What should be done about global warming??

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by redacejr, May 3, 2008.

  1. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,838
    3,047
    Can't argue that as individuals we are pretty powerless to effect change, except in small steps. It amazes me how many people want to declare there isn't a problem though. Guess I get pretty excited bout it. :D
     
  2. Mark44

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    626
    1
    Bill, that's an assumption that you're making, and the crux of the debate. There are many reputable client scientists who incidentally are not on oil company payrolls who contest the hypothesis that global warming is caused by human actions. For example, in a 2003 poll by German researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, they found that two-thirds of poll respondents among more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries did not believe that "a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases" could be reached because the science is still in its infancy. (See this June 24, 2007 editorial in the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070624/EDITORIAL/106240002.)

    The editorial in the link above also states the conclusions of Timothy Patterson, a Canadian geologist who has been studying the climate record of the past 5000 years in Canadian fjords. Patterson's conclusion is, "It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada."
    My fear is that we act now and think later, the lesson we might learn is that we have destroyed our economy. If you have one national economy that imposes taxes on carbon usage, and another that does not, I can pretty well guarantee that there will be a rapid flow of jobs and money from the one with taxes to the one without.

    If there's anything that the climate record shows, it is that the climate changes, and has done so long before humans had any appreciable effect on greenhouse gases. CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases, and the one currently in favor among the alarmists, even though its overall concentration in the atmosphere is very small and its overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is small. Another much more significant driver of this effect is water vapor. And for global temperature, the most important driver is the sun itself, which for some reason doesn't seem to enter into the discussion much.

    Oddly enough, there is evidence that Mars is experiencing global warming, even with no greenhouse gases in its atmosphere (such as it is), let alone Martians. Here's a link to an article in the National Post (of Canada) -- http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0-- with quotes from Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo, who is at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment, at one of the world's best equipped observatories. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

    "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

    "The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions."


    Mark
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2008
  3. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,838
    3,047
    The problem remains though, we've got to stop burning fossil fuels. Have you studied the methane scenario at all?

    Fact, the glaciers are melting at an accelerating rate. Well documented in every way.

    Fact, the CO2 levels are climbing to record levels.

    I believe the sea level has already risen three inches in the last 50 years, but can't state it with authority.

    The increase in hurricane strengths is also debatable, we'll know in a couple of years.

    As with economics you'll find people who will say anything, you have to go with a majority scientific consensus. Right now it is pretty overwhelming.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2008
  4. Mark44

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    626
    1
    Well, not all glaciers. There is evidence that the vast majority (~95%) of Antarctic glaciers are in fact increasing in thickness. As are glaciers in the interior of Greenland. (See http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm).
    CO2 levels were ten times higher than now, 450 million years ago. See article in preceding link.

    I don't believe that it has, but since you're not insisting this is a fact, I'll let it slide.

    Debatable, indeed. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].” See http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/klotzbach2006.pdf.

    I have some difficulty accepting economics as a science; i.e., stating a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and arriving at the same result every time the experiment is carried out. Science, on the other hand, is not a consensus sport. Galileo defied the "scientific" consensus, as did numerous others in the history of science since that time. Very many concepts have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists (e.g., eugenics, phlogiston theory of heat transfer, etc.), yet have been proven incorrect by one tenacious "denier."

    Mark
     
  5. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,838
    3,047
    You keep mentioning the higher CO2 levels several million years ago, but seem to ignore the implications of the arctic being short sleeve weather. There is a lot more land area at the equator (figuratively speaking) than at the pole.

    I would dispute your facts on the glaciers, it is the first I've heard about them growing, anywhere. Just a casual look at my favorite science site came up with these articles...

    http://www.physorg.com/news129049961.html

    http://www.physorg.com/news128960273.html

    They seem to contradict yours a little, and are considerably more recent. The article you were pointing out was published in 2006. The headliner would indicate certain amount of bias too. That was how I took it at least.

    Actually, when talking about scientists, you do have to talk consensus, at least when the facts aren't clear cut. We are not talking public opinion, but people who are qualified to make educated guesses. There is a strong incentive to ignore the evidence for economic reasons, but during his term even President Bush has had to come around. Look at how many scientists deputed the evidence on smoking cigarettes for over 20 years, and that was relatively clear cut and a lot less money.

    About sea levels, another casual search turned this up...

    http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=3113

    Basically native people living on archipelagos are already being affected negatively by these changes, again, well documented. They will be the first flooded out, and have noticed what is happening.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2008
  6. Mark44

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    626
    1
    I was countering your statement that CO2 levels were climbing to record levels. At 1/10 of the levels of those of 450 million years ago, it seems to me that 1) we're nowhere near previous levels, and 2) we have a way to go before we can break out the short sleeve shirts in the arctic.

    Both articles in the links you provided were concerned with sea ice, not glaciers, which is what I was talking about. If the sea ice melts, it doesn't cause an increase in sea level, any more than when ice cubes in a cold drink melt does the level in the glass rise. I noticed that on the page that opened from your second link, I found a link to climate-skeptic.com, and an interesting series of articles debunking much of the anthropogenic GW crowd's current arguments. Relative to glacier ice melting, here's an interesting tidbit:
    Reid A. Bryson is Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences and a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor. When asked about the retreat of Alpine glaciers, he says, “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps? 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.”
    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-7-skept.html

    And relative to polar sea ice melt, the same page as above has this to say:
    "In fact, though ice sheets are retreating, this seems to be part of a two hundred year trend that began long before man was burning fossil fuels in any quantity"

    Thanks for the tip!

    I must go now. GW or whatever has brought us a magnificent day here in the Northwest for a change from our unseasonably cold weather and heavy snow, so I'm going outside to enjoy it some more.
    Mark
     
  7. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    6
    Wasn't the climate believed to be much warmer before the Ice Age, which created the glaciers and polar ice caps? I know that the scientist can only guess at the cause of the big chill, but pretty sure mankind wasn't responsible. Some plants an animals didn't make it, but we some how found a way. The planet is still recovering from the Ice age event. Come on, global warming amounts just a few degrees over the next hundred years, on an average. Which means it will be a little hotter then usually in some places, and much cooler then expect in others, the numbers people are throwing around mean nothing.

    Why don't we just build a huge fan, and blow all the CO2 through the big hole in the ozone layer we created back in the 70's with cans of hair spray...
     
  8. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,838
    3,047
    There are a lot of climatic variations on geologic time scales, some caused by life itself, some by catastrophies. We have a volcano that is Yellowstone National Park that, if it every becomes active, will pretty much screw the climate and the USA. Won't be the first time all civilizations has been hit hard by a singular event somewhere in the world.

    One of the problems with ice melting is it reduces the earths albedo, which means yet more heat is retained, another feedback mechanism with negitive consiquences. It is a funtion of surface area, not thickness. I think I can rebute any comments about glacier growth, but at this time I don't have the time.
     
  9. Mark44

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    626
    1
    One of the important points that I have been trying to get across is that the climate is ever-changing. And humankind has managed to muddle through them in its relatively brief stay here on earth. We have, so far, managed to adapt to the changes in one way or another. When the changes occurred too rapidly, we moved away to friendlier climes (e.g., the Viking colonies in Greenland during warmer periods of the 1100s, before the Little Ice Age).

    The other point I've been trying to make is that there is not a consensus on whether humans are the cause of global warming, despite claims to the contrary by alarmists. In a consensus, by definition, everyone is in agreement.
     
  10. redacejr

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Apr 22, 2008
    85
    0

    well i think that it would be kinda more complicated than that, forest fires are not only bringing alarming increase of co2 but also destroying trees so important for co2 into oxygen coversion, the best air converting plants have been extinct already in the 80s and the worse is yet to come
     
  11. engineersnoopy

    New Member

    May 2, 2008
    6
    0
    I am not worried while God is in control. :)
     
  12. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,808
    295
    Better check the manual again - it appears that it's entirely up to us.
     
  13. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    6
    Wasn't too long ago, that we found out that forest fires were necessary to keep the forest healthy and happy. The fire cleanses the forest floor of dead fall, under brush an parasites, so new trees have a chance to develop. I don't think all fires are healthy, seems like man starts most of them these days...
     
  14. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,838
    3,047
    Like I said, I can easily refute what was said about the glaciers. The number of stories is astounding. The first 2 directly contradict the Greenland story, and all of them are from different new sources. I suspect the so called free press of Canada has an ax of their own to grind. There is an active disinformation campaign going on, you have to depend on more than one or two news sources.

    http://www.news.ku.edu/2006/february/17/glacier.shtml

    http://www.news.com/2300-11395_3-6179447-1.html

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/popup?id=1756218&contentIndex=1&page=1&start=false

    http://in.news.yahoo.com/pti/200804...otri-glacier-receding-at-a-varie-114a2da.html

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/080426/2/53yy.html

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080424/sc_afp/nzealandclimatewarmingglacier_080424065532

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11254319/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21977447/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19051485/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19855913/

    So lets see,

    Rising sea levels are currently happening ... check

    Glaciers are melting at an accelerating pace ... check

    CO2 Level rising to record levels ... check

    We haven't even discussed what happens when the locked down methane (which is conservatively rated in excess of 10E9 tons) begins to out gas from the bottoms of various seas and lakes. This will be an event that makes the black death look like a minor epidemic. If you like science fiction the title "Mother of all Storms" deals with such a senario. I don't claim it would happen, but it is one of several things that might be possible. Good reading none the less.

    BTW, if you read the stories I've posted a common theme is the resulting water shortage as these glaciers reduce or disappear.

    The only thing that isn't an act of man is the increased solar levels, which has been offset by the global dimming phenomenon. We got ourselves in this mess, we'll have to start trying to get ourselves out. The first step of solving any problem is stop denying there is a problem.

    Unless something new comes along that is as outrageously false as the glacier story I'm done with this thread, or if someone actually brings up something new. Have fun folks.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2008
  15. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    6
    Okay, you win! Everybody wants join the green team right now, today! What is the impact on the environment from the huge demand for green products? What happens to all then none green? Where are we going to get this massive amount of energy to manufacture the parts needed to bring green-power plants online, to replace the old. Is there a simple/cheap replacement for internal combustion/turbine engine, or do we just scrap all these machines using them and start fresh and green? I'm guessing that turning the world green, will increase the amount of CO2 well beyond any decrease we'll see 20-30 years after the conversion is complete. We have less then 100 years, which will be cut significantly shorter with all the manufacturing of green, recycling of the old.

    ... act now, and the first 100 one hundred callers will receive... Don't delay, you might miss out, limited quantiles... I just don't like pushy sales tactics. Leap, before you think? I don't want to go splat!
     
  16. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,838
    3,047
    So what part did you disagree with? Did you even read any of the articles?
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2008
  17. mark0908

    New Member

    Feb 18, 2008
    5
    0
    global warmming ?
    ask USA !
    he can tell you how to do ...
     
  18. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    1,211
    1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere

    I think that answers how much 'WE' are responsible for CO2 and that's just CO2(Greenhouse effect) we are talking about, we release many other gases. I hope people haven't forgotten about Ozone hole already.

    One can doubt politicians and industrialists but scientists & researchers are a different breed of people.
     
  19. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,838
    3,047
    OK, I apologize, there have been a couple of posts I was out of line. Moderator pointed it out within the thread and I backed off.

    I've tried to stick with the facts, which are pretty pervasive. Four years ago there was a lot less data, but a lot of things have been coming to light that need looked at by everyone.

    I've said it before, but I believe I'll be dead and buried when the really bad things start happening. I just feel the time for denial is over.

    If I have offended you I apologize again.
     
  20. Mark44

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    626
    1
    Bill,
    Today is a workday for me, so I don't have time right now to provide links and citations. Until then, maybe I can offer a few observations.

    Glaciers
    Many alpine glaciers are receding, and have been doing so since the 19th century. A few, however, are growing, such as the glaciers on Mt. Baker here in my home state.

    Greenland
    As noted earlier, Greenland's climate was warm enough around 1000 AD to support agriculture by Viking colonists. Its climate cooled some time later to the point that those settlers could not support themselves.

    Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.) [Mark: I don't have a link, but you should be able to search on the author's name and publication to find the source documents.]

    Antarctica
    There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

    CO2 rising to record levels
    As I noted earlier, there have been times in the past when the CO2 concentration was many times higher than now, so how can you state that CO2 is rising to record levels?

    Lack of consensus in climate scientists
    If the evidence of anthropogenic GW is so compelling, why then aren't all of them on board. I have provided several items that say otherwise, including a list of 400 climate scientist that was presented to the US Senate just a few months ago, as well as information about a survey of climate scientists where the majority did not buy on to what is passed off as "received truth." Can the opinions of all of these scientists be dismissed so cavalierly?

    It should be manifestly obvious that the science of global warming, and particularly the theory that it is human-caused, is not settled. For that reason, I look at all admonitions that "we must act now" or that "the time for denial is over" as red flags.

    More later...
    Mark
     
Loading...