Lawrence Solomon has often had a controversial view on many things as well as the climate. An interesting read nonetheless habee.
Right, but the research supposedly came from CERN. Aren't they well respected? Solomon is only the writer. And, BTW, I believe in climate change - I'm just not so sure that humans are responsible for all of it.
So that gives use the green light to pollute as much as we like, no restraint?
There is plenty of restraint, but obviously not near enough.
Global warming and polluting the earth are two separate issues. Global Warming in fact is only hurting our precious earth, and not because the globe is warming. All of the money that people donate to Al Gore and his phonies, ugh it makes me sick. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars. What issues are they tackling? Paying plenty of money campaigning for global warming, millions go to reducing CO2(an essential part of photosynthesis and life), and don't forget they have to pay themselves as well. We have real scientists who have a great Hypotheses that they would love to be tested, with real solutions. These scientists are neglected and told off by Al Gore.
CO2, an essential part of life and photosynthesis.
Lets stop spending money on that and have smart people get a real plan together with that money. Give me 100,000 dollars I will do way better than that crook Al Gore.
Years ago I was ridiculed and told I was an idiot.. Just a complete moron for saying global warming is a hoax. I didn't know to what extreme, but I knew most of what I heard on An Inconvenient Truth was BS. Which is exactly what got everyone believing in Global Warming in the first place.
This video removed all doubt, when I found out that these scientists were included in the "thousands of scientists" it really makes me sick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvCCTEfypk
There are so many people that need to be in jail with Madoff, and Al Gore is one of them, hell most people in charge..
As for this Solomon guy. I didn't read it all, but him saying that the humans do not affect global warming, well all I can say is he can very well be wrong. We may cause global warming to some degree, but to what degree? I'll bet it is at least a fraction of what Al Gore claimed.
Who is this Al Gore? He plays no part in my thinking and doesn't get one penny off me.
You are typical in that you think the world revolves around America and Americans.
Sure, natural causes may account for a lot of climate change. That is no excuse for ignoring man's contribution.
You are assuming a bunch of things, not even sure what you are getting at?
"There is plenty of restraint, but obviously not near enough."
Wass all I was saying to you. If you are saying there is no restraint you are crazy. You and me both restrain ourselves from polluting and do what we can.
And from there I was simply saying. We have a bunch of people spending money to fix global warming, thinking they are fixing YOUR problem. Which is fixing the planet.
Like I said global warming and your argument do not belong together.
Funny you said I think the world revolved around america and Americans.. Because when I think of global warming, I think of China.
I just don't get what your argument is with me. All I said was we are wasting all of this money in Global Warming when we could be spending it on things to help the world.
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore. I get really sick of this. Maybe you guys could give us a little credit and assume, for once, that we've investigated the science of global warming ourselves and found it plausible? I've been interested in climate science since elementary school and come from a family of science geeks who have been aware of the issue for literally decades before that. People don't seem to realize that the basic foundation of climate change science was established in the early 19th century, more than 150 years ago, and scientists have been warning of the effects of excessive fossil fuel burning since at least the 1950's. (Early 1900's, if you want to include good ol' Arrhenius, though he thought it would be a good way to prevent another Ice Age and doesn't seem to have put two and two together about what would happen if we weren't in immediate danger of one.)
Al Gore has had next to no influence on my beliefs about climate change and I am heartily sick of people assuming that he has. He is not a scientist, so why on earth would I listen to him on matters of science? Plus, I happen to disagree strongly with several of his proposed solutions to the problem, though I do appreciate his efforts to publicize it.
You are sick of hearing Al Gore, but the fact is he has everything and their mom to do with it.
There are 3 groups of people. The Al Gore believers, the "doubters", and the people who are right and realize it is plausible as you say.
Everyone here finds it plausible, and I'm not disagreeing with you at all in that matter. Al Gore has done nothing but isolate scientists and waste millions and millions of dollars. Fighting a battle mainly on CO2. Until he is out of the picture and real science can be done. Since he has already claimed it was over.
The only thing I disagree with is that you are glad he brought attention to global warming.
He lied and misinformed millions of people and made huge profits off of it. He stopped real science from happening. Now we have no idea what is real and what isn't. I constantly see people STILL bringing up the hockey stick graph, which back then looked scary, but now just looks dumb and completely inaccurate. He is spending money like his data from his movie is still truth. And that sir is sickening.
There is no disaster on the horizen. This warm up is part of a cycle the earth normally goes through. We are at the end of this cycle of warming and the nexy cycle of cooling will begin. In the 50s, 60s, 70s, all we heard we carbon pollution and Co2 were the cause of global cooling, now they are the cause of warming. The scientists cannot agree. Are you all aware depite all the global flooding that always drains into the oceans, and with all these polar caps melting and is going to rice the water level, which is a bogus argument, did anyone notice the reports of the last 2 years that the water level has actually gone down!!! Guess Gore and company missed that one
I am no longer wasting my time with you. But feel free to keep stalking me i know you have no life
In others words "no, I can't provide links because I made it all up, but I'll try and deflect from that by accusing you of stalking me and telling you that you have no life".
I don't actually stalk anybody, I'm a part of this forum and I have as much right to challenge unsound posting as anybody else.
They don't like it when you call their mis-facts and they can't back it up with reality. Claiming you are stalking is one step short of reporting your every post for imaginary personal attacks (as they do in the religious threads) I suppose
I will no longer waste my time with people who deflect, changes what he says, inconsistant in his position. I have no respect for someone clueless. Its one thing to have a position and stick with it, its another to keep changing. All one has to do is google like he always does, and I am sure he aready has done. But then he has to admit he was wrong and admit I was right, he will never do that.
And by the way, as I have said many times on here before, I do not believe in God so your claim makes no sense, as for stalking, all you have to do is just follow along and you will see.
I did not claim you believed in god, just that this is a typical calim in the religious threads. I have just been threatened on another thread by a so-called christian in a similar manner.
To engage in debate is not to stalk you. If you post some fact and it is challenged it is up to you to back that fact with some kind of proof or source. Most so-called facts are in fact misinformation when looked in to, I agree with John that the 'facts' you referred to are deliberate misinformation at source.
Wow, what presumption, what imagination.
You are right, I did google it but could find nothing relenting which is why I asked you for a link.
And where, exactly, do I keep changing my position?
Believe me, if ever you do prove me wrong and you right I shall be the first to admit it.
you are 100% correct. Engaging in a debate with someone is not stalking. But when someone posts after almost every post you make including in a subject area they were not in before does raise a flag. I am not like others here that just spout off, and I do not deliberatly misinform anyone on any topic. THis one included. John pulled this same thing before and I provided him the link and he just would not accept it. Johns views are obviouly from the left. That is fine. I am an independent, I have no skins in the game for either side. When I write and critisize the left, they come out of the woodwork. When I post about the right, I do not hear much. But when someone on the left argues with you over something he believes in, you would question it to.
My experience of John is that he is as calm and reasonable poster as can be found on here. I also would challenge your statements about global warming etc, I see misinformation put out by 'interested' parties that is as full of holes as theological net stockings !
As I said, you are just not willing to admit it. I just happen to have someone visiting me here in the hospital, he just googled it and said he found 9 articles, so you are not being accurate about your search or you are not searching properly, which I wouild have a hard time believing
Just for you rec
http://www.iceagenow.com/Indian_Ocean_s … alling.htm There is a link at the bottom to the actual report
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html An article about islands that rising oceans were suppose to have covered by now have reading the ocean has gone down 2.5 inches, This is by a fellow in the UK John
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Clim … erview.pdf Article from a Dr. who has studied and measured the ocean levels for 35 years
Each of these are Doctorites, scientists and hve studied the subject for years
I did not do it for you, I did it for Rec. But as predicted, you do not come back and admit you were wrong for just attackingm me or claiming I was "flanel" or"you made it up" Are you not tired of saying I make things up and keep showing you are wrong? And who did the attacking here?
Was this post aimed at me?
Please try to respond to the relevant post, rather than posting a reply to a random post.
You aren't really talking to yourself are you?
If indeed it was directed at me I will just point out that none of UCVs links mentioned sea levels falling. Yours did, but I think Kerry put them into proper perspective.
You claim to be such the expert on everything and you cannot find the studies, notice plural for there is more than 1. Or perhapa as in other threads you know you are wrong but cannot face the facts. Only you John cannot grip the facts when presented so we will not waste our time with you. And what would you call it when someone goes on subject threads he was never on before but only makes comments on my posts and noone elses. Sounds like stalking to me
I don't claim to be an expert on anything, apart from being able to spot flannel.
And as for your ridiculous claim that I only comment on your posts and nobody else's! Get over yourself.
And who is this "we" you claim to speak for?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … panic.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo … e10866.htm
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Global … 69913.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/0 … 89897.html
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/arti … -happening
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Br … ling-begun
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … s-ago.html
I am dubious of climate science that purports to have all the answers regarding a vast and wildly dynamic system. However, if we are in for another Maunder Minimum global cooling may ensue making everything problematic.
Seems Uncorecct had no problem finding links on the subject, but John could not. Interesting
But not one link says anything about sea levels falling!
HMMMM I found it in one. But you questioned what I said when I post about sea level and global temperature going down. SO once again Deflecting, twisting, and the rest. Man up, uncorrect had no problem finding these and the many others that come up when one googles, which you claim you did and claimed nothing came up.Uncorrect proved you wrong
You did find an article about sea levels falling but as the article says -
"Last month a study by Nasa, the US space agency, found that sea levels were being pushed up by the addition of 50 billion tons of water a year from Greenland's melting ice sheet. Professor Patrick Nunn, head of geography at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji and an expert on island formation, said last week that the figures from Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomons were based on inadequate research.
He said: "It is a nonsense to try to make predictions about climate change from a data base of only seven years. You need data over a minimum period of at least 30 years. A lot of these sea gauges have been slowly falling over the last five years but that is a short-term trend."
Effectively NASA pointing out that sea levels were still rising overall.
You point out one needs 30 years to base their studies on, but everyone buys into the global warming issue tha has less than 10 years of study from those who believe. At least the scientists and their studies I linked for you were 25 years of study. And there was one from the islands that were suppose to be underwater by now according to the global warming scientists. I did read that NASA study completly on the Nasa site. Did you know they claim the reason for the sea levels falling is not that the water is lowering, but that the land is sticking out of the earth further. I will let you decide on the credibility of a study that makes that claim.
"You point out one needs 30 years to base their studies on, but everyone buys into the global warming issue tha has less than 10 years of study from those who believe."
Actually, we've known CO2 was a greenhouse gas since the mid-1800s, known that burning fossil fuels increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and could affect the climate since the early 1900s (Arrhenius), and have been concerned about the possible negative effects since at least the 1950's.
Here's a brief rundown of some climate science history (starting about the 52 second mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVh7z-0oo6o
The land rising due to increased water pressure is a well known effect. The Sichuan earthquake is being blamed on a not-so-big reservoir in the mountains increasing the pressure on one side of a fault line. The land rose several metres during the ice age making the North sea a vast alluvial plain when the ice retreated, then over a few generations the land sank and became the north sea. For a long time it was thought sea levels rose dramatically but it can be proved that the land actually went back down to where it came from before the ice covered it.
You really do fail to see the situation don't you? The mean temperature of the planet is rising and the mean sea level is rising too. Local differences may belie this but overall, they are irrefutable facts. Even some of the links that you posted pointed that out.
John, AV is right about sea level dropping in 2010, he just failed to read the part that explained why!
"Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States."
:Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. "By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet," says Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder."
"So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. "This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year," says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist."
I know "flooding so extreme it actually lowers sea level" spells "death knell for AGW" to me. After all, it's not like scientists predicted more extreme flooding as a consequence of AGW or anything...
You could be correct but an overwhelming majority of the climate scientists who have measured the amount and effects of greenhouse gases say that they are contributing to global warming and other climate changes. They don't deny that the earth experiences long climate cycles and will do so in the future. My understanding is that the predominant scientific position is that the climate at any given time is the product of natural changes or cycles beyond our control combined with man-made atmospheric pollution which has increased with population growth and the industrial revolution. From what I've read there is plenty of cause for concern about the current climate trend. I haven't seen the predictions that we are heading into a cold climate cycle.
Yours is a small minority view. It would be nice if this were true so long as we don't go into another ice age.
I don't know Ralph, I seem to recall that the ice would cover all the most troublesome spots on the earth
We will not go into another Ice age. I am sure you remember back in the 60s and 70s they were cliaming we were heading into another iceage because the temps were going down. But the cycle ended and now it is wariming. I do not remember the study that was predicting we were about to begin a cooling cycle again, but I do believ the average temp went down last year and we have had 3 years in a row of tough cold winters. Heck, it snowed 3 times in centralTexas last winter. I know when it snowed here 3 years ago it was the first time in 13 years.
Cooling in some areas can be attributed to weakening of the cycles that rotate warm air and water between the poles and the equator. Global warming is not a measure of various local spots but the overall temperature of the earth surface - though just where they stick the thermometer I have yet to discover.
I am incredulous. The notion that there is a nobility among those who advocate for a anthropogenic global warming theory and an ignoble intent among those who are skeptical of that theory is a misplaced. Scientists are merely people as flawed, foolish, vain, shallow, greedy, etc...as every other person can be. To treat science as divine and scientists as angels is a very bad idea. It is the kind of mistake that leads to abuse.
Steady on old chap ! I just pointed out that as the planet gets warmer and the temperature difference of the poles and equator gets less, one effect is that the rotation of warm and cold air and water slows down. A simple and proveable effect I would have thought ?
Just follow the money to THE KOCH BROTHERS, EXXON, COAL FIRED POWER PROFITEERS, OPEN PIT COAL MINERS, et al.
This is not happening in just one area. It is happening globally. A small area would not affect the overall global temperature reading.
And the total global temperature is rising ! I don't think there is any dispute about that. Locally, here in China, we have had several hottest summers for years one after another.
I wish I could remember where I read that last year the global temp went down for the first time in many years.
Are you familiar with Google Search?
A one year change doesn't mean much. The trend is upward.
In the history of the atmosphere, 120 years is about as significant as 1 year. There is an admitted subjective interpretation of significant portions of global warming research that is being ignored.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 … 71223.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … ked-emails
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R … ontroversy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 88354.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/2 … 67979.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/ … index.html
From some of the editorial comments one can conclude that the attitude among the liberals press has changed regarding hacking when it comes to stolen information like that provided by wikileaks and Julian Assange. There are vested interests on both sides of this debate. Vast sums of money are not the sole motivations for ignoring, interpreting or skewing data. Ascribing to scientists a moral integrity greater than any other human is to misplace ones faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct … evolutions
There is an orthodoxy about global warming that is alarming. Those who question the theoretical underpinnings of this potentially destructive theory are vilified.
Comparing this skepticism to denying the Holocaust-
http://environmental.lilithezine.com/Gl … alism.html
At least some cover is given by defining it as a mental disorder-
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” -- Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe columnist.
“This is treason. And we need to start treating them [global warming opponents] as traitors.” -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“CEOs [of fossil energy companies] should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." – James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
“Failing to warn the citizens of a looming weapon of mass destruction- and that’s what global warming is- in order to protect oil company profits, well, that fits for me the definition of treason.” -- Bill Maher, noted climatologist, March 2006.
“I don’t like cutting trees down at taxpayers’ expense and destroying the forest, just so we can have a few jobs. That is like saying, Adolf Hitler trying to justify the Nazi concentration camps, it provided employment for people.” -- Ted Turner
“[To conserve scarce resources, there is a] duty to die even when one would prefer to live… To have reached the age of, say 75 or 80 years without being ready to die is itself a moral failing.” -- John Hardwig, Professor and Head of Department of Philosophy at the University of Tennessee and moderator at the 2008 Conference on Ethics and the Environment.
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States… We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." -- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund.
There is a hostility toward humanity, skepticism, America and free market economics that pervades global warming supporters.
Try these for a more apporpriate attitude toward science -----
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
"We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress."
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell."
— Richard P. Feynman
"There is an orthodoxy about global warming that is alarming. Those who question the theoretical underpinnings of this potentially destructive theory are vilified."
There is a consensus about global warming that certain people who have a vested interest in carbon technology find alarming.
Feynman was a respected theoretical physicist and a great teacher but not a climate scientist. He died 20-some years ago. He may well have been alarmed about the growing "orthodoxy" or consensus that was developing before he died.
Did you read your own link on deniers? It's a pretty good one.
http://environmental.lilithezine.com/Gl … alism.html
I apparently mistakenly attributed the above orthodoxy quote to Feynman. Apparently he didn't say anything about global warming??
I used Feynman(aside from his awesomeness) because he frequently spoke about science and knowledge, in general. I think most things I find are interesting. I do not automatically accept the ideas I find anywhere. Ascribing an infallibility to the IPCC is as questionable as assigning infallibility to anyone or anything - it might be useful for faith but is useless to science.
The orthodoxy line is all mine.
One year does not mean much, thats what those who believed the ice age was coming again said when the global temp went up. Will you say 2 years mean nothing if the global temp goes down again this year?
What do you mean "goes down again this year?" It didn't go down last year!
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 … stats.html
The cycles that create ice age along the lines brought up so many decades past has nothing to do with the issue of fresh water dilution of the ocean....
A minority view is not incorrect merely because it is a minority view. Through out history, majority views have not only been wrong but deadly.
True. But the majority scientific view in this case is overwhelming. It could be wrong. I hope so, because ignorance is prevailing over evidence on climate change.
No one can possibly not admit climate change. Our climate changes all the time. What I dispute is the theories behind global warming. It is used as a toll to create legislation wanted by one side. When as I stated before, we are just in a warm cycle that is coming to an end and the cooling cycle will start. Global temp went down last year. Could that be the first of many?
NO. Read my post again. I said perhaps man is not responsible for ALL of it. And it disgusts me that some of the scaremongers who are warning us about carbon emissions don't seem to be so concerned about their own carbon footprints. Some of the "bigwigs" are just in in for money and really don't care about Mother Earth. We definitely need to take better care of her. I tend to listen more to those who genuinely care about the planet and serve by example - not just lip service.
Answered whilst still only half awake. Fully awake I might have made a different comment.
Basically, I agree with you.
Habee seems to share the same ideals as me..
You must have assumed us as the normal "doubters" or whatever they are called.
Everyone is for helping the planet. What we are not for is everything this global warming mess has caused, and how it has steered us away from what you are talking about.
It is obvious to most, that nature will do what it wants regardless of what we do. Some of it we may not like, but we do not control nature, it controls us. If we abuse the environment to the point of detriment, nature will bring us back to reality and it may not be pretty. I believe, earthquakes, tidal wave, hurricanes, and tornadoes are proof of this. Nature does not discriminate. Does not care how powerful or how religious you are or are not. It is on it's own course and more likely than not humans will be a minor blip in the history of the planet.
This is not to say we should not have some self control, merely saying that we have little say it what happens in nature. It is a far greater power than we could ever dream to be.
John, CO2 is plant food not pollution.
Try breathing nothing but CO2! No don't, you wouldn't last five minutes.
"CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour."
One of the causes of the current rise in CO2 is because we're overloading the natural cycle faster than plants can take it all in. (It doesn't help that we're actively burning, plowing, paving over, and otherwise destroying plants en masse...)
Anyway, CO2 is plant food only to a point.
The rise in CO2 levels benefits some types of plants more than others, and currently appears to benefit weeds more than crops plants, probably thanks to their greater genetic diversity. This will ultimately be good for the planet, because it will help get the CO2 levels back under control, but it's not particularly good for humanity.
Also, many plants are very temperature sensitive, so CO2's effect on temperatures can negate its positive effects on plant growth if it causes temperatures to rise outside the ideal range. If temperatures start routinely going above 95 F, then it bodes badly for ALL plant species, because photosynthesis is also temperature sensitive and starts breaking down at temperatures above 95F. This could lead to widespread desertification across much of the central and southwestern US, and other regions expected to see the greatest increases in temperature.
Rising temperatures also lead to more droughts and flooding, more damage from pests and diseases, and various other things that can combine to negate CO2's positive effects.
Way to give a reactionary response, nobody said that poluting was the way to go, but maybe if we recognise that carbon is the least of our worries right now we can focus on more pressing ecological problems.
CERN is respected for nuclear research, not climatology. Solomon is a well known climate change denier. He is a newspaper columnist, a self-proclaimed environmentalist, not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. It would be a mistake to put much stock in his biased report on a single CERN study. The effect of greenhouse gases on climate has been well-documented by numerous studies and is accepted by nearly all climatologists.
Oh so it's okay to be a science denier when science doesn't support your left wing agenda to steal from the poor?
"The effect of greenhouse gases on climate has been well-documented by numerous studies and is accepted by nearly all climatologists."
Yup! I wanted to go a little more into why we know it's CO2 in my previous post, but I figured that post was enough of a novel already.
CO2 has been recognized as a greenhouse gas more more than 150 years. This is not new science we're talking about here. Since the late 18th century, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by more than 100ppm, from about 280 to nearly 400 ppm.
Scientists can identify the origin of atmospheric CO2 molecules by their carbon isotope, so we know that a significant percentage of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuel burning. Other human emissions, such as emissions from deforestation and agriculture, are harder to measure because the isotopes are the same as those from natural causes, but can be estimated in other ways.
The current warming shows several markers that are consistent with warming from greenhouse gases, rather than natural sources such as the sun. If the warming was the result of increased solar radiation, for example, you would expect to see greater warming during the day, because the increased solar radiation would warm the surface more, but the heat would be quickly lost back to space once the sun went down.
Instead, we are seeing greater warming at night. This is because the increased levels of greenhouse gases trap the heat longer in the atmosphere, so the surface doesn't cool down as quickly once the sun goes down. You can actually see this pattern very clearly in the recent heat wave the struck the eastern and central US. Though the heatwave set or tied lots of maximum heat records, it set or tied more than twice as many minimum heat records. In other words, nights showed significantly more warming than days, exactly the result you would expect from warming caused by rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
There is also an observable decrease in the amount of solar radiation escaping into space over the last few decades of satellite measurement, another result you would expect to see from warming caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases. Significantly, the greatest decrease has been at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs.
There is also some evidence that the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is warming while the upper atmosphere (stratosphere and ionosphere) is cooling, but it is less reliable. If true, however, that is yet another predicted result of warming caused by greenhouse gases, since the gases are concentrated mainly in the lower atmosphere.
There are some CO2 "fingerprints" as well, but those are the simplest to explain.
Here's a graphic that shows a few more of them:
Uh no... there isn't consensus on anything!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck … tover.html
What's not to believe in climate change..? But of course there is climate change...it's been going on since the formation of this dynamic planet...But to blame man as it's genesis is not only ignorance on parade, but speaks to an arrogance that would elevate Man's presence on this vast planet as having ANY influence on it's activity...
Al Gore has made a ton of money on this scam, as have many others in the so-called environmentalist movement...Carbon credits anyone..? How utterly stupid to think that buying carbon credits is really justification for a monstrous " carbon footprint " and somehow justified...Unbelievable !!...
Agreed habee, but the part we are responsible for has grown a lot in a short time. Australia has always had natural bushfires which cause a heap of pollution in the atmosphere, but Australia is also a huge polluter considering it's small population with all the mining of brown coal iron ore and other metals and minerals.
We are still small in over-all world polluters but we are starting to address our contribution now.
Lol! I was just about to post this! According to research at CERN they have proven that the largest contributing factor to global warming is cosmic rays which creates clouds! The more rays, the more clouds and the cooler the earth! And what determines how much cosmic radiation strikes the earth? The magnetic field of the sun! The sun causes global warming and its cyclic! Proof Al Gore is an a**!!
Haha the "deniers" were right all along!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … nge-shock/
It seems Nature equally responsible for global warming.
this was discussed in he book "Superfreakonomics".
I had naively thought that everyone had heard of this.
Climate change isn't really a huge deal - it could easily and cheaply be controlled.
However, this doesn't really justify rampant pollution on the part of companies and individuals.
Ron Paul says what about global warming?
He has, most likely, the most strict policy towards CO2 than ANY other candidate. He might even have a stricter policy than Al Gore!!
This is really one area (amongst MANY others: antiwar, anti torture, legalization of drugs, gay marriage, and prostitution) that many liberals can get behind Ron Paul on.
Around 4:00 in this video, he discusses how much stricter a libertarian society would be regarding pollution.
Around 1:30 in this video he reiterates it (20 years later, the message is the same)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTr50dRE … re=related
However, Paul is largely convinced that Global Warming is a hoax used by the Big Government crowd to increase government power. No doubt about that.
Then I can get behind him on this issue.
I've come across this argument before. Basically he's saying that instead of having government legislation against pollution, everyone should invoke their "property rights" to take legal action. So if a local chemical company is pumping out crap that gives all the children in the area an asthmatic wheeze, then the parents should band together and sue the hell out of that company.
My problems with this are that (a) a lot of people are too stupid to understand the concept of "property rights" in anything other than the basic sense of "get off my land or I'll set my Rottweiler on you!", and (b) the chemical company would probably be able to afford better lawyers and/or use strong-arm tactics against the locals - especially if said locals rely on the company for jobs. So in the end, it would be a case of "might makes right". Not always - sometimes the "little guy" would win - but very often.
If libertarianism isn't to become a dog-eat-dog world of social Darwinism, then people must be capable of understanding the true scope of their rights - and also responsibilities. I am a lot less optimistic than you probably are about this.
Even if it's not a hoax, it's still being used as an excuse. So yes, I agree with Ron Paul there.
You forgot about the horrible publicity the company would receive - now that the internet exists it's near impossible to argue "well, what if that company owns all the newspapers".
I refuse to use a LOT of companies' products and services due to the info I get off the net -- "United breaks guitars" is the most prominent example: I go to Japan a bit more frequently than the other man, but I refuse to give my service to United 'cuz they treat their customers like jerkwads.
http://bigbreaksolutions.com/events/?ut … Guitarscom
(Air Canada generally gets my business!).
Since I've watched those videos, my wife and I have traveled back and forth about, what, 2-3 times. At $1.5k a pop, that's about $4k they didn't make.
Also, it seems that you equate justice with money. This just isn't true -- perhaps it is with a Government monopoly on judicial power, but not in reality.
Free up the courts, allow competition.
The Internet does help expose injustice - as long as it remains relatively "free". But there are still such things as libel suits, which are mainly the preserve of guess who... the rich.
And my other point about people needing to have a true understanding of rights/responsibilties still stands. Not just an understanding either - they have to know where their own long-term best interests lie, and have a real understanding of what true freedom is actually about. There are so many people out there who are prepared to give up their freedoms because of government propaganda - what makes you think these people would behave any differently if governments were removed? They would simply give up their freedoms to the local company owner/mafia boss.
You are an intelligent person, who does his own research - as with the example of the airline you gave. But most people aren't like that. They'll just go with whoever is the cheapest or has the jazziest advertising campaigns.
"what makes you think these people would behave any differently if governments were removed?"
At the VERY least - the removal of rights under a privatized system would be voluntary. For example, I give up my right to "yell insanely" when I buy a ticket at a movie theater.
Around 1:30 in this video he reiterates it (20 years later, the message is the same)
Did you watch the video, It is Paul during his 2008 campaign So its now 20 years later,according to you, so the year is 2028. I thought it was 2011. Considering Paul has NOT been in office for 20 years.
Are you still spouting lunacy and an mal-understanding of basic arithmetic?
Troll! Here is your undoing:
"Paul won an April 1976 special election to the vacant office."
If we apply 2nd grade reading skills to our 1st grade arithmetic skills, we discover that Ron Paul has been in politics, and in office for
2011 - 1976 = 35 years.
Let the shining light of logic and knowledge forever cast out the vile contempt of your dark troll heart!! BEGONE!!!
Look! Everyone with any scientific background at all knows global warming is caused by methane. Cows eating cud, sheep eating grass and so on.
We humans are largely responsible. We need to stop eating greens. Most especially cauliflower, any kind of beans, and cabbage.
If only we would go back to a meat and potato diet we would all be better off.
I know I'd breathe easier.
This is pretty similar to the denier meme going around a few weeks ago re: NASA's "missing heat." In short, what the paper actually says is VERY different from what the deniers are saying it says.
I'll be back with a more detailed explanation of why in an hour or two - I have to get the kids off to school first.
Wht are you climate change alarmists so afraid of other explanations for global warming? This is NOT settled science and to believe it is, is equivalent to believing the earth is flat! There aremany money and political interests pushing this carbon cause and that should be reason enough to be skeptical. At least lets examine the work of such distinguished scientists and question why were roadblocks put up to prevent and delay their work, and why was the publication of their findings toned down to prevent upsetting the global warming proponents? More here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/s … more-45850
There are also many money and political interests pushing against "this carbon cause," so I fail to see why the fact that Al Gore may or may not get rich IF cap-and-trade (which I oppose, btw) passes negates the work of thousands of scientists against the world, while it's a-ok that the fossil fuel industries, the ag lobby, and other major polluters demonstrably HAVE gotten rich off the last 60 years of climate inaction.
I reject that claim! Fossil fuel companies are involved in alternate energy companies as well. Sure they want to protect their business, but what has been proposed is just limits that will add costs to energy production, ultimately passed on to you and me. In addition the time line is too agressive to be met and will cause companies to shut down generating facilities causing rolling blackouts and job losses. All of this is being pushed by unsettled science as this new research suggests.
No one with any kind of back ground in science takes Lawrence Solomon seriously. He pleases a lot of powerful people, of course, and makes a lot of money in the process. Just check out his educational resume. He is non starter in the field of trust worthiness.
What nonsense! Trash the writer? Thats your argument? This is real research backed by highly regarded scientists, this isn't just Solomon saying so! And talk about money and political interests??? How many people have huge fortunes tied up in global warming science? Al Gore will make billions if a carbon tax is passed! I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded? Turns out you're not al all! You're all just tools of marxist enemies that want to destroy America!
No offense, Solomon whatever his name is has very little to do with anything Global Warming. Of course you knocking at Habee's source really makes me laugh my ass off for one reason. Al Gore, who is in the center of all of this. You think REAL scientists take him seriously? I don't know who this solomon guy is at all like I said, but if you think he's a joke... I'm laughing much harder at your number 1 guy.
And this really bothers me: American factories operating in other countries that have few laws about restricting pollution and other things. My uncle and one of my friends installed boilers in American-owned factories in Mexico. They said the pollution these places are creating is unbelievable. The lake near the factory where the water is dumped became a cesspool of genetic mutations in fish. They called it "the lake of the three-eyed fish" for a reason. And then there are American drug companies who have labs in other countries so that they can torture lab animals at will, without having to worry about PETA and other animal welfare groups. And, no, I don't support everything PETA does, but I do believe animals should have SOME rights, like adequate socialization, proper food, and pain meds. Another example can be found in "kill houses" for horses. The ones in the US have been shut down, but tens of thousands of American horses are transported each year to Canada and Mexico to be slaughtered. I was an active proponent in shutting down kill plants in the US, and after seeing the outcome, I almost regret doing so. Why? Because the Mexican plants are far worse than the American kill houses, and not only do the horses have to endure the terror and pain of being slaughtered with a knife, now they also have to endure the torture of being crammed into trailers and being shipped hundreds of miles without food or water. Maybe they would have met a better fate in US slaughter houses. It's like the American companies involved want to "keep their noses clean" at home, but it's okay to rape the rest of the world and its creatures.
Sorry for the long rant.
I agree, habee. Business models of the 20th century are pretty abysmal. The need to make a hefty profit at the expense of screwing consumers, other countries, etc., is mind boggling. Apparently business models do not understand that if they rape their consumers and take advantage of others that it will come back to bite them in the end. If you kill off your consumers and suppliers, who do you have left? Same with the mortgage industry.
Additionally, while Global Warming is now in serious question, we do see climate changes, but not the way Global Warming uses the Chicken Little theory. Al Gore, I believe saw an opportunity to redeem his presidential candidate losses by becoming a spokesman for what looked on the outside as a glossy banner of doom and that we need to all adopt as a cause. The hype made being responsible more of a duty and obligation than it did a desire for real positive change. All of a sudden if you aren't for us, you're the enemy. Save the penguins, but never mind those pesky humans.
Real change has to come from a desire to change for the better. Business doesn't have that desire yet, nor does Al Gore, from what I can see, since it's well documented about his excesses in living and wasting resources.
Global Warming is irrelevant as big business models until the desire to change for the better becomes personal. Once personal change happens, it allows and facilitates others to do the same. It's the same model for changing government. It's slower than we like, but in reality, is what seems to be real change.
So much for my rant.
On to the cosmic ray theory... The basic idea behind it is that cosmic rays cause cloud formation, and since clouds (depending on where they are) deflect solar radiation back into space before it reaches the earth's surface, they tend to have a net cooling effect. Hence, a decline in cosmic rays due to an increased solar magnetic field could be causing the warming.
There are a few problems with the basic theory, of which the most significant is that it just doesn't match the observed trend. Temperatures are rising, but cosmic rays have not shown any consistent long-term pattern in the ~60 years of measurements, and for the last ~20 years have actually been increasing, so if cosmic rays are as important as the cosmic ray theory proponents claim, then temperatures should have been declining since the early 90's. Instead, 13 of the 14 hottest years on record have been in the last 14 years.
It is likely that cosmic rays have some effect, but a relatively small one, and the fact that we're breaking heat records on an almost annual basis despite their mild cooling influence doesn't bode very well for us when they start declining again, as the longer term record suggests that they're likely to do.
Concerning the CERN paper specifically, they came out with some really interesting results on the interactions between atmospheric aerosols and cosmic rays. ScienceDaily has an excellent description of their findings:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 105132.htm
Claiming that the paper "proves" that cosmic rays (or rather, the lack thereof) cause global warming is false, however. The paper showed that aerosol nucleation (which seeds clouds) is enhanced by cosmic rays, but the experiment did not duplicate real world conditions and was not intended to, so contrary to what the denier blogosphere is crowing, the authors of the paper made NO claims about how much cosmic rays affect climate under real world conditions.
To get a little more technical, the study found a significant difference in aerosol nucleation between chambers with no cosmic rays and chambers with cosmic rays, but this condition cannot be duplicated in the real world because the Earth is always being hit by cosmic rays, so the paper could not and did not make any claims about how much cloud formation is affected by "lower" versus "higher" levels of cosmic rays rather than "some" versus "none." Additionally, the aerosols produced by the experiment were too small to actually seed clouds and one of the main focuses of future study will be to determine if the missing element in their chambers was natural or man-made. If it's natural, the implications for climate science could indeed be interesting, because that would suggest the possibility of a currently unknown climate feedback loop. If it's man-made, it's just more evidence that human activities are affecting the climate.
Hope that was helpful for you, habee!
Thanks, Kerry. I suspected as much. Solomon is full of strong opinions and biased reporting on climate change.
Is CERN biased? Disagreeing with the author is fine but has anyone been able to dispute the scientists research?
We don't need to dispute their research. Their research is probably valid and the results are quite interesting. However, the results are not what Solomon says they are. He's counting on you to not to read the paper (or even the abstract) for yourself, so you won't know that he's lying about what the scientists said.
I believe if there is any lying going on it serves the pro global warming interests better than those denying.
If you read my post above, you'll find that in this particular case, the liars are clearly on the side of the deniers.
The global warming "interests" are international oil companies, coal companies, coal fired power companies, automobile companies and others who profit from greenhouse gas emissions. Climate scientists have documented the effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions on climate. They don't deny the influence of the sun and other natural forces but say the climate is a product of natural forces which are beyond our control and man-made factors within our control. Most of the so-called research denying global warming is financed by people like the Koch brothers and companies like Exxon.
I remember in the 1970s, we had the gobal cooling scare and the supposed threat of global glacialization (is that a real word?). In just 30 years or so, we've gone from cooling to warming. 30 years is nothing - just the blink of an eye.
I think some of you have misunderstood my opinion on climate change. I believe the earth's climate changes - it always has and probably always will. As recently as the Middle Ages, there were "little ice ages" that were interrupted by global warming. It's just hard for me to believe that mankind is 100% responsible for changes in climate. How much effect did human activity have to do with the warming in the 1500s and 1600s?
Last week Texas broke a record for the most days with triple digit temperatures, the old record stood for 86 years.
The natural cycles are pretty well known I think, what is different is the rapid conversion in just a hundred years of stored Co2 in coal and oil that has taken millions of years to collect. The global warming that results from this can also cause cooling if the Atlantic current stops as that ocean current transports warm water from the equator to the poles and is why most of the northern hemisphere is warmer than it would normally be without it.
Lol! Global warming causes everything! There's even an article that claims global warming causes mental illness... yeah right, i think its called liberalism!
http://m.smh.com.au/environment/mental- … 1jger.html
Thank you for your pointless trolling comment, ignoring these issues is stupidity in the extreme, it remains to be seen whether global warming is or is not be a big issue - global ignorance is already a bigger issue and promoting more of it is cynical abuse of the media.
Global warming is only one issue caused by the activities of mankind, the other issues that get smothered in the same blanket of denial are the mass extinction of species that is also occurring from the same causes and the increase in poverty when, in todays world with the resources and science at our disposal, it should be decreasing. Also the aggressive destruction of other countries by the US in a desperate attempt to maintain an impossible (and mainly pointless) lifestyle at the expense of others.
Ignorance is promited by well meaning liberals with an agenda to dumb down and indictrinate the population polutting their minds with junk science. The increase in poverty is a direct result of liberal policies and regulations which have the opposite effect of whats intended like Obama's stimulus paying to keep union teachers employed and using food stamp money to do, printing money which is rising the price of food around the world, or the wrong headed government agency that wants to limit food advertising hurting profits and eventually production. Liberalism is evil because it restricts undividual freedom and choices. It needs to be defeated!
Neoconservatism took us out to Iraq... For being conservative, they love to spend our national treasure liberally..
Look at the roster of the Project for the New American Century....
I'm also sick of people bringing up the supposed global cooling scare. I wasn't alive in the 70's, but my parents were and based on what they told me and what I've read from other sources, the global cooling scare was the result of a few scientists speculating about future climate that got picked up by the mainstream media and spun out of proportion to sell more magazines.
Somebody has gone back and surveyed the actual scientific literature of the 70's, and found that papers predicting global warming outnumbered papers predicting global cooling by a factor of 6 to 1. The mainstream scientific community has been predicting warming as a result of fossil fuel burning since at least the 1950's. Check out this video, starting around the 58 seconds mark:
"How much effect did human activity have to do with the warming in the 1500s and 1600s?"
I think you mean cooling in the 1500s and 1600s? That was the start of the Little Ice Age, not the end. The exact cause of the Little Ice Age is unknown, but it's believed to have been a combination of one or more of the following factors: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows, the inherent variability of global climate, and reforestation following decreases in the human population. These factors (or rather, the opposite of them) are not currently present at levels consistent with the observed warming, with the possible exception of random climate variability, which is random and by definition untestable. However, there is very strong experimental and observational evidence (some of which I laid out in my reply to Ralph above) that human activity is affecting the climate to a significant degree.
I was alive in the 70's and the mantra then was we are all going to freeze to death. I never heard a word about global warming until after that prediction didn't pan out. We are not causing global warming it is just another tactic to use to frighten us into giving up what little freedom we have.
No, I meant cooling AND warming. There were several warming trends between the cold periods. As for the ice-age scare in the 70s, I was alive and remember it well. There was a lot of hype about it. Maybe that's why it's more difficult for some of us to completely swallow the global warming scare. lol
I don't think we've been studying climate long enough to reach any rock-solid conclusions. I'm not a scientist, obviously, but I believe climate change is due to natural AND manmade causes.
"As for the ice-age scare in the 70s, I was alive and remember it well. There was a lot of hype about it."
Again, the global cooling hype was in the mainstream, not the scientific press. My dad is a scientist (and my mom a science geek), so they were more concerned with what the scientific press was saying, which was overwhelmingly that global warming was the risk, not cooling.
"There were several warming trends between the cold periods."
The so-called Medieval Warm Period is the one most frequently trotted out by deniers, but it was a regional phenomenon, not a global one like the current warming. Additionally, of the regions it did affect, the only one that could really be said to receive a net positive from it was Europe. In the affected parts of North America, Africa, and Asia, entire civilizations collapsed due to mega-droughts that lasted decades. Much like what scientists are predicting for the coming century, in fact, but on a much smaller scale than what we could be seeing by 2090:
Right click and view image for a much bigger look. For point of reference, the Dust Bowl spiked briefly down to -6 but mainly hovered in the -2 to -3 range.
My kids could still be alive in 2090. How about your grandkids? Do we really want to take the chance that our activities are leaving them a world that looks like that?
But aren't some parts of Earth actually cooling now, amid widespread global warming?
I'd be able to answer that better if I knew exactly which parts you were thinking of.
Just off the top of my head, there is some controversy about what exactly is happening in Antarctica. The coastal peninsulas seem to be warming like everywhere else, but there is some evidence that parts of the interior may be cooling. However, this is controversial because the temperature record for interior Antarctica is so slim. Wikipedia has a decent overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica … ontroversy
Otherwise, here is a useful comparison of the warming in the so-called Medieval Warm Period vs today:
The MWP map is based on reconstructed data (gray areas are places where insufficient data exists) and the modern one uses NOAA data. Both are plotted relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period.
I gave an answer to this above - global warming is a general cause that can have many different possible effects. The temperature difference between the poles and the equator drive all the earths weather and general warming changes the balance, in fact it reduces the difference and there are a few major affects on temperatures in different parts of the earth. The most well know is the Atlantic current that sends warm water up to the arctic on the surface and returns cold water to the equator underneath. This warm surface water makes warmer northern climates than they would otherwise be. There are many such movements going on between warm and cold waters. If the Atlantic current stops - as is possible - it is thought that the northern hemisphere could get much colder, the equator much hotter and a mini ice age would occur which would in turn re-set the iced poles and start the Atlantic current going to return things relatively to normal. Whether we would survive such interesting times is speculative.
Read the article in Nature, a very respected journal. It says the experiments are inconclusive so far, and scientists disagree with the findings, but some think that basically there's a chance that cosmic rays are affecting our climate:
"Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. "Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality," says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays."
The causes of climate change are not a "done deal," so to speak. Nature, BTW, is the most cited journal when it comes to science jourmal citations. Read the article here:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/ … 1.504.html
habee, everybody thinks there's a chance that cosmic rays are affecting the climate. Contrary to what Solomon implied in the original article you posted, the theory is covered extensively in the IPCC report.
The dispute is over how much they might affect the climate. As I laid out in verbose detail above, the current observational evidence does not support the theory that they have a major effect on the climate, only a minor one. If they had a major effect on the climate, we would have been cooling for the last 20 years.
The CERN paper re-confirms that cosmic rays might affect the climate due to their effect on cloud formation, but it does not even attempt to speculate by how much. All the experiment proved was that cosmic rays do affect aerosol nucleation to some degree, but it could not prove by how much, plus it failed to prove that the increased aerosol nucleation actually resulted in increased cloud cover because the particles they produced were too small to seed any clouds. Figuring out what the missing compound to get the particles big enough is will likely result in some extremely interesting future research projects, but its effect on established climate science is currently nil and the future remains to be seen.
The paper's lead author sums it up well (emphasis mine):
"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."
Do you think mankind is totally responsible for climate change? If you don't, we're somewhat on the same page, or at least in the same chapter. lol
If industry is causing global warming, it means have to produce less, buy less and live less. In terms of economic progress, there can be no global warming. Any rational will do. The universe is warming up.
What about when the earth was a lot warmer than it is now, with a lot more CO2? Man didn't cause that.
I said I think man is primarily responsible for the current warming, not all warming ever.
Previous warming had natural causes. Nobody is claiming that climate isn't affected by natural factors. The point is that the known natural factors cannot account for the current warming. The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels can. So that means that either there is some completely unknown factor at work, or the rise in CO2 - which is primarily the result of human activities - is responsible for the warming. Scientists continue to look for a possible unknown factor, but so far one hasn't been found, nor is one really necessary, since the CO2 can account for the warming by itself.
CO2 levels have been higher in the past, but don't take that to mean that the current rise in CO2 levels is "safe."
The highest known levels of atmospheric CO2 levels occurred before the evolution of plants, when the world was - needless to say - a very different place than it is today!
CO2 levels were also much higher during the age of dinosaurs thanks to much, much higher volcanic activity (currently human activity produces an average of anywhere from about 100 to more than 400 times more CO2 than volcanoes every year), but at that time in earth's history, the sun was approximately 4% cooler, so the higher CO2 levels did not have as much of an effect as they do today. They DID have enough of an effect that there were no year round ice caps for some parts of the dinosaur's reign, so large parts of what are now North America and Europe were under shallow seas. It will take another thousand years or so before we start seeing those sorts of effects from the current warming, but sea level has already started rising and is expected to accelerate within our lifetimes - yours and mine, that is - and hit 3-6 feet of rise (and possibly more) by 2100.
The most recent (and most comparable) period when CO2 levels were similar to our own (~400ppm) was the Middle Miocene about 15 million years ago. Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher, and there was a wave of extinctions - including up to 30% of all mammal species living on earth.
By the way, high atmospheric CO2 levels (this time as a result of high volcanic activity plus the dreaded methane clathrates, which remain the worst nightmare of climate scientists today) are also one of the lead suspects in the greatest mass extinction the planet has ever seen: the Permian-Triassic extinction event, which killed off up to 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates.
What about other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, like water vapour, methane and ozone?
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent to a great degree on temperature. Warmer temperatures suck up more moisture from soil, plants, etc. and dump the water elsewhere in the form of rain or snow. This is why global warming is associated with an increased risk of both droughts and floods/blizzards.
Methane is released from numerous man-made and natural sources. The biggest human-related methane sources include emissions from oil and natural gas systems, emissions from landfills, emissions from livestock, and emissions from land use changes, such as burning peat swamps to convert them to agriculture.
Like water vapor, methane is also a positive feedback with temperature, and by far the most feared. Permafrost and methane clathrates in the Arctic hold an estimated 2.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, far more than is currently contained in the entire atmosphere. In recent years, methane has been bubbling up from formerly frozen Siberian lakes, and from the clathrates off the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. The so-called Methane Gun is already a primary suspect in one mass extinction, and if it goes off, it would likely mean the end of civilization as we know it.
Abnormally high concentrations of ozone in the lower atmosphere are primarily a consequence of human activities, such as motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and certain chemical solvents.
Which brings us back to the big question of just how much of the warming is man-made. And regardless of whether it's man-made, is it desirable (or even possible) to control it by implementing legislation and government-inspired "incentives" like carbon tax and carbon trading?
My answer to that second question is a resounding "no". You probably disagree.
Sounds like a good reason to harness that methane and use it to make fuel
What about the ozone layer? That's not man made, and I assume it must hold in a lot of the earth's heat.
No, I'm strongly opposed to carbon trading and pretty dubious about carbon taxing. I do support stronger efficiency standards/pollution regulations and more government investment in R&D, but that's about the limit of my support for more government involvement.
Hey, if we can figure out how... I know there's been some interesting technologies coming out trying to harvest methane from landfills and livestock, but haven't heard anything promising for capturing it out of the Arctic.
The ozone layer does trap some heat, but in its case, the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. You can't say the same of tropospheric ozone (speaking of asthma epidemics...) and other excess greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere, which actually contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer because they trap heat in the lower atmosphere, causing the upper atmosphere to cool. Ozone is less stable at colder temperatures, which is one reason we're not out of the woods yet on the ozone hole issue, despite the success of CFC bans and similar measures.
I haven't read all the responses in this thread, and don't know if I will be reiterating anything.
With this said, I have a couple points to make..
There is no doubt that the Sun has an enormous influence over the climate on Earth... The Sun was supposed to be coming off a solar-off period, and it is predicted to be quite spectacular..but the Sun's behavior has been hard to foresee...
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc … rediction/
We definitely know that fresh water ice is melting at rapid rates especially in the Northern Hemisphere...(where coincidentally...or not the majority of the world's industry and fossil fuel use is done)...
Understanding the movement of the oceans, a shut-down of the water-wind conveyor of heat from the Equator will cause dramatic shifts in how people live...
One thing that we do know, the climate can change quite rapidly....
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q … kRzr21Z1rA
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/o … /salinity/
Can we all agree that the climate is definitely changing, and that man and natural causes are the reason? I think most agreement would stop there, however. As I said earlier, what turns a lot of people off about "global warming" is more about how the message is delivered than the message itself. It doesn't help when some proponents exaggerate findings or skew them.
Do we need more sources of clean energy? Do we need a lot less polution? Do we need to stop destroying our forests? Yes, yes, and yes!! Man is a greedy species.
The double standard there grates, though. (Not necessarily on your part, habee, but certainly on the part of some others around here!) Scientists make a mistake in estimating, for example, the probable date of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers, which they promptly correct when the mistake is realized, and this is somehow proof that global warming is blown out of proportion, or worse, a hoax. Deniers openly lie about the results of a study (it's now twice in the last month alone, between this and the "missing heat" thing) and people faced with the evidence of these lies are still all "lying benefits the pushers of global warming more than those denying."
I always do my best in these discussions to admit when I, personally, am not certain of something, and when the scientists themselves are uncertain as well. The far right, in contrast, has made total closed-mindedness on this issue a litmus test for membership. Some of the people on this forum wouldn't even consider the possibility that 7 billion human beings are influencing the climate if Jesus himself came down from the clouds in a blaze of light to announce it. How can any progress be made in the face of such willful ignorance and blind adherence to doctrine?
I'll agree with you there, Kerry. If a few folks on both sides didn't have "an agenda," maybe we could discover the whole truth. I know the climate is changing. It's even a little different here than it was when I was a child.
BTW, since you keep up with science, how are the levels of blue-green algae in the world's oceans?
"how are the levels of blue-green algae in the world's oceans?"
Not an issue I follow closely, I'm afraid. I know there have been lots of freshwater warnings this year, but haven't heard much about the oceans and haven't particularly sought any out, since I'm 1000 miles from the nearest patch of saltwater. If you've heard something interesting, please pass it on!
Poor Fox Schmooze...trying to keep the "our planet is not warming" blinders on its audience..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/3 … 3%7C223395
It doesn't matter to the leftist in the world, it is all about implimenting thier Govt. control of all and everything in the name of the earth and children.
Man made global warming has been known to be a bunch of BS for quite a while now... but they will never cease the indoctrinations and agendas.
The left isn't about government control, we leave that to your lot.
Man made global warming has been known to be BS only to those too indoctrinated by the right to think for themselves.
To believe the Left isn't about Govt. control you need to dismiss the entire nanny state and regulatory agencies... so...
The Left would like to control all our actions, choices, beliefs, etc... from cradle to grave.
You are , as usual, spectacularly wrong.
In the UK the government that got closest to controlling all our actions, choices, beliefs etc from cradle to grave was the extremely right wing Thatcher government of the 80s. I might add that that is a common action of all right wing governments.
Pause here for TM to say that the European right wing is nothing like the US right wing without a further word of explanation.
Agreed - Liberals and Conservatives are equally malevolent towards the pursuit of freedom!
Come now John, we both know that foolish and ill informed people abound through out every society and ideology. The conclusions drawn by global warming advocates are based in computer models. Computer modeling of weather and climatic change are dodgy. This is not an argument for dumping poisons in the air and water but rather an argument against the expansion and imposition of more regulation and restriction of freedom.
From my perch on the back deck, the greatest danger to the animals and plants in my back yard is the annoying neighborhood cats.
Not entirely on computer models, we do have eyes to see.
It is naive to believe that wholesale deforestation has no affect on climate or wild life. It is naive to believe that the burning of fossil fuels with the release of carbon is without affect.
I will grant you that the affects are not fully understood but that is no reason for denying that they have any affect.
Cool stat: every gallon of oil contains the remains of 98 tons of ancient plant matter, the equivalent of shoving 40 acres of wheat - grain, stems, roots, and all - into your gas tank every 20 miles or so.
Some nerd has calculated that in the last ~200 years of fossil fuel consumption, humans have burned the equivalent of every speck of plant life on land and in the oceans, from single celled plankton to redwoods, grown on this planet for the last 13,300 years. Currently, we're going at the rate of a year per day. (So since the calculations were done in '03, it's really more like every speck of plant life for the last 13,600 years.) Can't tell me that hasn't had an effect on our climate.
There is a competing notion of how petroleum is generated. There are oil fields presumed to be empty that begin to produce again.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 123032.htm
Abiotic oil is at best controversial and at worst complete hogwash. The "evidence" consists mainly of one oil field that briefly appeared to be refilling (but is now declining again) and a few more found in unexpected places, but all have alternate explanations that fit easily within the biotic theory.
I will not argue with you about the value of good stewardship and reverence for the land. I think these things are, in some ways, vital to a conservative world view. However, the idea that humanity has a greater or even magnifying effect on changes in climate is predicated on the idea that natural cycles of our irregular star are less significant.
It is quite likely that the global climate will cool in the next 100 years as the Sun enters a "calm" phase. It has more to do with the climate of the sun than if we are using petroleum and coal. Climate change advocates will tell us that it is burning carbon based fuels that has caused this. We are told that global climate change( no longer global warming) is caused by human activity. Why the change in terminology? Is it to wed an ideology to perceptions?
The localized effects of carbon fuels has been conflated into a global effect. The positive aspects of climate silliness is an awareness of those localized effects.
How do these models treat the Medieval Warming or the Little Ice Age? The disagreement over the global impact of burning carbon fuels is far from over. There are scientists lining up on either side of the argument. Reputable experts in fields related to climate and weather disagree. Check out "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Science is not separate from culture, politics, economics or society. Scientists are just as flawed, even in their science, as everyone else.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."
— Richard P. Feynman
So let's get this straight.
Solar events in the past have precipitated ice ages and therefore man can have no affect on climate!
Solar climate is always affecting Earth climate. Human activity, undeniably, influences local conditions. Weather and climate are dynamic systems - can one single event or even a series of events be tied to one non-global cause? The Sun is the only source large enough to influence a system so dynamic and vast as the Earth's climate.
My opinion is that it is a human conceit to believe that we are so powerful.
And it is my opinion that it is human folly not to believe so!
Well than the real solution to all of this is for those who advocate for climate change theory based on carbon pollution should take themselves out of the world so as to no longer breath out carbon, burn carbon to eat(thereby producing methane-another greenhouse gas) and stop using any energy. This would reduce that, oh so deadly, over population and drastically reduce carbon pollution.
It makes far more sense to remove all the none believers.
I am advocating a voluntary system where by believers act on their believe and eliminate themselves, voluntarily. I really don't advocate violence against someone else. Violence against yourself, however, in the name of preserving the planet, is laudable.
Well,OK, those who doubt can voluntarily remove themselves. I see no logic in those who are right eliminating themselves as they are doing less harm than those who are wrong.
I am happy for your moral certitude. I am sure there would be ovens involved except they produce carbon. I would prefer global climate change advocates live by their moral certitude or accept the conflict. Once global climate change finally kicks in this will all be decided for everyone or not.
I would respect the advocates more if they weren't on the internet and farmed their own food by hand. If one wants to compel everyone to live by their personal standards then wouldn't that mean more if one lived by that standard themselves. The true believer exempts himself from the rules he would force on everyone else.
"There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless."
Careful or I might be forced to remind you that it was the far right who used ovens, not anyone on the left.
Why should I give everything up just to make you happy? Sure, I use the internet, hardly a big carbon footprint, and I don't own a car, I walk to the shops rather than drive a huge gas guzzler a mile there and a mile back.
I don't force anybody to do anything I'm not prepared to do myself.
In the last two centuries or so, we've destroyed 99% of tallgrass prairie, 40% of midgrass prairie, 20% of shortgrass prairie, 93% of old growth forests, and 50% of wetlands. All of these ecosystems sequestered carbon in vast amounts and the majority were replaced by things such as roads, buildings, and farm fields that generated carbon emissions instead. And that is just in the United States.
Worldwide, remember, there are now 7 billion of us, inhabiting basically every inhabitable corner of the planet. If we could turn forest into desert 1000 years before the birth of Christ, when the entire human population of the globe was about the size of modern Tokyo and New York combined, why is it "conceit" to think that 7 billion humans could have a global effect?
So, the answer really is for those who accept the hypothesis that global climate change is anthropogenic to kill themselves thus eliminating a vast portion of the damaging species, return those vital chemicals to the soil, reduce carbon and methane emissions and end global climate change. Ideal solution and a win-win for all of humanity.
And let the rest of you continue trashing the planet to your heart's content? Yeah, right!
I've laid out my suggestion for a solution to AGW at great length in one of my hubs. It doesn't involve killing anybody.
I am not advocating killing any one. I am advocating taking certain action based upon the belief system that humans are a pollutant. Save the Earth, Kill Yourself is not just an amusing bumper sticker it is a prescription for saving the planet from carbon based pollution.
At least hold your breath, turn off your computer, stop using any internal combustion engine - including things brought by truck, grow your own food and live by sun light alone. Once your personal carbon foot print is zero than I will buy what you are selling.
As long as advocates of global warming are living in the industrialized west and enjoying the fruits of the carbon economy than I don't give much credence to the position. Move to the most primitive country in the world where nothing comes from a carbon economy and the position becomes more powerful. Otherwise it is sophistry and hypocrisy.
So you don't recognise any difference between conspicuous consumerism and restrained consumerism?
To you there is no difference between one who drives everywhere in a large capacity engined car and one who doesn't drive at all?
Does Great Britain grow coffee or tobacco? An automobile is not the sole means of spewing carbon into the air. Do you breath? The average Brit produces far more carbon the the average Kombai.
Brits, like Americans, have been the beneficiaries of the carbon economy and now choose to remove the centuries of economic and technological progress from those who live in poverty. Never in the history of humanity has there been a time when so much has been available to so many. It is a direct consequence of the carbon economy. So the newest oppression on the world's poor is the carbon free economy that produces more poverty.
How do you know how I live or don't live? As it happens, my electricity is generated by wind power, so the fact that I'm here arguing with you on the internet doesn't actually increase my carbon footprint at all.
How much carbon was required to make your windmill, your computer, your house, your internet connection? Your entire existence as a westerner is predicated on an economy that is rooted in the burning of vast amounts of trapped carbon. It is hypocrisy.
I'm pretty sure I know that better than you, so spare me the lecture. You don't appear to recognize the existence of any lifestyle between "impoverished Bangladeshi subsistence farmer" and "fat American gulping down Brazilian hamburgers while driving 100 yards to the grocery store in a Hummer," when in fact it is completely possible to reduce your carbon footprint by a substantial amount without damaging your standard of living at all, and by another substantial amount with only minor inconvenience and extra expense. For the hardcore, there's zero carbon houses, self-sufficient homesteads, Earthships, and plenty of other opportunities to get your personal carbon emissions down to a level more commonly seen among impoverished Bangladeshi subsistence farmers - again, you don't know how I live, so who are you to judge me?
Fur rubbed the wrong way apparently produces more than just a static charge. I tend to laugh when internet beasts bare their teeth. I am sure that there are those who know so much better than everyone else how we should all live. There is a reason why windmills in the Netherlands are built next to conventional power plants. The wind blows when and where it will. Not a solid basis for plowing a field of wheat. I would recommend a cotton handkerchief, facial tissue is environmentally less friendly.
LOL, I have a head cold, so there's a cotton handkerchief sitting next to me right now. Very convenient.
Incidentally, conventional power plants have their outage problems, too. During the worst of the heat wave this summer, Texas had to shut down 20 coal and natural gas power plants to keep from overheating; the wind turbines, meanwhile, kept right on spinning. Back in February, 50 conventional plants in Texas shut down unexpectedly due to the winter storms. Again, the wind turbines spun merrily on. There was also not a single report of damage to any of Japan's wind farms after the recent earthquake. I'm sure I don't need to tell you what happened to their nuclear plants.
I can only think of market reasons for opposition to wind or solar power. The cost per kilowatt hour of wind or solar generated power is prohibitively expensive and requires taxpayer provided price supports and subsidies. If wind and solar were competitive I would advocate for them since they represent a decentralization for residential uses. Industrial uses frequently require large amounts of power from reliable sources. The wind blows where and when it will is not contradicted by the notion that traditional power plants fail. How does one plow a field with a windmill? Or electricity, at all? The energy density of petroleum based fuels is amazing and, so far, cannot be replaced by any existing technology. The technology of La Mancha is unlikely to sustain the 7 billions souls who require the carbon economy to survive.
"The cost per kilowatt hour of wind or solar generated power is prohibitively expensive and requires taxpayer provided price supports and subsidies."
As I've discussed in other threads, oil has been subsidized in the US since 1916, and continues to get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks, and other types of financial assistance from the government every year, so arguing that green energy is bad because it's only viable with government subsidies is a little silly. (It's also not necessarily true - the price of both wind and solar has dropped rapidly in recent years, to the point that they're now competitive with fossil fuels in some areas despite getting far fewer subsidies.) We pay $15-20 dollars a gallon for oil, if you count both the price at the pump and all the taxpayer dollars handed off to the oil companies every year. Coal and nuclear also rely on government subsidies. Nuclear, in fact, would probably not even exist if not for government investment in the early stages of its development.
"How does one plow a field with a windmill? Or electricity, at all?"
Actually, electric tractors already exist, though none are big or powerful enough at present to handle industrial-scale farms. That said, industrial-scale farming has mostly been a disaster for human and environmental health, so we'd be better off with smaller, more diversified farms anyway. Quite a few small farmers are also turning back to horses, mules, and oxen.
"The energy density of petroleum based fuels is amazing and, so far, cannot be replaced by any existing technology."
True, but this is all the more reason not to waste it on ludicrous stuff like driving a Hummer 100 yards to the store.
If government was fully unwound from the entire energy production industry the elimination of regulatory cost would offset what ever distortions in price exist because of any subsidies. As taxes go, corporations don't pay taxes they collect them.
The Alberta oil sands are as rich a supply of oil as has ever been discovered. There are vast supplies of oil untapped. The abiogenic theory of oil formation maintains that oil is not a finite resource though it may be limited in its natural production.
What is the endurance and range of an electric tractor? Is it sufficient to operate the average Indiana family farm of 240-260 acres?
You forgot to mention the incredibly high cost of the military actions to beat up oil producing countries to ensure the flow of oil toward the US.
It isn't the flow of oil toward the US it is the flow of oil. Oil, being fungible, is a global commodity consumed by every country, in varying degrees. The latest, and most illegal, military actions against Libya were undertaken to guarantee oil that flows, primarily, to Europe, via the global market. Iraqi oil mostly finds its way to Asia. The primary supplier of American oil is Canada and we haven't invaded them, yet.
If there has ever been a war exclusively about oil it was the Iran/Iraq War over who would control the Shatt el Arab - an important waterway into the Persian Gulf and primary means of cheaply and efficiently transporting oil from the interior of Iraq. That war lasted 8 years and no American service personnel were involved - not even on orders from someone "leading from behind."
The difference with the windmill is that the carbon is used only once - even at the end of its life it can be recycled back to another windmill with a trivial amount of new parts.
"However, the idea that humanity has a greater or even magnifying effect on changes in climate is predicated on the idea that natural cycles of our irregular star are less significant."
No, it is predicated on the observation that "our irregular star" is not doing anything at the moment that can account for the observed warming. Key difference.
"It is quite likely that the global climate will cool in the next 100 years as the Sun enters a "calm" phase."
If that happens, then the whole problem of AGW could indeed go away. But we can't rely on it happening, and even if it did happen, there is evidence that solar output would have to drop lower than the "Maunder Minimum" that caused the Little Ice Age in order to counteract the effects of the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"Why the change in terminology? Is it to wed an ideology to perceptions?"
Global warming and global climate change are still used pretty interchangeably in my experience. However, global climate change is arguably a more accurate term because if, for example, massive influx of freshwater from melting glaciers into the Gulf Stream caused it to slow or shut down, "global warming" could paradoxically cause some regions (most notably pars of Europe) to experience much colder temperatures at the same time the rest of the globe continued to warm.
"The localized effects of carbon fuels has been conflated into a global effect."
"Localized?" There are seven billion of us inhabiting nearly every inhabitable corner of the globe.
"How do these models treat the Medieval Warming or the Little Ice Age?"
They account for them just fine. What's your point?
Climate models get tested by duplicating known events, so while there certainly are unreliable models, in general scientists have a pretty good idea about which models are most accurate. In fact, the recent evidence suggests, if anything, that climate models tend to be conservative in their predictions and the real effects of climate change are likely to occur faster and more violently than currently predicted.
The data says that global climate change is a fact -- the remaining question is whether it is a normal cyclical thing or is it man-made.
If it is human caused, we can take steps to limit carbon release and pass on a livable planet to our descendents.
If it's not human caused, shouldn't we still err on the side of caution and at least pass on a cleaner planet to future generations?
...or do we go down in history as the generation that thought only of themselves.
Your references couldn't be more to the point.
Why would a sane people ever gamble with such a disaster and opt not to take steps to prevent it?
The comic is funny, don't get me wrong.
But no where on that list did "loss of freedom" or "the friggin' cost" appear.
Also: healthier children is a bit of a stretch. In countries where fossil fuels are in ample supply and are used to generate energy (gas in cars included), children are pretty healthy!
What loss of freedom? The freedom to be mown down as you walk along the pavement perhaps?
And why not healthier children? There has been plenty of research into the harmful effects of emissions from road vehicles and other fossil fuels. Wasn't only the UK that suffered killer smogs.
Here's my prediction. The tax on carbon (it's coming to the UK too - read the previous page) and all the regulations surrounding fossil fuels will make such fuels prohibitively expensive, and renewable resources like solar and wind energy won't be able to fill the gap - either because they're not efficient enough or don't provide a smooth enough supply to meet the demand, or because hey duh, you just can't run a car/train/bus with wind energy.
Step forward... nuclear power, to "save the day". Because it's low carbon, right?
" you just can't run a car/train/bus with wind energy. "
Here in Manchester we have electric cars, trams powered by electricity, dual fuelled buses running off diesel and electricity.
That would be fine, if the electricity needed to charge up the battery came entirely from wind, solar and other renewable sources. Which at the moment, it doesn't. Then there are fuel cells I suppose, but you need a fuel for those - be it hydrogen, or alcohol obtained from biomass. And that in turn generates economic problems in itself - land used to grow crops destined for biomass is land that's not being used for food production.
DIESEL??!!? DISGUSTING! That spits out CO2!!!
Is ANY CO2 permitted by the government?
Depending on the source, biodiesel can be carbon neutral.
Yes, lots, as far as I know the government has not banned any CO2 at all.
I agree completely.
They've not BANNED it, but they sure tax the crap out of it!
A much more appropriate way to handle the situation would be to force those who eject carbon waste to trap the pollution and dispose of it properly.
Loss of freedom: Come on, John. You know damn well what I'm talking about. If I'm not allowed to buy things that I wish to buy, then I lose freedom.
Healthier Children: Yes, carbon emissions likely do cause problems. But what about "the Industrial Revolution" that helped children NOT die from starvation? Sounds to me like the carbon emissions helped the children QUITE a bit.
If we force everyone (loss of freedom) to use renewable sources, it will cost more (loss of wealth), and would likely make the cost of feeding a family increase (loss of health).
Don't get me wrong: I know not the answer. But I want to make sure that we fully understand the cost of what you demand.
I want to buy three seven year old girls to fill my perverted desires, you impede my freedom by not allowing me to.
You are joking about the industrial revolution aren't you? It slashed life expectancy for those living in cities almost down to single figures. Had children working in mills and down pits, I bet that really improved their life expectation!
As I said before, nobody is being forced to do anything, you can still buy a gas guzzling hummer can't you?
You own your body, the girls own their body - they have the freedom to say yes or to say no.
But, they're still not capable of making decisions on the subject. How does the liberty minded individual decide when a person can be free to make their own decisions?
Many agree with the idea of ownership! When you're able to earn your own home, then you can make decisions on your own.
A debate for another day, however.
Your argument was flawed because you ignored the rights of the Girls.
"It slashed life expectancy for those living in cities almost down to single figures"
You're... joking, right?
The Ind. Rev. took off around the year 1800 (use that as a rough guide in the following charts)
http://media.photobucket.com/image/hist … p_hist.jpg
And here's some written info:
Pop increase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial … n_increase
Wage increases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial … _of_living
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial … er_effects
"During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829."
(specific source for the last quote: ^ a b Mabel C. Buer, Health, Wealth and Population in the Early Days of the Industrial Revolution, London: George Routledge & Sons, 1926, page 30 ISBN 0-415-38218-1)
"Life expectancy of a working man in Salford in the 1870s could be as little as 17 years."
"Hence, it made economic sense to employ as many children and as few adults as possible,"
http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/histor … rian1.html
Of course the life expectancy of the wealthy increased, it always does but you might have gathered I'm more interested in the fate of the working man.
I don't know what to say, man - the Industrial Revolution clearly made life better for a lot of people, and life expectancy increased as well.
I've heard nothing that contradicts this, except people prattling about how "children going to work was supposedly worse than starving".
Perhaps being closer to the seat gives me a deeper insight into the matter, and perhaps viewing things not from a middle class perspective.
Unfortunately the lot of people whose lives were made better and life expectancy increased weren't the real wealth producers, just the consumers of the new found wealth.
Maybe working seven year old children for 14 hours a day was worse than starving!
If you are interested, more here:-
http://www.slideshare.net/wal147/19th-c … et-4074559
How many hours a day did 7 year old children work on a farm? How many years beyond 7 did a child live in the agricultural world? How brutal was the Russian Revolution to children, especially the children of the Kulacks? The consequences of the Industrial Revolution are the creation of a world where we are shocked at child labor and can flog our disgust across thousands of miles via this product of industrialism.
Would child labor have ended if the west had never industrialized? Would those children have become used to burying their parents because of the regular plague out breaks in Europe?
How many hours a day!
You have to remember that the "hours a day" routine was very much a product of the industrial revolution, agricultural workers worked as needed, which might involve intense work at harvest and very little work at other times though children did work the land they would be gleaning, bird scaring and stone gathering.
I'm not saying that the industrial revolution shouldn't have happened but like any change it was not without its victims and oppressors.
I am saying that it wasn't a golden age full of happy smiling children and adoring parents. It was by and large brutal and inhumane with advantages for the few and grinding poverty for the masses.
You say we are shocked at child labour and yet we are happy to buy products made by child labour, almost child slave labour!
No comment on Russia as it is totally irrelevant.
The oppression of the Kulaks is relevant because it was an economic revolution - like the industrial revolution. Forced collectivization and forced industrialization are relevant. Just as industrialization severely altered the live of Britons, so the Russian Revolutions industrialization and collectivization profoundly changed how people lived in Ukraine. It destroyed the Kulaks.
So you're saying that both revolutions involved pointless loss of life?
Probably have to agree with that.
So do I - this is why I'm always suspicious of any proposed bit of legislation that's accompanied by a promise that it will fix the problem, whatever that problem is. Often it doesn't fix it at all or if it does, it generates another set of problems.
I don't think politicians understand complex systems very well and nor do a lot of voters unfortunately.
The "freedom" to pollute as much as you want and damn the consequences has led to a lot of really pleasant places like Nigeria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world … geria.html
As for healthy kids, have you noticed the epidemic of asthma and other respiratory problems in the US?
i dont buy any of the global warming stuff
especially when people are making lots money off of it
You couldn't be farther off base. The deniers are the ones making money by opposing conservation, alternative energy source development, clean coal technology, any limits on oil and gas drilling, motor vehicle fuel economy standards, etc.--the coal companies, oil companies, electric power companies, and others who have a stake in polluting technologies.
Just curious, who do you think is making money from global warming? A few companies who make wind generators? That's peanuts beside the profiteers from oil, coal and gas, not to mention gas hog truck and SUV makers.
Carbon credits have made Al Gore a millionaire and, if Cap and Trade ever passes, a billionaire. No wonder he is so angry. The market for those credits is ready to launch with Goldman-Sachs as its operator. No money at all changing hands. There a big grant funds available for those whose research follows a certain tract. Ascribing nobility and selflessness to people rarely accounts for ordinary human failing. There are very few saints.
The massive inefficiencies and lack of market appeal to windmills and solar panels have bankrupted multiple companies and at least on country - Spain.
The only problem with this story is that it is a complete distortion of what the actual research shows. It's been known for a long time that cosmic rays *can* create cloud droplet nuclei. This research from CERN confirms that, and adds some new knowledge about the conditions under which this happens.
However, the effect shown was small and is not shown to affect actual cloud production. Actually, since cloud altitude and optical characteristics determine whether a given cloud has a cooling or warming effect, it's still unknown--assuming the cosmic ray nucleation effect has any real-world net effect at all--whether cosmic rays would cool or warm.
In other words, the Lawrence Solomon piece is pure propaganda.
Our finite fossil fuel resources cannot sustain the current rate of consumption, let alone increased usage for very long... I realize Exxon-Mobil and others are working as hard as they can to keep political winds away from alternative energy currents,
We have to look past short term profit seeking for long term viability...
So the only place where alternative energy exists is the United States. Spain sought a major conversion to wind power for years nearly bankrupting the country. What is Exxon in Castilian?
Who told you so?
Spain is loosing commercial ground because of running high trade deficits and created a housing bubble for camouflage (same as US).
Germany raised its percentage on renewable energy from 17% in 2010 to 20% in 2011. And Germany is definitely not bankrupt.
What percentage of renewable energy is produced in the US (set aside hydroelectric from Hoover Dam to Lake Powell)?
Really! So all these UK wind farms and solar panels are just an illusion the.
Just because something exists, it doesn't mean to say that it's a good idea.
Don't get me wrong - I would dearly love it if wind farms and solar panels were "the answer". But in their current state of development, they're not that efficient.
"Wind farms are much less efficient than claimed, producing below 10% of capacity for more than a third of the time, according to a new report.
The analysis also suggested output was low during the times of highest demand."
My response was a reply to UCVs contention that only the US had any alternative energy!
I think we, in the UK, are a bit too obsessed by wind power, even building them in the plentiful sea. Why not use tidal power, it never stops.
It was a little sarcastic - Europe has been pursuing energy sources other than petroleum for decades.
As someone with a degree in European history, I never underestimate Europe - at least not as much as it underestimates itself. The vast western culture that has informed places as diverse as Japan and Brazil, is a powerful force for societal advancement. If we cleave to reason, as the Ancient Greek Philosophers would define it. The misplaced efforts to immediately replace the carbon economy with something else, anything else, seems panicked - to me.
Petroleum replaced coal. Coal replaced wood. Humans had been using wood for everything for millenia. The transition from petroleum to the next fuel will take time and if it is forced by elites who decide what people will drive, how they will live, what kind of work they will do - it will end in disaster. The centralized direction of economic change always creates disaster.
This has been played out time and again on the world stage and we are poised to repeat those errors. But that should be no surprise.
"History is that which we are doomed to repeat."
I can't speak for the US but there is no force used in the UK, plenty of incentives in the form of grants and subsidies, but no compulsion.
In the past when fuels have changed there has been no urgency,never a shortage of coal nor in wood in a lot of the world and never has the economy been so dependent on one type of fuel as now, your horse would eat many different kinds of food, your fire would burn many different kinds of fuel.
But now your petroleum fuelled car will only run on petrol, your gas fired boiler will only burn gas, and without electricity your gas fired boiler won't work!
That is a fair point. The dependence on petroleum for an incredible array of products, not just gasoline or diesel fuel, makes it an amazing resource. The over use of wood was a cause for European colonization of North America. Wood was becoming scarce around the 1600s and the reports of endless forests in the New World encourage colonization. New raw materials and new homesteads for Europe's burgeoning population made the Americas an ideal place.
As for compulsion and the state, that is only a matter of time. Governments crave power and, unless sorely limited, will find it. The lithium battery promises a revolution in energy as do fuel cells and hydrogen. Those revolutions are in a the embryonic stage.
The fantasy of an global prosperity run on the sun and the wind comforts the weak as much as nuclear energy frightens them. You are correct in asserting that there was a time when energy came from many sources, it is reasonable to pursue multiple sources of energy now. The proximate elimination of petroleum as one of those sources guarantees starvation and hunger.
With your sarcasm you made some info squeeze into this thread. Thank you.
The problem with wind farms is not their low rate of efficiency. That is included in the business cases already.
The problem is the enormous power output at high wind loads. That requires new grid technologies to absorb and store wind energy.
You are correct that "the answer" doesn't exist. However, a combination of "answers" including, importantly, energy conservation will be required to deal with the problem. Corporations don't respond to sermons. Financial incentives of various kinds are an effective method to move us in the right direction.
You over estimate the value of energy conservation. When one has limited resources, carefully husbanding them only delays their inevitable exhaustion. More production of energy is essential and, until a real and reliable alternative is discovered, that means petroleum.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with a great man when he said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Just ask Mister Cardigan - Jimmy Carter. Conservation is a personal action. When compelled by DER STAAT, it becomes oppression and austerity.
Carbon Footprint is a marketing term used by those who want to implement a Carbon Tax.
Pollution is real. C02 is NOT the enemy.
The US implements pollution standards. Great. All the jobs go to India and China where there are virtually none. So it's all the same planet and the same pollution.
Can a Carbon Tax stop pollution. Answer. NO! NO! NO!
But it will raise prices and make a select few wealthy people even wealthier.
If the people who were behind the "Global Warming Agenda" really wanted to do something about pollution they wouldn't be implementing a system which allows companies to pollute buy purchasing CREDITS from other companies.
That's why it's all a big scam.
Because no one is offering a solution, only a tax.
Basically you are right. It is all about money, it is commercial. The thing about global warming is just one more argument lined up in the conflict on energy cost.
Looking around on this planet, it amazes me how differently politics tackles the energy problem. The US approach is to set up tax fences and clobber the sheep(people) if they try to go in the wrong direction.
In other places on this planet, politics sets incentives for the people to reduce energy consumption, to get less dependend on conventional fossile or nuclear power.
To employ the incentive thing governments need long term perspective and strategy. This is not done in the 2 to 4 year election period in the US. Because China per se and Europe allow more strategic thinking, the US will fall behind further and further.
All is pure commercial, economical. Has nothing to do with global warming (or the opposite), has nothing to do with green attitude and philosophy.
But other places apart from the US do use taxation - or they're planning to. In the UK, we'll be having a carbon tax as of 2013. Hello to even more fuel poverty for us peasants and rich profits for City traders. Oh joy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/2 … r-windfall
I didn´t say taxation in general is bad. How else would you finance the sweet carrot, the incentive?
What is important is to have a strategy, pursue its goals on a long term basis and create transparency, make people get the picture.
What if the picture is based on false premises and vested interests?
Yes - possible, could be.
At first, when the carrot is barely visible, a lot of questions may be asked. However on new new terrain every trail is risky. As soon as someone gets over to the carrot half way, others will follow.
Fact is that some economies are already well on teir way and it does not look to be faulty. (Germany)
Most of the "vested interests" are carbon based polluting technologies--the coal industry and coal-fired electric power plants, the international oil industry and the makers of huge gas guzzling motor vehicles. By comparison the vested interests in green technology are tiny.
What about the carbon-tax/trading-will-solve-all-our-problems interests? They're the ones that bother me.
I'm not aware that anybody's saying that "carbon trading will solve all our problems." Wall Street firms may see profit in carbon trading. That shouldn't stop us from employing carbon trading as one arrow in our quiver.
Carbon trading won't stop carbon emissions. It will just move them around the globe.
So even if you think that reducing man-made carbon emissions will have one iota of effect on our climate, carbon trading won't make any difference.
But it will make some people very, very rich.
You obviously don't have a problem with this. I do. It amazes me that you're happy to use the "follow the money" argument when it comes to oil companies, but not when it comes to people like Goldman Sachs and governments, who use regulations like carbon tax to impose yet more snooping on us. I don't hold any particular candle for oil companies, but the "greed" isn't all on their side by any means.
"Carbon trading won't stop carbon emissions. It will just move them around the globe."
There have been faults in carbon trading--e.g., no follow-up on whether the promised action by sellers of carbon credits was actually taken,--however, economists that I've read believe that carbon trading effectively implemented will REDUCE, but not stop, carbon emissions.
Hmm. In the same way that having fishing quotas in the North Sea has really helped stop fish stocks from being depleted :snort:
What do you mean by "effective implementation" anyway? Oh yes, that's right - more regulation and snooping.
I don't pretend to be an expert on carbon trading. However, from what I've read about it there's a need for a more effective certification process which will insure that the carbon reducing actions pledged by the sellers of carbon credits actually take place as advertised. I've read that there's doubt about what's actually being done in Brazil to conserve rain forest in return for payments from carbon polluters.
I always wonder about a piece like this, especially when they throw around credentials of the person or organization they use as a source.
For example Solomon states the following.
"CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web"
Unless I am incorrect, which happens all the time, it was the US goverment, state department and Pentagon that devised the network that became the Internet and world wide web. It was developed to prevent the command and control structure in the US from being decapitated in the case of a nuclear or electromagnetic pulse bomb attack.
Never the less - on the much watched Discovery channel recently there have been several programs explaining how the sun has controlled and changed our climate. This is something I can see the Mayans, and their ancestors, having watched and kept records on for thousands of years.
What does it all mean? I still think as part of a living ecosystem humans need to pollute less and be as renewable and sustainable as much as possible in as many areas as possible. It only makes common sense to me.
No, not quite. The US government/defence department did invent the Internet itself, back in the 1960s. But in 1989, Tim Berners-Lee (working for CERN) invented the World Wide Web - i.e. the idea of browswers and hyperlinks that could be accessed by anyone.
this is amazing. I would never have guessed. I've always been the first to blame humans for the destruction that's happening to our world, but maybe it isn't really our fault the climate keeps changing.
Maybe you should read more of the thread. The article habee linked is pure propaganda that openly lies about what the results of the CERN study mean.
Kerry, I just wanted to say I found your posts interesting and the most sensible of all those here.
Also the small group of comments that agree mankind would be foolish to keep on gambling about CO2/climate change. Addressing CO2 and the methane gun (didn't know about THAT before) cannot do harm ,,,therefore if it is remotely possible that CO2/methane are having negative effects we Should do something.
Why oh why do we all get caught up on debating the cause, instead of addressing the problem? I hate the term Global warming, it is climate change, it exists. Also that the earth has been through changes before is irrelevant....we mankind are not "the earth" it is our survival to worry about. The lives of our children and their children and if those children will survive to have children!
We have Carbon Tax coming in Australia in July 2012! It is just an easy media stunt for politicians, not an answer.
There are quite a few places the good old horse and cart coul make a come back. We have wind farms and more are planned. Does any country use tidal power? With our coastline it would be ideal. We also have a huge Hydro plant in the Smowy Mountains but projects like it need politicians with vision beyond their term of office and their parliamentary pension.
Linda, the reason noone in the scientific community has a sloution is for they know this is just a cycle and will change again. You cannot fix what has been going on since the earth began
You should read up on the subject a bit before making such misleading, erroneous pronouncements. The science is clear. The solution requires a worldwide educational and political effort.
Thanks for watching my back Ralph. American View doesn't the survival of your children and your childrens' children matter to you?
Even your view indicates exreme risk that humanity is not prepared for or preparing for.
Pollution is not a cycle, this is the first time in history mankind has burned such refined fossil fuels and generated electricity and simply had such a huge population. Light polution is even interferring with astronomy!
Are there plans for exodus when the seas rise, the storms grow worse, the temperature rises but stops warm tides and so causes some areas to have much colder temperatures?
I am in my fifties, I remember being able to be out in the sun during summer with minimal cover....not these days! Yes we got sunburn if we were out for hours, now it happens in ten minutes and you ca feel it happeneing (not just me being older and skin changes, I talk to young people too)
On that note...I have been telling my son since he was a toddler,"One day there will be a space ship leaving this place, work at being on it and if it doesn't happen in your lifetime make sure your children are educated to be on it or their children. We are destroying this planet and the uneducated and the greedy are stopping any efforts to change things." I'm not religious but the bible does contin some great phrases - empty vessels make the most noise being one!
I am not disputing polution or it's sources. I too am in my fifties and I cannot believe your statement "this is the first time in history mankind has burned such refined fossil fuels" We have been burning these same fuels since the plants began. The difference is the polution that comes out today is not anywhere near what it use to be. While we have more plants than ever due to our growing population, can you imagine the polution we would be facing if nothing was ever done in the 70s and 80s to improve the quality of air. Does that mean we are done and cannot improve? of course we can. Does my position mean we should do nothing? Of course not, we should always strive to improve the quality of our air, water and land
Do you not remember learning in school all the predictions we were heading to a global freeze because of polution? Today they use they same polution to push a "global warming"agenda. All I am saying that there is no global warming. The earth has had warming and cooling cycles since the begining. Long before we ever had factories and it will continue over time.
"I am not disputing polution or it's sources. I too am in my fifties and I cannot believe your statement "this is the first time in history mankind has burned such refined fossil fuels" We have been burning these same fuels since the plants began."
What? Humans have been around for 200,000 years. We've been burning fossil fuels for only about 250 of those.
"Do you not remember learning in school all the predictions we were heading to a global freeze because of polution?"
That's been covered in this thread already. "Global cooling" was a theory by a few scientists that was picked up by the popular media in an attempt to sell more newspapers and magazines and blown out of proportion. If you go back and read actual scientific journals from the 70's, they overwhelmingly predicted global warming. In fact, scientists have known about the potential of burning fossil fuels to warm the climate since the early 1900s, and have been warning about the negative effects of this since at least the 1950's.
"We have been burning these same fuels since the plants began."
Please show me where I said we have been buring fuels since mankind began. I do not see it. I said "Since the plants began" as in the fuel plants. It is quite clear. Kerry, perhaps one should be a little slower when one wants to attack.
Facts are this, since scientists have been studying this, they have been on both sides. Back in the 60s and 70s they were in the minority claiming global warming, especially since the global temps were down. There were lots of protests about reducing polution and huge legislations to regulate polution, as they should have done at that time.
"Please show me where I said we have been buring fuels since mankind began. I do not see it. I said "Since the plants began" as in the fuel plants. It is quite clear. Kerry, perhaps one should be a little slower when one wants to attack."
That is exactly my point. You said you couldn't believe Linda's statement "this is the first time in history mankind has burned such refined fossil fuels" because "we've been burnig them since plants began." Fuel plants have existed for barely one tenth of one percent of human history. Even if we're generous and count from the beginnings of human civilization as we recognize it today (the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago), that's still only 2% of human history. Our exploitation of fossil fuels is a VERY brief interlude in the history of the human race, so why are you acting like we know what we're doing by digging up millions of years worth of stored carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere in the course of just 250 years?
"Back in the 60s and 70s they were in the minority claiming global warming, especially since the global temps were down."
Nope, wrong. In the 60's and 70's the majority claimed global warming. Scientific papers predicting global warming outnumbered those predicting global cooling by a factor of 6 to 1 in peer-reviewed scientific journals during the 70's. Newsweek and Time, needless to say, are NOT peer reviewed scientific journals, so I advise you to stop getting your scientific reporting from them.
You are taking things out of context and twisitng them. Lindas point was that NOW this is the first time in histiory our plants were emitting polution. All I said that it was not the first itme, it has been happening since plants began. Again, no one said since the begining of time, we are talking about the time period when plants came to be. And I am sorry, the you 6-1 has no base in facts. One does not count Media, perhaps you do, but you should not be counting them or making attackiing assumptions, seems you like to do that. In order for you to make tha 6-1 claim, you would have read every scientific proper study, as most scientists write papers on opinion and try to pass it off as a study, and eliminate those. I am sure you did not do that. But I bet you got the 6-1 from a story in the media or opinion paper.
"Lindas point was that NOW this is the first time in histiory our plants were emitting polution. All I said that it was not the first itme, it has been happening since plants began. Again, no one said since the begining of time, we are talking about the time period when plants came to be."
Linda's exact quote was "this is the first time in history mankind has burned such refined fossil fuels." She did not say "this is the first time since the start of the Industrial Revolution." You're the one twisting words, not me.
"And I am sorry, the you 6-1 has no base in facts. One does not count Media, perhaps you do, but you should not be counting them or making attackiing assumptions, seems you like to do that. In order for you to make tha 6-1 claim, you would have read every scientific proper study, as most scientists write papers on opinion and try to pass it off as a study, and eliminate those. I am sure you did not do that. But I bet you got the 6-1 from a story in the media or opinion paper."
I myself have not read every "scientific proper study" pertaining to global warming from the 60's and 70's, but somebody else has and wrote a "scientific proper study" on the results, which is where I got the 6-to-1 figure:
Notice there is not times or newsweek in this post, but just a few studies by scientists and the science board
Orbital forcing refers to the slow, cyclical changes in the tilt of Earth's axis and shape of its orbit. These cycles alter the total amount of sunlight reaching the earth by a small amount and affect the timing and intensity of the seasons. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles, and understanding of the mechanism was increasing rapidly in the mid-1970s.
The seminal paper of Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Agesqualified its predictions with "forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periodsof 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate".
The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who are accustomed to dealing with very long time scales and use "soon" to refer to periods of thousands of years. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "rapid" ice age onset (i.e., less than a century or two) since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. Some creative ways around this were found, notably one championed by Nigel Calder under the name of "snowblitz"
It is common to see it asserted that the length of the current interglacial temperature peak is similar to the length of the preceding interglacial peak (Sangamon/Eem), and from this conclude that we might be nearing the end of this warm period. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the lengths of previous interglacials were regular; see appended figure. Petit et al. note that "Interglacials 5.5 and 9.3 are different from the Holocene, but similar to each other in duration, shape and amplitude." During each of these two events, there is a warm period of 4000 years followed by a relatively rapid cooling. As an objection, the future orbital variations will not closely resemble those of the past.
J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940. At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump.
Concern peaked in the early 1970s, though "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then"  (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming). This peaking concern is partially attributable to the fact much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. However, climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood
1972 and 1974 National Science Board
The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now." But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."
The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead , continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." However discussion of cyclic glacial periods does not feature in this report. Instead it is the role of man that is central to the report's analysis. "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century". The report can not conclude whether carbon dioxide in warming, or agricultural and industrial pollution in cooling, are factors in the recent climatic changes, noting; "Before such questions as these can be resolved, major advances must be made in understanding the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere andoceans, and in measuring and tracing particulates through the system.
1975 National Academy of Sciences report
There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues that needed more research. This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."
The report further stated:
The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know
You're not even reading your own sources. The article you quoted states clearly that "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature" in the early 70's, even at the same time concern about the possibility of imminent global cooling was "peaking."
Thanks for making my argument for me!
"they know this is just a cycle and will change again."
"They" know nothing of the kind. More than 90 percent of climate scientists are concerned about global climate change. If you investigate, you'll find that most of the scientists who are skeptical of global warming are funded by the oil or coal industry.
AV, where do you get your information? You express erroneous opinions as facts.
"The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.
I do not give eronious opinions or fact. I do not even give my opinion here hardly ever. But facts are facts. Fact, global temperuture went down last year, Fact, sea levels have gone down the last 2 years, fact, the polar caps grew slightly last year, not anywhere near recouping the losses of the last 10 years.
I have read the global cycle in a good number of studies. I just did not think it up. They base it on reading that went back to the early 1900s.
"In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus". What literature, is it actual scientific studies or just a paper on someones opinion? And "strong does not mean 90%
Ralph, we may not agree on this and that is fine, after all we cannot agree on everything. But I do not insult someone by accusing them of just making things up. There were several links here by me and Uncorrect showing this was not made up. Why is it everyone is accused of"making it up" when someone does not agree? Did I accuse anyone here of "making it up" or did I just express what I had read like the cycle, or lowering sea level or climate temperature.
"Fact, global temperuture went down last year"
Um, no. 2010 tied 2005 for the warmest year on record:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 … stats.html
There were unusually cold temperatures in the Eastern US and parts of Eurasia due to a negative Arctic Oscillation in January and February, but they were more than compensated for by record warm temperatures across the rest of the globe at that time, not to mention the extremely hot summer that followed.
"everyone buys into the global warming issue tha has less than 10 years of study from those who believe."
Not so. The gist is this:
1824--first relevant scientific paper (Joseph Fourier on Earth's heat budget.)
1860--first identification of major greenhouse gases, water and CO2 ('carbonic acid') (John Tyndall.)
1896--first (and-calculated!) mathematical model of greenhouse warming (Nobel winner Svante Arrhenius.)
1938--first examination of actual observed warming, new spectrographic measurement, increasing CO2 concentrations, and human CO2 emissions (Guy Callendar.)
1950s--first realistic calculation radiative transfer throughout the height of the atmosphere (Gilbert Plass, using new electronic computation technology.) Establishment of ongoing long-term monitoring of CO2 levels. First determination that the oceans were not capable of absorbing most of human-emitted CO2.
1970s--first warnings that climatic effects of warming could be adverse or disastrous. Beginning of warming trend continuing to present. (Roughly .15 degrees C per decade, but expected to accelerate over time.)
1980s--increased international cooperation on climate study. Warmest decade on record. (Since mid-19th century.)
1990s--Kyoto Treaty. New warmest decade on record.
2000s--Increasing number of adverse effects of climate change (eg., 2003 European heatwave, 2010 Russian heatwave, numerous "1,000-year" floods). Arctic sea ice decline accelerates sharply. New warmest decade on record--and not just since mid-19th century now, but for many thousands of years.
2010s--? We shall see. But 2011 brings multi-billions of weather disasters to the United States, of types that are predicted to increase under a carbonated atmosphere--droughts, extreme floods, and heatwave (for example, Houston, TX, experiences a "10,000-year" heat wave.) Arctic sea ice hits lowest extent since 2007--without the exceptional wind patterns blamed by some for the 2007 decline--as well as the lowest ice *volume* ever observed. Global temperature continue at levels typical of the 2000's.
Gin I ask.....why are we all so caught up in the cause? It is happening even AV says "oyeah but chill out dude, it's happened before"....if your child had say mild seizure followed a few days later by a worse one would you sit around arguing about what caused it or would you act? Not a good analogy perhaps but I'm pressed for time just now.
I seriously do not think that governments are going to come up with solutions or scientists or individuals. Earth hour....what a joke when lights blaze 24 seven in cities all over the world! One hour hah!
So where are the plans to cope with these climatic changes, the forward thinking that would say "It is going to happen and we need to be ready" ?
Like I said spaceship, be on it!
Well, we don't need new technology so much as a clear view of where we are. You're right, it's rather bizarre that we can have a lot of clues that we have a big problem on our hands, yet do--well, not nothing, but not much either, not on the scale of things.
But the one thing that needs to happen is that we need to put an honest cost on emissions of greenhouse gases. If we do that on the international level, then all else will follow--renewable energy will be competitive with dirty fossil fuels in almost all situations with no further technological improvements. (Those improvements will still come, of course--but we wouldn't have to wait for them before we start replace our current energy portfolio at really decisive speeds.)
And why should charging people for using the atmosphere as a dump be controversial? No-one is allowed to foul the street with body wastes at will anymore--fouling our atmosphere will be seen as equally Medieval in due course (whether 'fouling' means injecting carcinogens and neurotoxins such as the mercury from coal-burning power plants, or injecting biologically non-toxic yet climate-active chemicals like CO2.)
I must be missing something. I thought we had known all along that the earth's atmosphere was mostly effected by the sun. But what we were doing was only adding to the harm, and so what we were doing now to help was conserving and cleaning things up. Because our animal waste and human needs were causing a rapid increase of atmospheric break down of the ozone. So is this article saying that we are just now determining that? It blows my mind on how long it takes scientists to prove a little common sense.
A couple of things--yes, the sun is important, but solar radiation has been measured as flat to declining slightly over the last few decades, so direct solar influence hasn't caused the warming we've seen. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere, together with natural variation, on the other hand, accounts for it nicely. The CERN experiment gives more information about cosmic rays from the sun creating "cloud condensation nuclei", but that's all it really does.
It also sounds as if you might be confusing ozone depletion problems with global warming problems. There are some points at which these issues intersect, but they aren't the same at all.
Ozone depletion is due to a man-made class of chemicals (CFCs) which are now controlled by an international treaty enacted over protests that it was crazy to proceed with ruinously expensive regulations on the basis of 'unproven science.' But the economy barely blinked, and ozone is beginning to recover (it's known to be a very slow process because the CFCs last a very long time in the atmosphere.) On the other hand, global warming is caused by human emissions of a (mostly) natural substances. It is currently being opposed on grounds that it would be crazy to proceed with ruinously expensive regulations on the basis of 'unproven science.' (Hmm, not as different as it sounded in my head.) CO2 concentrations are now nearly 40% higher than in pre-Industrial days, and still climbing. No very effective action has been taken.
Points of intersection:
Ozone is itself a greenhouse gas, so its depletion in the stratosphere has enhanced a cooling trend in that layer of the atmosphere. (Greenhouse warming of the lower atmosphere--the 'troposphere'--causes cooling higher up.) But the ozone-depleting action is favored at low temperatures, so ozone recovery is delayed a bit further by the cooling stratosphere.
The CERN scientist has said that cosmic radiation may account for as little as half and as almost all of the warming. Funny how the left is always accusing the right of ignoring "science" but it seems the left are the ones doing the ignoring. For the left there is nothing to debate on warming, it's "common sense" that it's all man made. Yeah, right!
The CERN scientist said that in 1998, not in connection with the study that we're currently discussing.
And as a result of his research has he taken that statement back?
We have to be very careful in implying every weather event is a result if warming or even that warming itself is a bad thing. The earth was warmer before and our weather records are a very small part of man's existence and certainly not enough to make sweeping conclusions that could have devasting effects on our lives.
http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-denv … redirect=1
No, but he hasn't proven it either, and contrary to what was implied in Solomon's editorial, the experiment we're currently discussing didn't even definitively prove that cosmic rays could affect cloud seeding (since they failed to produce anything large enough to actually seed clouds), let alone prove that cloud seeding by cosmic rays (or rather the lack thereof) is what's causing the warming.
Which "CERN scientist" are you referring to? The actual study that just came out did not reach any conclusions about climate. And if you are referring to Dr. Svensmark, who has expressed skepticism toward the mainstream science in the past, he is not an author on the current paper.
Far from 'ignoring' this paper, I've read up on it and try my best to understand it.
Yeah thanks I diffently have the two confused. Thanks for the information.
By the way I am still a registered Republican lady. Your vial assumption so wrong. Maybe you should invest in a little common sense as well, it might do you some good.
I am still of the opinion that we need to conserve. The great Theodore Roosevelt, Republican and avid outdoors man, even recognized the need to begin preserving by means of conservation.
Hello everyone, I’m new to the Hub so I’m putting my 2 cents onto the last post.
I agree that conservation is one of the keys needed to solve the global warming puzzle. The closest our (U.S.) environment has come to a defender as grand as Theodore Roosevelt is Chad Pagracke, but that isn't the issue. (I may have spelled Chad’s last name wrong.)
I think that it is an insult to the intelligence of any reasonable person to disavow any knowledge that has been documented on this subject, unless it is just outright ridiculous. (The “Whale Fart Theory” springs to mind at this point.)
A major problem with the "Great Global Warming Debate" is that there are too many people with far too much influence that don't understand how it all works, and just as many who do and don’t care.
My understanding of the situation is a compilation of scientific evidence, and media conjecture. The problem with the scientific side is that science contradicts itself. “Are you going with the cosmic, or the environmental side,” is not a question that can be answered so simply, the two are linked. It is true the cosmic rays that penetrate Earth’s protective layer contribute to our varying temperature levels, but it is also true that the Earth was able to maintain global temperatures within a very narrow range of 50-68F, the perfect temperature to support life, even though the sun’s energy output has risen 30-40% over the last 3.5 billion years.
It was in the 1970s that climate experts began to worry and documentation began. The most notable increases in global temperatures took place between the 1990s and the present. Science also places the blame for rising temperatures on human activities such as burning fossil fuels in both industry and transportation as problem one, combined with natural effects. Nature’s problem lies in the disruption of carbon cycling services, and pollution of the four life zones within the biosphere.
So much talks about Globe warming but how many countries are really taking the necessary actions to prevent further destruction to our planet?
It may be too little as profits are made from what that are destroying the world. I believe if every country takes a good look at the harm being done to the world and affecting all our future generations, it is time to be serious about stopping our actions of bringing the world to its destruction.
Nature, the Journal of Science, has just published a substantial study that concludes there is no anthropogenic global warming.
http://biggovernment.com/cstreet/2011/0 … ernment%29
Don't you get it? It's not science unless it supports the political agenda of the left.
Did you read the article or just the headline? It's talking about the same CERN cloud study that the Lawrence Solomon editorial habee originally posted was talking about, and it spreads the same lies about what the study's results were, only this guy can't even get the publishing journal's name right. You're really grasping at straws with this one, uncorrected.
Nope, just sending along a headline from the past 24 hours. I leave the straw grasping to others. I am quite comfortable with the idea that global warming doesn't exist and equally comfortable with the idea that it does. I am completely and totally unconcerned with its cause. I will fight to retain the high standard of living Americans enjoy and fight for others to enjoy the same.
Human beings are as natural a part of the world as trees and mountains. Our actions are the actions of a species seeking to expand and extend its dominance and spread its progeny. These are genetic imperatives. No species just dials down its nature because some of them get upset.
From your perspective let me make it even more clear. When we have soiled the world we will die. Look around, the world teems with life but where are the dinosaurs. Ecological cataclysms have happened before. Mass extinctions have happened before. The Earth and life on it will survive.
You may believe in the arrogant conceit of anthropogenic global warming - or are we calling it climate change to obscure the things that don't fit the theory - but how do you feed humanity with a horse draw plow and a windmill? How do you house, clothe, educate and treat the illnesses of humanity with the sunshine and good feelings and choruses of Kumbaya?
You have been, as all the other global warming advocates, the beneficiary of western culture and technology and now wish to deny that prosperity to those who are, only now, breaking the bonds of poverty. You would push them back into hunger and privation because CO2 is bad.
Bring on the bad.
Seems to me that you are unwilling to make the slightest sacrifice now in order to provide some insurance against disaster for our children and grand children and great grand children. Use up the carbon without investing in alternative, green energy sources and don't worry about future disruptions due to the earth overheating.
What assurance against disaster. Tragedy is built into the world. What assurance is it for our children to bankrupt them before they are born. The end of the carbon economy without a fully grown substitute is to damn them to hunger and poverty. A compelled economic change is a change toward disaster.
Global warming is just the latest excuse by the elitist liberal to force upon everyone else a system that is already a failure. If you are global warming advocate you would doom them to hunger and darkness.
How do you provide for all the people of the world with a horse and carriage economy. Isn't much of the world already hungry because they are low carbon consumption economies.
You believe, and I don't know why, that global warming is inherently bad. Wow, big advocates of change afraid that improving the global temperature is a bad thing. A rise in temperatures means more food production not less. It means fewer deaths because of the hardship of winter. It means more fresh water. I don't see the down side.
I do however clearly recognize the down side of destroying the carbon economy. That would shorten lives and starve children. Good plan. There is too much human pollution on the planet anyway.
The world would be much better if American children never grew up because Americans are so wasteful. Bangladeshis, however, are much better users of resources. Perhaps you should get your children and grandchildren used to lives of privation now since that is the future you want for them.
"You believe, and I don't know why, that global warming is inherently bad. Wow, big advocates of change afraid that improving the global temperature is a bad thing. A rise in temperatures means more food production not less. It means fewer deaths because of the hardship of winter. It means more fresh water. I don't see the down side."
It's true that, depending on how warm the climate gets and how fast, that some areas are likely to benefit while others are affected unfavorably. You talk only about the costs of green energy, but you ignore the costs resulting from flooding coastal cities and areas, not to mention islands which are likely to disappear or become uninhabitable, drought and so forth which are likely to be considerable. You talk about more fresh water; however, I've read that the water supply for the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere in Asia are likely to be threatened by the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers which supply their water.
Water management is going to be one of the big challenges of climate change: both extreme drought and extreme precipitation events will become more common. And certain areas are highly likely to become much drier: Mexico and the American Southwest, the Mediterranean basin, and some parts of Africa (including the Horn which is suffering so intensely from drought right now, if I recall correctly.)
Between crops like rice, corn and soybeans running into hotter-than-optimum temps which reduce yields, and either too much or too little water in many places, agriculture will almost certainly become quite stressed, and food security reduced worldwide.
By the way, the Himalaya issue is true--Nepal is already having some water issues due to glacial retreat (as is California, for that matter.) However, the date for the loss of Himalayan glaciers was misstated in the last IPCC Working Group Two report--they said 2035, but 2350 would have been closer to the mark. An embarrassing gaffe that deniers tried to spin as a lie. (An actual lie would have been done much more undetectably, if you ask me.)
"You believe, and I don't know why, that global warming is inherently bad. A rise in temperatures means more food production not less."
A rise in temperatures will mean that some regions will have longer growing seasons, yes. It will also mean that some regions that are currently able to grow lots of food will see the amount of food they can grow dramatically reduced because it will get too hot. You don't seem to know much about farming or gardening - most food crops have ideal temperature ranges both below and above which they will not produce. For most, it's somewhere in the 70's or 80's. All plants start to produce poorly at temps of 95 and above, due to the breakdown of photosynthesis. With an average rise of 6-10 degrees predicted by 2100 across the continental US on the business-as-usual emissions scenario, most of the central and southern US would routinely lose crops to heat stress. And that's not even counting the increased risk of drought, floods, pests, and diseases with higher temps.
"It means fewer deaths because of the hardship of winter."
A rise in temps means more deaths due to heat stroke and similar heat-related causes, which are already much more likely to kill you in most of the developed world than hypothermia. Heat also exacerbates respiratory problems from air pollution, which already kill millions of people worldwide.
"It means more fresh water."
It means more rainfall in some regions and less in others. Unfortunately, current models suggest that for the most part, places that are already arid and semi-arid will get drier and places that are already wet will get wetter, with a few notable exceptions such as the Amazon rainforest, which is expected to turn into semi-arid scrubland.
Additionally, warmer temps mean that snowmelt in alpine regions will occur earlier and more quickly, leading to increased likelihood of damaging floods downstream in spring, and drought later in the year.
There are so many things wrong with those statements on so many levels. I don't even know where to begin, except to say; which America are you living in? The one I live in does not have much of a standard of living at all, unless you are somehow tied to oil, petrochemicals, or cotton. How would I use a plowhorse and windmill to house, clothe, feed, and treat the illnesses of humanity? With hemp (among other things); like our forefathers did.
Wow, really. I didn't realize people in your community live in unheated, unlighted caves without cable television, refridgerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers, two car garages, two cars, a fenced yard, paved streets, indoor plumbing, tons of books, magazines, cds, dvds, and especially, food. Clean water, clean air, medical care, vaccines, pets.
What do you imagine standard of living means as you type on your computer? What computer is available for a Bushman or Aborigini in the wild?
The point is you cannot feed the world with 19th century technology. The world population has been growing so rapidly because there is food, housing, medicine and clothing for so many as to not cause wide spread famine or war.
Populations grow to absorb surplus food. It is a natural cycle. If you eliminate the carbon economy you will starve millions, perhaps billions.
Apparently hemp has more uses than just for making rope. Why do you think they call it rope?
Actually the population "problem" could quite easily take care of itself anyway - if every country in the world were allowed to raise its standard of living to a level comparable to the US or Europe. If that were to happen then the birthrate would go right down. In fact, as the population ages, the main problem might well be one of under- not over population.
It's something that the scaremongers either don't know or don't tell you (probably the former).
Bravo, I love that answer. It is uncertainty that produces over population but most people don't quite understand that. You can squeeze the entire population in the world into the continental US with a population density lower than New Jersey. We are producing sufficient food for the world but the politics, distances and conditions make delivery difficult.
In other words, "I've got mine, so screw my grandkids." Nice.
I'm sorry that I can't be so cavalier about the future of the human species. You bring up the dinosaurs and other mass extinctions of the past without seeming to realize that they were killed by natural forces, and if anthropogenic global warming is true (as I obviously believe it is), then we will be the first species in the history of the planet (3.5 billion years of life) to knowingly and deliberately bring about its own destruction. For a species so convinced of its own intelligence that it named itself "wise" not once but twice, that's a pretty f****** stupid thing to do.
As for your ridiculous rant about choruses of Kumbaya, the average European has half the carbon footprint of the average American with a virtually identical (in some cases better) standard of living, so you're being deliberately obtuse when you act as though humanity's only choice is between American gas guzzler and Bangladeshi subsistence farmer. Additionally, you keep talking about how destroying the carbon economy without a viable alternative would "ruin" everybody, while at the same time taking every possible opportunity to oppose investment in cleaner and more sustainable alternatives, so frankly, it's your grandstanding and foot-dragging that will ruin America, not anything I have said or done. You're fooling yourself if you think that gas prices are going to go anywhere but up, and the sooner we invest in alternatives, the less our economy will be damaged by the inevitable oil crash.
"Knowing and deliberately" as if those aren't natural. The planet will survive and be so much cleaner 60 million years from now when the cockroaches or the ants run the planet. It would be so much better to let vast amounts of humanity die than to continue to pollute. Maybe it would be best if Americans just killed themselves. Besides there is a huge difference between those saintly Europeans(you know the ones who are destroying their own economies) represent a small portion of the world population compared to all those living in privation.
The fantasy of your wind mill powered world feeding farms will be awesome. I want a rainbow colored unicorn to work can you wish one of those up for me. It should be easy Rainbow Bright.
If you want to welcome the extinction of the human race with open arms, that's your prerogative. Personally, I'd like us to stick around with some degree of comfort and prosperity for at least a few hundred thousand more years.
Prosperity and comfort by what 13th century standards. As poverty increases so do populations. Substantial wind and solar power are a fantasy as are food replicators, and teleportation. So when you are scooping horse manure out of the street because the insects are spreading disease or you are carrying blocks of ice to your hovel because hot water requires burning carbon or your grandchild is dieing because the vaccine needed refrigeration and you just don't have the ration tickets for that you, tell me how wonderful the fantasy distopia of "green" energy is.
As I've said over and over, you can make substantial cuts in energy consumption with little or no affect on your quality of life.
For example, substantial savings can be achieved by measures such as improving insulation of residential and commercial buildings, using light-colored roofing materials instead of dark ones, and planting trees or shrubs so they shade air conditioning units.
Another simple example: candidate Obama was ridiculed for suggesting that if all Americans kept their tires properly inflated (currently more than 1 in 4 don't), we would save millions of barrels of oil annually, but the stats have been run repeatedly by different fact checkers and he was exactly right.
Reduce energy waste and we increase American energy independence, hasten our ability to switch to cleaner sources of energy, and conserve fossil fuels for the things we really need them for, instead of wasting them in ways that are easy and cost-effective to prevent. Improving energy efficiency can't reduce carbon emissions to the level we need to prevent catastrophic climate change by itself, but it can make a very good dent in the process, and if combined with clean energy, forest conservation/restoration, and soil building it would just about do the trick.
As laid out in my global warming solutions hub, we need about 10-15 "wedges" of emission reduction to get back down to 350ppm by 2100, with each wedge representing a decrease of 25 billion tons of CO2 emissions worldwide over the next 50 years. (We're currently at about 30 billion tons per year.) I suggest:
* 3 wedges of energy efficiency
* 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency
* 1 wedge of albedo change
* 3 wedges of concentrated solar power
* 1 wedge of solar photovoltaics
* 2 wedges of wind energy
* 1 wedge of geothermal, tidal/wave, and ocean thermal
* 2 wedges of forest conservation/restoration
* 1 wedge of soil building
To expand any one of these wedges to the level we need would take major effort, but with 9% unemployment, it's not like we have a shortage of labor. Jobs such as retrofitting existing buildings for improved energy efficiency, building wind farms, and planting trees have the added advantage of being extremely difficult to outsource.
Yes, exactly the point I was getting to. We are "knowingly and deliberately destroying ourselves" [excellent way to put it btw], in the pursuit of 'things' that we beleive cause others to perceive that we have this superior living standard.
The fact is that we are no longer considered a "superpower" among the world's nations any longer, and your energy plan there is just the kind of forward thinking that could put us back up there. Kudos to you, you've thought of the most efficient way to solve a lot of America's problems. When we do become the first species to destroy ourselves, I wonder who will accept the trophy on our behalf?
To get back to the original discussion which was Dr. Solomon's cloud seeding study, I'm not so sure if the question should be with the results but with the conditions under which the tests were performed. Controlled tests can be manipulated to give desired results...
Controlled tests can be manipulated to give desired results...
Astonishing. Computer models have been admittedly manipulated by controlling data and assumptions yet the accusation is that an actual, not virtual, experiment is called into doubt.
The East Anglia scandal demonstrates how tainted by personal agendas this entire pseudo-scientific endeavor has become.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … ge/4338343
The only thing certain is that there exists a divide between scientists as to the efficacy of climate change methodology, practice, reporting and theory. Not a solid enough basis to destroy an carbon based economy in favor of an economy based on things that are, by comparison with oil, ephemeral. Gasoline is a robust way to store energy. When you talk about replacing it with what? Wind, solar, nuclear?
You can fantasize about the utopian world that every 8th grader wishes were real but one thing is certain. The energy necessary to feed, house and cloth the billions of people comes from carbon. The VAST amounts of energy to build windmill, solar panels, nuke plants all comes from carbon. Your wind mill was not delivered by a battery powered truck. Your coffee didn't find its way to your cupboard blown there on the winds or spirited there by the sun. It came down a mountain on a truck, was processed and bagged in a factory powered by coal, natural gas,oil or nuclear energy. It was carried to the docks on a truck powered by carbon. The ship that brought it did not have sails on deck but diesel fuel in the engines.
Every aspect of life is permeated with petroleum. That will change when a reasonable substitute is found or governments do what they do best, force a change with implied violence or, more likely, actual violence.
Utopia here we come.
Dude, you're so blinded by what you think we're saying that you can't understand what we're actually saying.
Nobody in this thread is suggesting that the use of petroleum and other fossil fuels is pure evil and should be stopped forever tomorrow. We're arguing that we should replace fossil fuel energy with cleaner alternatives to the greatest degree possible (substantial where electricity generation is concerned, insignificant where liquid fuels are required), so that overall pollution can be reduced and fossil fuels, a precious and almost certainly finite resource, can be conserved for the functions they perform best, instead of stupidly wasted on functions that can be performed just as effectively by cleaner alternatives.
How would your utopia occur? How much force would be required to compel the significant distortions in the economy to satisfy your perfect vision for the world? How much carbon energy would be necessary to produce your utopia?
I am certain that you do not fully understand how much carbon energy must be burned to produce marginally useful technologies like ethanol fuel, wind and solar power. How will your windmills arrive at their final location?
This transformational fantasy is the problem. It took more than half a century for the internal combustion engine to reach a level of power and efficiency to replace the horse in all its uses.
Left to economic forces oil is likely to disappear as the core of the world economy with in the next 100 years - long before it runs out(far less likely than panicky liberals believe) to be replaced by an alternative energy selected in the market - the only reliable way to produce a real alternative.
Who's talking about force? I do support stricter building codes and higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, but my main focus is on investment - private AND public. Conservatives complain about the amount of government investment required to get green energy off the ground without admitting that every modern form of energy we use has benefited substantially (and continues to benefit) from government investment. Several, such as nuclear and large scale hydro, wouldn't even exist without government investment. There is no such thing as a free market where the energy sector is concerned, and never has been. Pretending otherwise is ignorant, hypocritical, or both.
Russia was recently hit by a heat wave/drought that decimated their grain production...
All the United States would need is a similar occurrence in our farming heartland...
What would the U.S. do if a third of its grain was destroyed?
Well massive starvation would solve so many ecological problems. There are too many people now, especially Americans, starvation would reduce pollution, green house gases, return vast tracts of land to nature and relieve population pressures on animal populations. It would free up precious resources currently being stolen from poor countries by rich ones and stop those rich countries from making war for oil. It would stop the dumping of bad products on poor countries and free them from the oppression exported by the United States.
I fail to see the down side of the death of America.
No....none of this would stop.... Poor people would go hungry...yes.. There would be more violence and crime...
Being an average American...the downside would be the decimation of my community and our way of life...
why is that bad? Americans are the spoiled rich of the world. Perhaps you Americans should be taken down a peg. Perhaps after Obama is done you will understand what the poor of the world go through because you Americans rob the world of oil and wealth so you can be fat, dumb and happy.
Fewer Americans would be so good for everyone.
I'd find 'the death of America' a serious downside, personally. Though I'm a Canadian citizen, I live in the US, and there is much good to be found in this country. Perhaps 'uncorrected' could try a little vision correction; I think most people, even quite anti-Americans, would hesitate to wax enthusiastic, as he has just done, about the death of 100 million people.
(Oh, and the consequent collapse of the world economic system, and the emergence of authoritarian China as the dominant world power. Can't forget those things, either.)
Anyway, what I really wanted to say is that it's worth watching the amazing drought and heatwave in Texas and Oklahoma. It's fully as exceptional as was the Russian heatwave, and will likely have a noticeable effect on the American food system this fall. It's also entirely in line with long-standing climate model predictions about where extreme drought is likely to be found in a warming world. (This doesn't mean that the drought couldn't have happened without global warming, just that it would be much less likely.) For more, Google "Texas state climatologist drought 2011."
If we do nothing, we'll see more of this as warming continues.
True, true, true ... too bad the earlier generations of Tea Baggers found comfort in discrediting the very kinds of socialism that all the world has come to enjoy. Now we can't even raise the issue without getting the feathers of regressivists puffed up with false pride.
by Will Apse4 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and...
by Tumbletree5 years ago
As an American, perhaps as a person on the planet today, it's very difficult to stay informed. If one makes the mistake of turning on the TV to watch the News, one realizes they're wasting their time soon enough....
by ThunderKeys4 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
here's a sensationalized Jessie Ventura "Conspiracy Theory" episode on climate change--its summation is not that climate change is not true, but that it is being used to make money for elitists around the...
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth...
by emievil7 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.