty well: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Think about this: why on earth (no pun intended) would the global temperature rise (if it exists at all, as that link calls into question) on mars be exactly the same on mars if it is caused by the same source as earth. Mars is much farther from the sun, and our atmosphere is much thicker. The heat received from the sun decreases the farther away you get, and the heat earth receives is trapped much better by our atmosphere. We should be getting much hotter, faster, than mars. The differences get even more extreme if you pick any other planet.

What other planets show temperature rise? I don't actually know. Also consider this: there are three states a planet can be in - temp rising, temp falling, and temp stable. Random chance states that ~two other planets should be rising in temp. Without seeing data for every planet in this system, how do we rule out random chance?

I don't know what is going on with Mars, I am not well read up on it, but to connect it with our warming and claim 'Sun' does not seem a valid inference to me without a lot more data. We have data about the earth, we don't have much about Mars.

Hasn't it already been pointed out, the difference between weather forecasting and climatic trends?

Regarding the planet's adaptation, I think that is a valid point. We'll just have to wait and see. Regarding those opinions that we have this all figured out, I think those are ridiculous too. But, I still think we know enough to say that humans have a role in climate change. The percentages of attribution to us and to nature will change as we learn more, and as the great global experiment we have done to our world pans out.

Cheers,
Nick


----------



## bwebb

There have been many good points made here, and I agree that we should be a little more frugal with the fossil fuels we have. After all, petroleum will begin to run out, and SUVs aren't the only things that require oil. There are many necessary products that derive from oil: pharmaceuticals, plastics, solvents, the list goes on and on. Besides, no one disputes that pollution stemming from the burning of fossil fuels is a bad thing. I agree that the apparent loss of biodiversity is unfortunate to us, but we have to realize that if the earth's history were a 24 hour clock, humans would have only graced the last 3 seconds of it. The earth is by no means a stranger to large biodiversity crashes, but it has always bounced back and will continue to do so, just not on a time scale that humans can appreciate. 

I am not disputing the fact that we are contributing to the warming, nor am I against being proactive, but I do think that many of these theoretical catastrophes being postulated are at some level a bit sensational (even if they are indeed possible). I mean, it's not like my grandma in Florida is going to wake up some day with an inch of water on her floor and say, "Damn that global warming snuck up on me!" 
There have been documented periods in history where the climate was warmer and certain areas benefited with longer growing seasons and milder winters, while other areas suffered; such is the ebb and flow of life on this planet. 

On the other hand I want to just go with it, because if it gets people to start being more efficient with their energy consumption, and cleans up the air, and slows the warming(?), then I don't see the harm in it. However, from a totally scientific perspective, I don't think fossil fuels will be burning long enough to result in a seriously, seriously catastrophic event. The changes brought on by global warming will be felt over decades, not months.


----------



## bwebb

Oh yeah, I just wanted to throw this in.....regarding the Permian-Triassic extinction......

_The prevailing theory is that several factors - including supervolcanism and extensive climate warming - combined over thousands of years to strangle the planet's biodiversity._

It's kind of a double edge sword because on one hand you can argue that significant warming has occurred naturally on earth, but on the other hand you can argue that warming does indeed play a significant role in the quality of life on this planet. The one thing you can't argue is that the whole process took a long, long time (at least in human perspective).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4398401.stm


----------



## npaull

> on one hand you can argue that significant warming has occurred naturally on earth, but on the other hand you can argue that warming does indeed play a significant role in the quality of life on this planet. The one thing you can't argue is that the whole process took a long, long time (at least in human perspective).


The concerns now stem from the fact that the evidence is very good that significant change may occur on a much shorter (even one or two human lifetimes) time scale. I don't think (a potential) significant extinction event/ geographical change will "end life on Earth" but it will make things miserable for a long, long time. Extinction can happen quickly, evolution generally takes awhile... and that's just the biodiversity side of things. 

I agree with statements that there probably (almost definitely) won't be a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario - I don't think anyone who is serious about this (and the media is definitely not a serious source) thinks there will be. But a decade of rapid geological change can have tremendous implications, which are, I feel, underappreciated by many.


----------



## Smashtoad

*The Arguing Capacity of a Socialist*

Climate change is utterly natural. It has been inspiring headlines of disaster since the late 1800's. Everyone agrees the earth has warmed. This thing is politically and finacially driven...period.

Nuclear is the only immediate solution, yet the greenies don't want that either. Just like they didn't want DDT, so they got the responsible use of it banned, and therebye sentenced millions to death by malaria. The whole thing just makes me sick to my stomach. 

I refuse to spend my time reading painfully long post after excruciatingly long post stuffed with unproven theories puked up by the same type of people that said our government caused 911 and that we never actually landed on the moon, Kennedy killed Marilyn Monroe, the mafia killed Kennedy, and that there is an alien corpse in an Air Force hanger somewhere. 

The consequences for denial of man caused global warming are well known by many scientists across the world...don't agree...lose you job.

If these people were so sure about their evidence and their position...*they would be screaming for public debate*...lord knows they have the platform to make that offer known to the entire world.

Here's a great example of the genius of the Family Guy writers. First an evil capitalist ruling over some mice, then a poor guy tries to argue with a democrat...which is just about hopeless. 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=family+guy+donkey


----------



## npaull

> I refuse to spend my time reading painfully long post after excruciatingly long post stuffed with unproven theories puked up by the same type of people that said our government caused 911 and that we never actually landed on the moon, Kennedy killed Marilyn Monroe, the mafia killed Kennedy, and that there is an alien corpse in an Air Force hanger somewhere.


This characterization is untrue, unfounded, and unfair. And utterly ridiculous. Scientists studying climate change are not conspiracy theorists. I imagine there are people that believe every one of those crazy assertions; very few are scientists.

Unwillingness to acquaint yourself with the evidence is fine, so long as you don't take a position on an evidence-based issue. 



> they would be screaming for public debate


The debate in the scientific community is thorough; but only the winners of these debates are heard. It's how it has always worked in science. 



> uclear is the only immediate solution, yet the greenies don't want that either.


Many do, myself included. You say solution ... but I thought you said there wasn't a problem with anthropogenic climate change...?



> Climate change is utterly natural


A fair amount of effort has been spent just in this thread providing evidence for the contrary. Do you have evidence for this?



> I refuse to spend my time reading painfully long post after excruciatingly long post stuffed with unproven theories puked up


I don't think anyone is forcing you to participate in the discussion. Your anger here is transparent but unwarranted. Calm down. This is a scientific discussion; you can disagree (I disagree with you) and not revert to belittling. Attacks ad hominem make it seem as though shock value attempts to compensate for what is lacking in evidence and reason.


----------



## slygecko

*Re: The Arguing Capacity of a Socialist*



Smashtoad said:


> Climate change is utterly natural. It has been inspiring headlines of disaster since the late 1800's. Everyone agrees the earth has warmed. This thing is politically and finacially driven...period.


Prove it. We've been trying to present our evidence, what do you have?



> Nuclear is the only immediate solution, yet the greenies don't want that either.


I think I qualify as a 'greenie', but I think nuclear is in need of expansion. As npaull points out, what are you suggesting we solve?



> Just like they didn't want DDT, so they got the responsible use of it banned, and therebye sentenced millions to death by malaria. The whole thing just makes me sick to my stomach.


Nice feint, but it falls flat on its face. DDT is still used to this day to combat malaria. It has been banned for agricultural use, but is still legal for use in third-world countries. The only problem is that mosquitos are showing increased resistance. I suggest reading up on DDT here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT



> I refuse to spend my time reading painfully long post after excruciatingly long post stuffed with unproven theories puked up by the same type of people that said our government caused 911 and that we never actually landed on the moon, Kennedy killed Marilyn Monroe, the mafia killed Kennedy, and that there is an alien corpse in an Air Force hanger somewhere.


So, you post your rhetoric, don't back it up, and refuse to read any of our counter-arguments, while slandering us? Your words speak volumes about yourself. My reply to you is your own words:



> If these people were so sure about their evidence and their position...*they would be screaming for public debate*





> The consequences for denial of man caused global warming are well known by many scientists across the world...don't agree...lose you job.


I know this has been true in some cases, but c'mon man, prominent scientist skeptics you've cited in the past are still working, aren't they?

I've responded to your posts here and elsewhere (http://www.forums.repashy.com/showthrea ... al+warming), willing to debate the issue and present the scientific facts. You respond with slander, feints, and ad-hominem attacks to this issue and others (http://www.forums.repashy.com/showthrea ... al+warming).

Please, if you want a debate, respond with facts, maybe explain why the science I and others have posted is completely wrong, explain why you think your opinion is right. It's okay though, if you don't. We're not expecting much.

~ Nick


----------



## npaull

No one on either side of an argument should resort to attacking the people on the other side. If you have evidence against their arguments, it will be devastating enough.

Let's keep it civil.


----------



## slygecko

Sorry, maybe that last comment was a tad over the top. I stand by all my other points though. I will gladly be a little more mindful from now on, and hope others do too.

So, no more personal arguments. 

Where is the evidence against human-induced warming? What about the studies I posted, which are direct measurements, not models or theory, is wrong?

Cheers,
Nick


----------



## npaull

> Where is the evidence against human-induced warming?


There really is none.

What there are a-plenty are outwardly clever tricks, distractions, and (some valid) criticisms of predictions based on this evidence.

It's the same strategy we've seen many times before, perhaps most recently before this involving the link between cigarette smoking and cancer. 

What's truly amazing is how consistently it works. Clearly, there is something wrong with the way our society teaches critical thinking. More disturbing is that we have failed to give a good understanding of the methodology of science, and *why* it works, to the public at large.


----------



## r90s

npaull said:


> Where is the evidence against human-induced warming?
> 
> 
> 
> There really is none.
> 
> What there are a-plenty are outwardly clever tricks, distractions, and (some valid) criticisms of predictions based on this evidence.
> 
> It's the same strategy we've seen many times before, perhaps most recently before this involving the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.
> 
> What's truly amazing is how consistently it works. Clearly, there is something wrong with the way our society teaches critical thinking. More disturbing is that we have failed to give a good understanding of the methodology of science, and *why* it works, to the public at large.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry about this.

But what in the hell are you talking about, npaul.
You speak about these subjects as if its all over with, except for the shouting.
Like it is all decided! All that you propose here as "fact" is the "fact" of, and in, a common theme of an arrogant elitist media that pervades this society. -- Real science has not decided yet!

To any concerned:
Avatar temporary due to another topic. Will be changed soon.


----------



## npaull

> I'm sorry about this.
> 
> But what in the hell are you talking about, npaul.
> You speak about these subjects as if its all over with, except for the shouting.
> Like it is all decided! All that you propose here as "fact" is the "fact" of, and in, a common theme of an arrogant elitist media that pervades this society. -- Real science has not decided yet!


I'm sorry, that is wrong.

There is debate and inquiry into the *consequences* of the anthropogenic release of C02 and its associated effects. I don't think I have implied that we know the natural history of these events at this point. I do not think we do.

However

That humans are responsible for a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2, and that that increase is leading to temperature increase, is very well established in the scientific literature.



> Like it is all decided! All that you propose here as "fact" is the "fact" of, and in, a common theme of an arrogant elitist media that pervades this society.


Slygecko and I (particularly slygecko) have provided a fair number of pretty powerful facts in support of our position. Kyle has offered several good thought experiments and questions on the other side, the points of which I think were well countered.

No one else has offered evidence, and has instead resorted to labels ranging from greenie to arrogant elitist. To me, this is telling.


----------



## r90s

Interesting read!

I've done my research. Ive done my arguing on this board and others.
It's not my vocation!
Look for yourself.

One Example; Below

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.

How Little We Know

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

What Leads, What Follows?

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html


----------



## Ben E

i have seen this debate pop up all over the place and it always gets ugly about 2 pages in. I think that it is interesting to watch the range of responses and how emotional it eventually gets. There is the side that argues that human induced climate change is real and then there are those who believe the earths temperature change is completely a result of natural phenomena. Perhaps the real problem is the belief that these are even two separate scenarios. Global climate change will not be rectified by carbon offsets or any amount of new programs; global change will only be rectified by new ways of looking at our world and a re-evaluation of our participation with nature that would not require any programs at all. 

I believe this is why some people become so passionate and angry about global warming, and why many of these people tend to be older and more conservative. I think they know what is at stake here, and what is at stake is many of the fundamental underpinnings of western civilization, or at the very least having to change how we live. New ideas are scary. It is ok to be scared of the prospects of changing. im sure that people have always been scared at the dawning of a new era.


----------



## Corpus Callosum

well said ben /agree


----------



## kyle1745

Just getting caught up, and lets just keep it civil. Its fine to disagree, and I have posted some of the sites before, maybe not all in this thread. The problem is that anyone who questions global warming is blasted, and I even had a couple people come up to me at IAD and say "how can you not believe in global warming." Its not a question of belief, and I have said multiple time we should continue working to preserve the planet.


> The consequences for denial of man caused global warming are well known by many scientists across the world...don't agree...lose you job.


 Statements like this are more true than most people are ready to accept and much of the "facts" used for the global warming debate have heavy political backing on both sides of the topic. 

My main concern, as I have stated, is that we can not explain the common cold, or predict the weather tomorrow, and we are expected to believe its all us? Sorry the truth is we don't have a clue, or enough data to prove most things on a planetary level. Just think about all the factors that go into the weather. The largest computers in the world work 24/7 365 days a year to produce weather models, and they are wrong all the time. We are not talking desktops here, we are talking rooms and rooms, cooled with liquid nitrogen. Point being we can't even process tomorrows forecast right, and you mean to tell me this is all 100% correct?


----------



## Ed

snip "have stated, is that we can not explain the common cold"endsnip

Actually the common cold is easy to explain.. most people just don't understand that there are more than two hundred different viruses that cause it... 

Ed


----------



## npaull

> One Example; Below


Interesting example and clearly someone worth paying attention to to some extent. A few points:

1) These other opinions are out there and accessible, which of course is good. Cries of "censorship!" are pretty misleading - different scientists do have different opinions. They aren't making it out as much because of reason 2 below.

2) The balance of opinion is what matters in a scientific inquiry. There are just far too many talented, dedicated, and brilliant scientists out there who study this issue and are convinced of anthropogenic sources for climate change to make one man's opinion sway the weight of the evidence and the scientific community's professional opinion.

3) Cries of political influence, the $ behind science, etc are quite phenomenally hippocritical - there is NOWHERE NEAR as much money in the environmental movement as there is in the oil and coal industry. I'm not saying there may not be corruption in some of the science behind global warming. But to think it would be *more* corrupt than the other side...? Come on...

4) The statement that climate "has always been changing" is not contested and is kind of irrelevant. Everyone knows this. Current patterns are out-of-step with past climate shifts; that's what's worrying.



> And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.


It's not like this fact is unknown or novel. Climate scientists know this. It's why we are talking about small changes in atmospheric gases, and why we're talking about changes of a degree or two. That CO2 makes up a small portion of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere makes its concentrations that much more augmentable by human activity. 



> Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor.


And he may be right, but these models are constantly tweaked, and it takes more than one man's opinion to discredit a hypothesis- it takes a majority consensus based on peer-review.



> Do you believe a five-day forecast?


We've already talked about this a bit as a distractor - it's really quite a different thing we're talking about here.



> Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior.


As does everyone else trying to understand this issue.



> found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.


Very interesting - honestly. But if you search the literature, there are literally thousands that come to different conclusions. And there are thousands that arrive at the same different conclusion, more importantly.

I'm honestly (honestly) interested to see this opinion and sighing in relief that someone is offering evidence to support a scientific position. And I agree with everyone who says that these minority positions do need to continue to be heard and pursued.

I am not qualified to critique or contradict the opinions of a scientist like Bryson. However, hundreds (maybe thousands) of people are. And it is this - science's action as a colllective hive-mind, with only those hypotheses surviving the strictest criticism making it out of the brain - that lends power to the kinds of consensus statements that have been increasing in number in the last decade. Science doesn't always get it right, but it tends to correct itself, and when you start seeing the kind of consensus that is emerging now, odds continue to sharpen.



> The problem is that anyone who questions global warming is blasted


As common citizens, no one should be. As *SCIENTISTS*, though, it's the way it works. If your ideas can't take blasting, they aren't right. Criticism separates the wheat from the chaff. I hope you don't think I am blasting you, Kyle. I respect your right to an opinion and I don't think you're evil, just wrong.



> The consequences for denial of man caused global warming are well known by many scientists across the world...don't agree...lose you job.


I can't comment on whether or not this is true - but can anyone cite a source demonstrating unequivocally that a job was lost because of this (and not some other reason blamed on this)?



> we can not explain the common cold


Upper respiratory infection with a variety of viruses. Antigenic shift keeps our immune system on its toes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold



> predict the weather tomorrow


We're actually REALLY good at this, but even if we weren't - it's not the same thing!



> Sorry the truth is we don't have a clue


Even people who don't think it's anthropogenic generally acknowledge warming and have tons of theories as to why this is happening. We *definitelty* have a ton of clues. 



> or enough data to prove most things on a planetary level.


How do you know we don't have enough data? Do you know what enough is? Who would be most qualified to make a judgment of data volumes? Climate scientists? Geologists? I would imagine they are better than you or I. How many would need to agree before we could start thinking they have something?



> ey are wrong all the time


Again with the weather... but they are right more often than they are wrong, I'd say. But again, it's irrelevant.



> you mean to tell me this is all 100% correct?


NO. I mean to tell you there is strong evidence that has withstood many rounds of criticism and review by trained professionals indicating that anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide is likely to cause some increase in the global temperature over the next century or so. Sequelae may be serious on a global scale (ie probably won't screw anyone in Ohio but I'm glad I don't like in the Ganges River delta). Prudent measures should follow.

That's all I'm saying. Are there other sources? Maybe/probably, but none for which the evidence is anywhere *near* as good. Do we know all of, or the extent of, the effects of anthropogenic CO2? No. And I don't think anyone, anywhere who knows what they are talking about would say that they do.


----------



## npaull

By the way, I just wanted to say that I definitely think attributions of recent "extreme weather" (hurricanes, tornadoes etc) to global warming are probably ridiculous, and may have more to do with population dynamics than anything else.


----------



## bwebb

It seem's to me that this argument of whether or not the accelerated global warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 emission has been beaten over the head until thoroughly bloody. I haven't seen, or maybe I've missed it, anyone talking about feasible ways to slow or reverse global warming, and that's assuming it's even possible. So if we buy hybrid cars, switch to nuclear power, and become generally more carbon smart, who's to say that it will even have an effect? Is there research that has shown that the rate of temp increase will slow even if we significantly reduce C02 emissions? It just seems like the majority of this thread has been, "I don't agree that GW is due to human activities", followed by, "Well, most of the scientific community believes it is, go do your research." Repeat. I will honestly say that most of the primary literature I read does not deal with climate change, which is why I have not taken a firm stance on one side or the other. But I will say that it shouldn't take undeniable proof of anthropogenic CO2 induced GW to make people realize that we need to be more aware of our fossil fuel consumtion. We will surely sooner face a major crisis from dwindling petroleum reserves than we will from GW.


----------



## Ben E

i believe in global warming even if it doesnt exist....i believe in it because of the catalyst it may prove to be....at least people are talking, even if they are still stuck on petty existence arguments....some youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzNTRwxlRKg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmS_hWR3 ... ed&search=


----------



## Ed

I think I may have been the one that commented originally about the weather forcasting.. 

To some extent we are forcasting the weather but we aren't doing it a day or two in advance but weeks to years in advance. We have problems being really accurate more than a couple of weeks out if I remember correctly.. Maybe I should have been more explicit in the example but I was using it tongue in cheek to illustrate that the more complex the system becomes the less sure we can be of the out come as the smallest paramaters build until the end result is very different than what was predicted.. 

I think I said it above in a different post.. there is climate change occuring.. it is occuring more rapidly as far as we can tell than any other previous climate change. Is this due to global warming? We can't be absolutely sure (but in my opinion its a good bet) as it could just be the far end of the scale which wasn't recorded as of yet (or maybe Global warming is speeding the process and/or moving it to a more extreme endpoint). Now does this mean we shouldn't be concerned and working to amerliorate any effects on the change in climate? Absolutely not. It is very short sighted to assume that even if this is a normal variation (but an extreme one) that there will not be potentially catestrophic results if we continue to sit on our hands. Even if it only raises the temperature 10-30 C from todays temps we could be facing extinction (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4184110.stm) So regardless of the cause we should be attempting to fix the issue.. 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

Always have to steal my thunder... 



Ed said:


> snip "have stated, is that we can not explain the common cold"endsnip
> 
> Actually the common cold is easy to explain.. most people just don't understand that there are more than two hundred different viruses that cause it...
> 
> Ed


----------



## kyle1745

> As common citizens, no one should be. As *SCIENTISTS*, though, it's the way it works. If your ideas can't take blasting, they aren't right. Criticism separates the wheat from the chaff. I hope you don't think I am blasting you, Kyle. I respect your right to an opinion and I don't think you're evil, just wrong.


Not at all, but it is becoming a cult following on both sides, which muddies the water a bit.

Ben, this is a fair statement:


> i believe in global warming even if it doesnt exist....i believe in it because of the catalyst it may prove to be....


I agree we need to do what we can, but I guess I won't be shocked when they come say it has nothing to do with us.

Ed,


> So regardless of the cause we should be attempting to fix the issue..


 I agree with this as well, though we also are not sure if this could be a normal event say every 10,000 years. Again though we should try. I do think we need to use more nuclear power, and focus on population issues as well.


----------



## npaull

> becoming a cult following on both sides, which muddies the water a bit.


Yeah extremism in any form is irritating.



> i believe in global warming even if it doesnt exist....i believe in it because of the catalyst it may prove to be....


I don't agree with this. If it's not real we damn well shouldn't be hearing about it as if it is. I want - I demand - the best science that we have. I think the things we are doing about global warming are good in their own right, but if I want them being done for honest reasons. If it's both, fine. But if it's only one, then there shouldn't be any bs to get it done.



> I do think we need to use more nuclear power, and focus on population issues as well.


I agree


----------



## r90s

> I even had a couple people come up to me at IAD and say "how can you not believe in global warming." Its not a question of belief, and I have said multiple time we should continue working to preserve the planet.


My problem is that so many talk as if we know the facts, and its all decided. As for a prior message, I said someone is speaking as or like others. I did not call any member of this board a name.

For those whom would like to read diverse points of views here is another interesting read. (below)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html


----------



## kyle1745

> I want - I demand - the best science that we have. I think the things we are doing about global warming are good in their own right, but if I want them being done for honest reasons. If it's both, fine. But if it's only one, then there shouldn't be any bs to get it done.


The problem even our best science is not enough to fully understand this level of a topic. So the world can make all the demands they want, and the scientists will continue to learn, but we may never get all the answers at least in our lifetime.


----------



## Ed

Hi Kyle,

Just a quick comment.. 

snip "The problem even our best science is not enough to fully understand this level of a topic."endsnip

There are very few topics (when compared to the vast number of topics) in science that are fully understood to the point where you can always predict the outcome regardless of conditions...... 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

Exactly... basically my point, but you worded it better.


----------



## npaull

> snip "The problem even our best science is not enough to fully understand this level of a topic."endsnip
> 
> There are very few topics (when compared to the vast number of topics) in science that are fully understood to the point where you can always predict the outcome regardless of conditions......


But you see Kyle, that's why science is so good - it's never done. In the long run, it's always getting better.

Eventually, knowledge reaches a point where it starts to make sense to make predictions, and even plan behaviors, based on what we know *so far*. Most scientists agree we are there with regards to global warming.

We don't really understand gravity or turbulence (both critically important concepts in aviation) but we can still fly planes. Etc etc


----------



## bbrock

This thread is still alive ???? I find it a bit like trying to argue evolution but what the heck, I'm bored.

Kyle, I hope you did realize that my comment to you about climate change was meant as a joke. Anyhoo, about 87 pages ago you said that scientists don't have a clue about what is really causing this. In fact, we have lots of clues. It probably ranks in the top 5 topics of science with respect to the number of clues we have. By far the majority of clues tell us that the climate is changing and we are responsible. Is that 100% proof? Of course not. That is the essence of science. You stack up the clues and see where they lead you. Sometimes the clues take you on a drunkard's path but they still lead.

I'm not quite sure why it is so difficult to comprehend that humans are capable of making this change. Consider the fact that 50% of all atmospheric nitrogen fixed into soluble form on this planet is fixed by humans using electricity to make fertilizer. That is mind boggling but is an idication of what 6 billion technologically developed creatures can do to a planet. And then there is nuclear winter. There's an example where humans could drastically alter the climate of the planet in about 20 minutes. What about acid rain? C'mon, we actually were able to acidify the rain!!! That is a god-like power. But we did it. And we've also made very good progress to fix it. Six billion people. That's a lot of eating, farting, driving, consuming people. The earth ain't that big and the atmosphere ain't that deep.

And as for solutions to climate change, there are many. I agree that nuclear needs to be revisited an pulled into service. As to other zero and low emmission energy technologies. But I think our first act needs to be to reduce consumption. We burn an incredible amount of fossil fuel and just waste it. We need to stop thinking that everything needs to be lit or heated all of the time. Goodness it was good to come home from Baltimore and see the stars again. And we need to start buying fuel efficient cars again. While I'm at it, I'm going to gripe about hybrid vehicles a little. Why are the only hybrids available either dinky little commuters or monster SUV's? The small SUV's tend to get better mileage and lower emmissions than the hybrids. We don't have to all live in grass huts and walk to work to solve global climate change. But we do need to be more responsible about our energy consumption. I would settle for just a little responsible at this point. And use your voting power to not elect politicians who want to use climate change as an excuse to create giant corn subsidies. Ethanol is going to create as many problems as it solves. Okay, end of rant. Like I said, I was bored.


----------



## slygecko

> Okay, end of rant.


 But it was a good rant!

I just finished a course this semester called State of the Planet (http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB321/) I finally dug up some powerpoints very relevent to the discussion here. Here is a lecture on the science of climate change by Art DeGaetano, an Atmospheric Science professor here: http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/Bio ... aetano.ppt

Check it out, especially slides 32 (the models of natural vs. anthropogenic change), and slides 44-46, about 'sustainability wedges' and relatively easy ways to reduce emissions. Slides 12-15 have to do with a point I made earlier about detecting the wavelengths trapped by greenhouse gases.

As it is a powerpoint and not the whole lecture (all the lectures were filmed and hopefully will be available for viewing at somepoint, some were truly inspiring), if you want me to fill in some points made, I will try.

Here is a lecture on nuclear power options:
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/Bio ... tfried.ppt
Some interesting points were made, and they were kind of disheartening, as I think nuclear power would be a good option.

You can check out other lectures on the course website.

Cheers,
Nick


----------



## Ed

snip "I agree with this as well, though we also are not sure if this could be a normal event say every 10,000 years. Again though we should try. I do think we need to use more nuclear power, and focus on population issues as well."endsnip

On further thought... it seems (when looking at the thread and the news) that there is a disjuct with the idea about whether it is natural or man made and that people feel there is threat difference between the two... 
There seems to be an idea that if its natural then it isn't isn't/won't be as bad as if it is due to anthrogenic reasons.. 

Mass extinctions have occured through natural mechanisms in the past and the data is pointing at us heading right for another one.. 
The historical data points to mass extinctions caused by elevated CO2 levels resulting in release of sulphide into the atmosphere and water supply resulting in mass extinctions.. So at the moment, does it matter what is causing the elevation of CO2 and temperature of the surface given that there will be a tipping point for the end? 

More on this later (maybe) 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

Brent,

Yes I understood your joke and no worries... it was great to see you at IAD. I agree with the clues as you put it, but where I start to have a problem is the impression some give that not only do we understand all the separate sciences involved, but how they work together. I think the grand scale of all the possible factors is amazing and many we know very little about.

I think my general stance is that we need to improve our emissions and etc, and do what we can to help, but that the gloom and doom stories the media is spewing are most likely not scientifically justified. I also believe that any number of things could and will most likley wipe the majority of us out well before global warming does.

Ed,

I agree there is a threat difference between natural and man made, but people should be concerned with both. There is always the potential that the natural is something we can not stop.


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> Yes I understood your joke and no worries... it was great to see you at IAD. I agree with the clues as you put it, but where I start to have a problem is the impression some give that not only do we understand all the separate sciences involved, but how they work together. I think the grand scale of all the possible factors is amazing and many we know very little about.


Great seeing you as well. I think this is just the nature of how science is relayed to the public. I don't think you will find the scientists saying we know how all of the pieces fit together. That would be absurd. But as the information gets filtered from the world of infinite grays in science into the black and white world that the public and politicians seem to demand, these things get twisted from probability to certainty. Then these statements of certainty get attributed to the scientists which gives opponents a way to cast doubt on the whole process. It is extremely frustrating. Anyone who has ever been interviewed for a newspaper knows that you are going to be misquoted or your statement will be taken out of context. That's just the nature of trying to translate complex topics into 3 short paragraphs written at a third grade level - which is exactly where most people get their science information.


----------



## kyle1745

Yup, and Id agree... I have more of a problem with the general public and the media than the scientists. I do think the political backing is something to be weary of as well.

Maybe we should put up a article on what people can do to do their share....


----------



## kyle1745

Another interesting perspective:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 84,00.html


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> Another interesting perspective:
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 84,00.html


Our boneheaded President has voiced a similar philosophy. The part about warmer climates promoting biodiversity makes me want to reach through the computer screen and choke the SOB writing this BS. That is absolutely absurd. If a species lives at the top of a mountain or at the poles of the earth, where the hell are they suppose to go to "adapt"? This is just plain arrogance and ignorance about the way natural selection and evolution operates. Human stupidity at the extreme.


----------



## kyle1745

What is sad is the only way this will ever get the public backing is if they can prove we are threatened. I think it will take something big to get the general public thinking in the right direction. It is sad but the way I see it the average person cares more about their SUV, and Huge house than this.

Just a thought with recent news... How much effect do all th recent fires in Florida and California have? It would seem to me that they have the potential to cause much more short term damage some other factors.


----------



## Roadrunner

and the fires are our fault for changing the landscape and building up more kindling by suppressing smaller naturla fires that would happen every year. now it happens all at once in catastrophic proportions, fire is a natural part of our landscape, we have just changed the occurance. Bottom line is the climate IS changing and we may not be the sole cause but we contribute to it speeding it up so that it`s harder for animals to adapt in the given timeframe.


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> Just a thought with recent news... How much effect do all th recent fires in Florida and California have? It would seem to me that they have the potential to cause much more short term damage some other factors.


Most of the time when you see these stories about wildfires, it is sensationalized hype. Most of the time it is just Mother Nature doing what she is suppose to do despite human efforts to subdue her. This area of Florida is a very fire dependent system and if people have designed their houses properly, should have little consequence to humans. But we have decided to take a different approach and rather than designing our homes and activities to live peaceably WITH fire, we instead arrogantly delude ourselves into thinking we have the power to stop fire. Of course we don't. So when fire comes, we get caught with our pants down.

Like Aaron said, we do tend to alter the landscape in ways that alters fire patterns. The most extreme example I can think of may surprise you. It is the invasion of cheat grass and other exotic invasive plants into desert habitats. Deserts are not adapted to fire because historically there wasn't enough fuel to carry the fires. But with these invasive grasses, fire now sweeps through frequently and has completely destroyed the original plant and animal communities. But we often overestimate our power to influence fire. Shortly after the Yellowstone fires of 1988 it was speculated that fire suppression had allowed fuel to build up to unnatural levels which made these fires more intense than natural. But there is absolutely no evidence to support this. Using about 5 very different lines of evidence have all come to the same conclusion, that the 1988 fires were well within the norm of frequency, intensity, and area as past fires in the region. But we still live with the myth here that crown fires are unnatural - which is absolute farce.

Another thing that is funny about the hooha over these fires is the pathetic size of them. One of them has scorched 5,000 acres. To put this in context, when I was in Kansas we would burn 2,300 acres of prairie in one day. The Okeefenokee fire is large by any standard. But trust me, from a strictly ecosystem perspective, this is not a bad thing. Remember also that people get in their heads that these fires leave total destruction behind with nothing but black left for miles and miles. That's not the way it works though. Large fires like this typically burn in a patchwork with lots of areas untouched by fire left behind. This area will be green and full of wildflowers next spring.


----------



## Rain_Frog

what I don't understand to this day, we have changed so quickly technologically...(as in changed within a few years)...but we have still relied primarily on fossil fuels for 200 years or more.


----------



## Ed

Hi Doug,

Because of several reasons the main ones are that its relatively cheap and the technology is in place so people are accustomed to it. 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

One issue is that the hybrid or some of the other alternative fuels care are just not there yet. Im guessing it will take gas prices getting to $5 or so before many people care enough to start looking. In many cases hybrid cars are not beneficial unless you are planning on keeping them for 7 years or so and if I remember the average is about 3 years. So there is more $$ savings in a Civic or some other small engine car.

Ill have to find the report that went into great depths about the above.


----------



## bbrock

Ed said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> Because of several reasons the main ones are that its relatively cheap and the technology is in place so people are accustomed to it.
> 
> Ed


Well, my joke is that if only someone would have warned us about the energy problems 30 years ago, we could have prepared. Oh that's right, they DID warn us. My personal feeling is that for 30 years the political system has been manipulated to stave off the shift to cleaner, renewable technologies. Sure, economics has played a big part, but R&D on renewable energy was slashed mercilessly when the so called savior of the conservatives took office in 1980. And the levels of R&D funding have never been restored.


----------



## Rain_Frog

one problem is the government backs up the oil companies. And it seems that every "war" we fight is about hydrocarbons.


----------



## kyle1745

The thought that the war has been fought for oil has been discussed and proved to be untrue. The truth of the matter is some major other countries have discovered a thing called the "car". Ill leave it at that as I rather the topic stay focused.

One thing I find interesting is that many of the "alternative fuels" are almost pointless without a standard. There are 2-3 now if I am not mistaken and none of them are catching on. 

Also many of the new Hybrid cars do not produce the mileage to make them worthwhile. Odd that these are mainly from the American car companies.

I like the highlander hybrid.


----------



## npaull

We need more localized production of energy, be it solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, biodiesel, ethanol, or a mix etc. 

This is tricky to implement but it is already starting on a small scale. I think we will see it more and more as technologies improve and the price of oil rises.


----------



## bwebb

Here is an article about a wind farm that was built near my home town in southern Minnesota. 

http://www.terrapass.com/projects/tour.wind.html

This is a list of large wind farms established in Minnesota, including a 100MW farm in my home county. 

http://www.awea.org/projects/minnesota.html

There are many places in the US that would be prime for wind farms and I think quite a few people will realize that there is even profit in it, which as we all know seems to get things done in the US.


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> The thought that the war has been fought for oil has been discussed and proved to be untrue. The truth of the matter is some major other countries have discovered a thing called the "car". Ill leave it at that as I rather the topic stay focused.


It depends on how you create the link. I agree, we have not gone to war to take control of any oil fields and, if anything, our government has made some mistakes by going to far to prove it. But the fact remains that wars tend to be fought in areas where we have "a strategic interest" which right now is mainly in major oil producting regions. So I think the link is there, it just isn't direct.



> One thing I find interesting is that many of the "alternative fuels" are almost pointless without a standard. There are 2-3 now if I am not mistaken and none of them are catching on.


It's an infrastructure problem, of course. Like I said, if we had only continued the serious efforts that Carter started 30 years ago, we might have this ironed out. 



> Also many of the new Hybrid cars do not produce the mileage to make them worthwhile. Odd that these are mainly from the American car companies.
> 
> I like the highlander hybrid.


This is what I find irritating myself. When we needed a new car last fall, I really wanted to get a hybrid. But the choices suck. We live in the mountains and have to have 4WD to avoid becoming frozen statistics on the roadside. We also need to be able to haul around a large dog and other items associated with mountain living. But our choices in hybrids were limited to either dinky little commuters that get great mileage but couldn't navigate our roads, or monster SUVs that still get crappy mileage even though they are hybrids. We ended up buying a conventional small SUV that has lower emmissions and better mileage than any of the hybrids offered. But if this vehicle were offered in a hybrid, we could be getting even better mileage and reduced emmissions. 

So the typical American manufacturer response has been not to offer hybrids that make a lighter footprint on the planet. But to offer hybrids as a way to "feel good" about driving a vehicle that is much larger than most mortal human beings need. I think the first step we can make toward climate change is to rebel against this greedy, consumption-driven society we have created.


----------



## kyle1745

I am a big Toyota fan, and read a bit about the Highlander before it was released, but I have not had a chance to read up on it again after it came out.

Some more interesting information, and don't beat the messenger as I have not had time to read it all myself:
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462


----------



## Rain_Frog

did anybody hear that plants release methane?


----------



## r90s

Kyle1745 Said:


> I am a big Toyota fan, and read a bit about the Highlander before it was released, but I have not had a chance to read up on it again after it came out.


I wish Toyota would bring their diesel pickup trucks over here, they have had them overseas for ever, and they are very reliable.


----------



## kyle1745

Agreed, I think diesel will soon catch back on here. There seems to be a public perception here that it is horrible, but that is old news. I hear good things about bio diesel as well.


----------



## kyle1745

A little more interesting reading:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/fina ... db11f4&p=4


----------



## Rain_Frog

perhaps a physicist (or brent the ecologist) can explain this better for me:

Global warming is caused by CO2 and methane, correct? 

There's no chance its caused by just the heat given off by electrical devices? (because none are 100% efficient). For example, your air conditioner, car, light bulbs, etc. all radiate heat.

I would think not though, because heat energy radiates back into space and that would violate the law of thermodynamics.


----------



## kyle1745

I think there has been some mention of the CO2 put off my electronics, but I think there is still a bit to learn on that aspect of the CO2 debate.


----------



## Rain_Frog

I'm not talking about CO2 produced by electronics (power plant generation). I'm talking about the heat byproducts of electronics.
Your furnace, air conditioner, the heat from the coal burning, and automobile. 

Somebody will have to comment. However, much more heat is produced by infared radiation from the sun, the earth's core, and the decomposition and fermentation by bacteria.

And the given fact that the earth loses heat all the time that escapes into space. (just that CO2 traps more infared energy)


----------



## kyle1745

If I had to guess they don't come close to the roads or paved areas. I had mentioned a past Discovery show showing how some of the temperature changes where directly related to where the temperature was taken. So from in the 50s in a field to now in a city. It was very interesting when they went just outside of the major cities and tested and it was not higher than before. In my opinion this could be some of the issues in any developing area.


----------



## Rain_Frog

so, you're saying that a paved area/ city was NOT significantly warmer than a field?


----------



## kyle1745

No im say it was, and that they directly related it to the increased temperatures. The point of the show was that where the reading were taken had a big impact, but that the temperature in the rural areas had not changed at all.


----------



## bbrock

Rain_Frog said:


> And the given fact that the earth loses heat all the time that escapes into space. (just that CO2 traps more infared energy)


I think that's it. I'm sure somebody has estimated the direct heat gain caused by burning fossil fuels (which is ultimately where the heat to produce electricity comes from), but it would still be a tiny fraction of the heat coming to the planet from the sun. So it is the amount of that solar energy that is getting trapped that is the real driver. Although now that I think about it, global warming may have been caused by my brother leaving the door open so much in the winter. My mom DID acuse him of trying to heat the whole outdoors.


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> No im say it was, and that they directly related it to the increased temperatures. The point of the show was that where the reading were taken had a big impact, but that the temperature in the rural areas had not changed at all.


So that would explain why the polar ice caps are melting. They are just not rural enough.


----------



## Rain_Frog

here is a good resource: (how i found my answers)

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html


> The first key idea is that hot objects lose heat faster than cold objects. This is obvious from everyday experience (you can feel the heat coming from a fire). Detailed observations show that the rate of heat loss is very sensitive to temperature -- specifically, if the temperature is doubled (on an absolute scale), the rate of heat loss is not twice as high -- it is sixteen times as high.
> 
> The second key idea is that planets are near an equilibrium where heat lost to space almost exactly equals sunlight gained. Because hot objects lose heat rapidly, they tend to cool off if they have no energy source to maintain their temperature. On the other hand, because cold objects only lose heat slowly, they tend to warm up in the presence of energy sources. In both cases, the objects converge toward a condition where they lose heat at exactly the same rate that it is supplied by energy sources. In the case of planets, the energy source is sunlight.





> Without greenhouse gases, we calculated that the surface temperature would be 255 K (0oF), whereas with greenhouse gases we calculated the surface temperature would be 303 K (86oF). Therefore, the blanketing effect of atmospheric greenhouse gases has caused an elevation of the surface temperature. This is the greenhouse effect!
> 
> &diams The greenhouse effect is NOT a situation where "heat is trapped and can't escape." The above calculation makes clear that the opposite is true: the greenhouse effect is how the atmosphere adjusts so that it CAN lose heat when greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere. About the same amount of heat escapes to space regardless of whether a greenhouse effect exists.






> When the greenhouse gas abundance is increased, it takes time for the system to warm to the new equilibrium temperature. During these times, the Earth absorbs slightly more sunlight than it loses heat, which is what allows the warming. Thus, during these times, the Earth is slightly out of equilibrium. What this means is that even if the abundances of greenhouse gases became constant right now, the Earth would continue to warm by another 0.5-1oC (1-2oF) over the next 50-100 years as it reached the new equilibrium temperature. This delayed warming has already been caused and is unavoidable. Of course, additional warming will occur if greenhouse gas abundances continue to increase.



The last line says that even if we control carbon emissions, we're still screwed because the planet has to adjust to the new equilibrium of heat in and heat out into space.


----------



## kyle1745

No not at all and this show was a few years ago. It was showing how cities raise the temperature, it was not discussing global warming. It did question how the data was gathered for some of the heat rises that were being claimed at the time, and they basically took 3-4 major cities and proved that by taking the temperature outside of the city that it had not changed.

My only point in bringing this up was that concrete and pavement on a general city scale is most likely more of a problem than AC units and electronics, which is what Rain_Frog was discussing.

This example could explain some of the rain forest areas increase, but it does not make it any better as the deforestation continues. There could be as much of a local problem as well as global.



bbrock said:


> kyle1745 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No im say it was, and that they directly related it to the increased temperatures. The point of the show was that where the reading were taken had a big impact, but that the temperature in the rural areas had not changed at all.
> 
> 
> 
> So that would explain why the polar ice caps are melting. They are just not rural enough.
Click to expand...


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> My only point in bringing this up was that concrete and pavement on a general city scale is most likely more of a problem than AC units and electronics, which is what Rain_Frog was discussing.


I was just being a smarta$$, sorry about that. 

And yes, on a city scale the amount of concrete and lack of transpiring plant cover is going to be more of a factor. Again, because the amount of solar energy coming in is much greater than the amount of heat produced by burning fossil fuels. Of course all those hot car engines and electrical resistors don't make it any cooler.


----------



## kyle1745

No problem... I was not sure...


----------



## MonopolyBag

Ha, noticed this post, and peoples responses are interesting to read.

My opinion, there is no question to the cause of global warming. It is a combination of the sun actually being "hotter" and green house gases, the major two being water vapor and CO2. The cause of the CO2 is primarily countries like USA and China, and water vapor being a result of increased temps.

I think now, the question is not as much what causes it, or what is it, but how to prevent it from becoming an irreversible problem.

I think it is just a matter of time until larger countries make major changes like NO more coal powered plants and eventually EVERY car will be hybrid and eventually Hydrogen based (cars and coal power plants being major CO2 producers)

Just my opinion...


----------



## kyle1745

I think your pretty close... Someone remind me why Nuclear power is so bad?


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> I think your pretty close... Someone remind me why Nuclear power is so bad?


The only problem I have with nuclear is that it is regulated by our government that is easily influenced by corporate interests. I actually think it should be part of the short to medium term solution but I don't want regulations that are designed to "balance" profit with safety. That translates into "let's make it as safe as we can without harming our bottom line". I know a lot of people still have issues with the storage of the waste. I thought Yucca Mountain was going to be the soluton but that seems to be derailed now.


----------



## kyle1745

Oh ya I agree with you there... business people could careless about safety, security or anyones wellbeing but themselves.


----------



## MonopolyBag

Nuclear energy produces waste (nuclear rods) that are still radioactive for like thousands of years. As of now they are being put into mountains in secure areas, but this ends up taking up space.

Also Nuclear Power plants are fairly safe, it is not a question with that, it is will people accept the fact that they are safe. People always refer to them as DANGEROUS even though the worst that would happen is a small leak and people would have to move.


----------



## kyle1745

Ive said it before but we should be able to shoot the nuclear waste into the sun. It would burn up instantly....

If I remember correctly the waste is nasty but relatively small due to the amount of power created.


----------



## MonopolyBag

Yes, you are correct about the second thing...

The waste is small, and that is why most people who are properly educated say Nuclear Energy is an excellent source of power. MUCH MORE efficient than coal. But it is expensive to set up and many people are afraid of them exploding which can't really happen. In my opinion it is not a permanent solution to power problems, but they would be great to use until we think of better ways, in addition to using wind, water, and sun for power.

But in terms of the sun as a waste dump... not too good of an idea... too much energy spent on getting the stuff up there, and there are many other complications too that I am not too knowledgeable about but that can probably be found online somewhere.

BUT! To add another thing... Forest, especially tropical dense rain forests that are being destroyed (which house many of our favorite little PDF's) are another cause of CO2 emissions. The decaying matter of the trees (which normally store Carbon) release it and now mixes with Oxygen (O) and causes more CO2 gas and aids in the development of global warming.


----------



## edwardsatc

MonopolyBag said:


> BUT! To add another thing... Forest, especially tropical dense rain forests that are being destroyed (which house many of our favorite little PDF's) are another cause of CO2 emissions. The decaying matter of the trees (which normally store Carbon) release it and now mixes with Oxygen (O) and causes more CO2 gas and aids in the development of global warming.


Being that forests worldwide are being decimated at incredible rates, and have been for some time, this makes for a very poor argument. Decaying plant matter has been much more plentiful in the past than it is in the present (past 100 yrs), although one could probably make the case that human fire suppression has led to a greater percentage of decaying plant matter in what remains of forests today.

A better argument would be that the destruction of forests has reduced the amount of CO2 intake and conversion by photosynthetic plants.


----------



## bbrock

MonopolyBag said:


> Nuclear energy produces waste (nuclear rods) that are still radioactive for like thousands of years. As of now they are being put into mountains in secure areas, but this ends up taking up space.
> 
> Also Nuclear Power plants are fairly safe, it is not a question with that, it is will people accept the fact that they are safe. People always refer to them as DANGEROUS even though the worst that would happen is a small leak and people would have to move.


Ever hear of Chernobyl? I would not call that a "small leak". Have you followed up on the radiation related deaths that followed that disaster? I still remember Three Mile Island too. Now that was a small leak but potentially could have been much worse. I think the prudent thing to do is recognize that nuclear power is potentially dangerous but also recognize that careful engineering and management can bring the risks down to where potential problems of nuclear are well below the problems we already experience from the alternatives.


----------



## bbrock

edwardsatc said:


> Being that forests worldwide are being decimated at incredible rates, and have been for some time, this makes for a very poor argument. Decaying plant matter has been much more plentiful in the past than it is in the present (past 100 yrs), although one could probably make the case that human fire suppression has led to a greater percentage of decaying plant matter in what remains of forests today.
> 
> A better argument would be that the destruction of forests has reduced the amount of CO2 intake and conversion by photosynthetic plants.


An under appreciated fact is that when carbon is captured by a perennial grassland, that carbon tends to get sequestered in the soil where it is trapped for many centuries or even millenia. But carbon captured by forests tends to get stored in woody tissue where it is trapped for, at best, a few centuries until the tree dies and releases the carbon. So I get a bit irritated when well meaning groups promote planting trees in what should be prairies to "help the environment".


----------



## kyle1745

Brent, 

So are you saying that prairies deal with carbon faster? 

Also I agree nuclear power is a risk, but if I am not mistaken it is the best we have. It produces a ton of power with little waste. Granted the waste is nasty, but where else do we turn when the coal runs out?


----------



## MonopolyBag

bbrock said:


> Ever hear of Chernobyl? I would not call that a "small leak". Have you followed up on the radiation related deaths that followed that disaster? I still remember Three Mile Island too. Now that was a small leak but potentially could have been much worse. I think the prudent thing to do is recognize that nuclear power is potentially dangerous but also recognize that careful engineering and management can bring the risks down to where potential problems of nuclear are well below the problems we already experience from the alternatives.


Ha, not to say you are wrong, but Chernobyl was the biggest, and will stay that way most likely, they have fixed problems like that. My point being, people are afraid of things like "explosions" that will not happen, and now leaks are unlikely with further development. It is like things we use every day, cars, microwaves, ovens, we do not fear these, we hope they will work correctly.

About the grasslands vs forests. Carbon is stored in woody tissue of trees. Younger trees have a greater potential to store new carbon in them than older trees.

Really, leaving nature be would be best, but, we have farmed alot, now forests coming back, but now they are dying off again due to population growth. When a tree dies (or grass or anything living) it will release its carbon, most of which is turned into CO2 when it bonds with Oxygen. But, trees have highest capacity of holding Carbon, less trees = more oxygen.


----------



## bbrock

MonopolyBag said:


> Ha, not to say you are wrong, but Chernobyl was the biggest, and will stay that way most likely, they have fixed problems like that. My point being, people are afraid of things like "explosions" that will not happen, and now leaks are unlikely with further development. It is like things we use every day, cars, microwaves, ovens, we do not fear these, we hope they will work correctly.


Yes, and it should also be pointed out that Chernobyl could not have happened in the US or France because that design of reactor has never been legal. But it points to the fact that the "worst that can happen" is VERY bad and we need to be aware of that. But again, I do agree that it is one of our best alternatives for overall reduction of problems associated with energy production.



> About the grasslands vs forests. Carbon is stored in woody tissue of trees. Younger trees have a greater potential to store new carbon in them than older trees.
> 
> Really, leaving nature be would be best, but, we have farmed alot, now forests coming back, but now they are dying off again due to population growth. When a tree dies (or grass or anything living) it will release its carbon, most of which is turned into CO2 when it bonds with Oxygen. But, trees have highest capacity of holding Carbon, less trees = more oxygen.


You didn't read my post carefully enough. When grasslands fix carbon, that carbon gets fairly rapidly assimilated into the humus faction of the soil. This is why grasslands have produced the bread baskets of the world because the soil is so heavily loaded with organic matter. That organic matter comes from centuries of carbon sequestration by the grasses above (and their roots below). Which is another thing. Root turnover in grasslands is very high so it is an injection of organic matter directly into the soil. When you plow a grassland, about 50% of the carbon stored in the soil is released to the atmosphere in the first year. The studies about carbon storage in grasslands began to be published in the 1990's but have received little attention. I know, because I was a technician on some of those studies.

I agree that the best policy is to retain the natural vegetation cover of the area. But being from the prairies, I saw too many people who were planting trees in prairies thinking they were doing good things to fight global warming.


----------

