Global Warming: Is The Debate Over?

[chuck kottke]

While it may be too late to affect or reverse all the impacts we are having on the global climate systems, we can mitigate, slow or reduce some of the impacts. The "side-benefits" of doing so include reduced warfare over energy sources, less chances of oil spills, less damage to water quality from coal mining, less bad-air days in cities, less ozone-smog, and less political meddling by power bases that have control of energy resources.;)

[dkizzy]

EVERYONE talks about "the melting ice-caps"

The thing is, we only really hear about it in the summer, when the arctic is exposed to sunlight for six consecutive months.

For some reason we never seem to hear about how all the water re-freezes in the winter when the it's dark for six months.

 

Just throwing that out there.

[Black Rose]

Instead of looking at a snapshot (one year here, one year there) look at the long term record, going back thousands of years, and see what happened when, and why. Of course, there are other factors as well. Since there is a great deal of very small soot particles in the atmosphere, there is a lot more scattered light, which seems to be offsetting the effects of warming due to greenhouse gases. So, if we clean up our emissions as we have been doing, then the slow warming trend may actually begin to accelerate, even as we taper off our levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Add to that, the methane from thawing permafrost, and there you have it - accelerated global warming!

I'm not one to side with the alarmists (Lovelock comes to mind), as they want us all to move to Greenland, and wait for it all to melt! (they think the rest of the planet will be uninhabitable..). But given the risks we are running, and the combined risks of all the attendant processes required to obtain all that oil, coal, and gas, then I'm inclined to press for incentives to drastically reduce global dependence on fossil fuels, and boost the economy using more intelligent means, such as efficiency measures and quality-of-life measures (the real economic indicator).;)

 

Don't look back over thousands of years, look back over millions of years.

[chuck kottke]

Yes! Of course, going back millions of years entails those large single events, such as massive asteroid or comet collisions, huge volcanic eruptions, etc.. Perhaps the best we can do for now is to avoid the present dangers, and figure out which steps in the long-term to take to avoid or minimize those other disasters! (true - frames of time measured in millions of years tells us more on the broader scale..)

I had wondered how well we were at calculating mass balance on the planet a few years back - when one thinks of it, the oil often seeps to the surface, gets consumed by bacteria, or catches on fire from lightning. Coal the same as well, long before mankind became a significant, if inadvertent, controller of the carbon balance.:) And we have been affecting weather long before that, through agriculture - back tens of thousands of years as well..

[brandon313]

EVERYONE talks about "the melting ice-caps"

The thing is, we only really hear about it in the summer, when the arctic is exposed to sunlight for six consecutive months.

For some reason we never seem to hear about how all the water re-freezes in the winter when the it's dark for six months.

 

Just throwing that out there.

 

 

unfortunately the ice caps ARE melting and nobody can deny that, not even the scientists who dont believe in global warming...look at ice charts from the 1970s and look at them now, you will be amazed how little ice is left. Its being predicted that the arctic seas may cease to completely freeze over in the near future, which would absolutely destroy the polar bear.....not a believer in global warming, but it is undenyable that the ice is melting, and fast.

[guyy]

Oh boy, it's the old "global warming is bogus/a hoax/etc." thing again...I'd better keep this short because otherwise it will be very, very long.

 

Main thing is, the Earth's temperature has been rising more quickly in the past few decades than in any other period recorded in the tens of thousands of years of ice core data. Don't try to tell me there's not something odd about that. And the start of this sudden increase matches up perfectly with the Industrial Revolution; hard to believe that's a coincidence.

 

Higher temperatures mean there's more energy in the atmosphere, probably causing more hurricanes and other storms; the sudden change in energy can also mess up established systems, shuffling around the distriubution of rain, which is obviously bad for farming and water collecting (this has already happened in some places). We can't predict exactly what may happen, but sudden, random change is usually bad.

 

As for this:

 

Gore's movies have been proven by scientist doing research to be mostly false. I implore people to look up the science and not to be a victim of the stupid media.

 

Watch what scientist have to say

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zbzc8&feature=related

 

Not to sound like I'm bragging, but I went to a showing of Gore's movie at NASA a while back, where they had a bunch of climate scientists to criticize it and let the audience ask questions about it. Pretty much the only complaint they had was that he sometimes glossed over things in his graphs that weren't really relevant anyway. None of them questioned the main points. And there were no "stupid media" people involved there, as far as I know.

 

There's plenty of pseudoscience in this debate, but most of it's on the "no global warming" side; they always ignore the main data or distort it, attack things that sound far more important than they really are, and so on. Go to a moon hoax site; their arguments are surprisingly convincing, until you hear the scientific counterarguments that tear them to shreds. Don't ignore the vast majority of scientists just because a few of them are really persuasive.

 

...Sorry if that was rantlike, but I'm getting really tired of seeing stuff like this.

[dkizzy]

guyy, it seems you have been misinformed.

 

would you like some solid science that shows global warming is not happening?

google John Coleman Global Warming

 

believe me, this is all 100% true evidence.

[dkizzy]

here's a link:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/13681217.html

[Black Rose]

Global Warming is happening, but humans are only playing a small part in the natural process

[a_face_of_light]

I hope it's over the whole thing just bores me now plus I hate the amount of people who are now buying Toyota Priuses with the view that thier saving the world.

[Black Rose]

I hope it's over the whole thing just bores me now plus I hate the amount of people who are now buying Toyota Priuses with the view that thier saving the world.

 

Where in fact they are making the problem worse :lol:

[Fixed]

Did anybody watch Burn Up on BBC2? Rupert Penry-Jones (Adam from Spooks) played one of the main characters. I thought it was really good. I don't know how accurate the science was, but it seemed to highlight the problems of climate change in a way that didn't come across as cheesy or patronising. I know it was only a TV show and they were all actors, but it was nice to actually see people that give a s**t about the enviornment and the length's they'd go to make a difference.

[luckycharms2987]

I believe that global warming is happening. However, I dont believe that only humans are to blame, but we have some part in it.I took a geology class in college and we watched a recent video of geologist talking about the icecaps and whatnot. Today the icecaps in the summer are melting much faster, therefor do not freeze up in time by the winter.And people cant deny how much the water has risen and how much the ice has melted in the last few years. I dont know to me it seems odd.

 

Even if you dont believe in global warming, its not gonna do anyone harm if people begin to recycle:)

Everyone has different opinions.

[chuck kottke]

Yes, Global Warming is real; it's still debatable as to how significant the human impact is, but there is no doubt we have an impact! The glaciers keep melting away - just ask anyone in the Himalayas, or downstream in the rest of India if they are concerned or not.

Perhaps it's just me, but it's the carbon balance that has been changed - taking a tremendous amount of locked carbon out of it's storage in the crust, and converting that to CO2 in short order has got to have an effect - and it's quite measurable, as the level of CO2 increases in correlation to our consumption of fossil fuels. Solutions are very attainable, with no loss of quality of life - it's just a matter of implementation. Vehicles are one significant, highly visible aspect, but consider the energy draw of the average home or business building. There are significant; nay, tremendous gains to be had just by improving the building envelopes, and the results are better for everyone.

Start with the low-hanging fruit, and take it from there!

[a_face_of_light]

Where in fact they are making the problem worse :lol:

 

I don't think I would be capable of liking anyone who drove a Prius, thier such a stupid over hyped piece of junk, plus I'm sure I read recently the enviromental damage of thier manufacture makes them one of the worst polluting cars made.

[Black Rose]

That's true

[chuck kottke]

Well, I am not into bashing people who drive Priuses, since at least they are trying to find something in the market that gets them around, and saves a ton of gas. Take the average lunatic American, for instance. Here, it's 15,000 miles driven per driver per year, and driving an SUV that gets 15 MPG (US gallons; like the ones the milk comes in:P) takes an enormous 1,000 gallons of gasoline each year. In ten years, 10,000 gallons! Now, if the Prius gets at least 45 MPG, then that figure drops to 3,333 gallons, saving 6,666 gallons of fuel. Multiply that by 150 million, and it would be quite substantial!

So you say, it still burns gasoline (true), and it's unclean to manufacture? But, it does appear to be a step in the right direction. The next generation of autos should get upwards of 120 MPG, and at that rate, fueling them with biofuels made with newer, highly efficient processes could fill part of the market demand for auto energy. The other share of the market going to newer technology electrics and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, compressed air machines, and an assortment of other propulsion systems.

Yes, I've worked in plants making auto parts, and I can attest to the unhealthy side of things - a lot of very nasty toxic chemicals, and workers getting sick from fumes, etc. Greener plastics and finishes are on the way, so things are getting better. What we could use now is an honest government to put the "externalities" into the equation.

[a_face_of_light]

Well, I am not into bashing people who drive Priuses, since at least they are trying to find something in the market that gets them around, and saves a ton of gas. Take the average lunatic American, for instance. Here, it's 15,000 miles driven per driver per year, and driving an SUV that gets 15 MPG (US gallons; like the ones the milk comes in:P) takes an enormous 1,000 gallons of gasoline each year. In ten years, 10,000 gallons! Now, if the Prius gets at least 45 MPG, then that figure drops to 3,333 gallons, saving 6,666 gallons of fuel. Multiply that by 150 million, and it would be quite substantial!

So you say, it still burns gasoline (true), and it's unclean to manufacture? But, it does appear to be a step in the right direction. The next generation of autos should get upwards of 120 MPG, and at that rate, fueling them with biofuels made with newer, highly efficient processes could fill part of the market demand for auto energy. The other share of the market going to newer technology electrics and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, compressed air machines, and an assortment of other propulsion systems.

Yes, I've worked in plants making auto parts, and I can attest to the unhealthy side of things - a lot of very nasty toxic chemicals, and workers getting sick from fumes, etc. Greener plastics and finishes are on the way, so things are getting better. What we could use now is an honest government to put the "externalities" into the equation.

 

You have to admit though it's an ugly, slow eco statement, I would be all for owning a hybrid if it was actually a decent car, the Prius falls very short of this, and hey maybe some people like thier SUVS:embarassed:

I agree entirely with you about the need for alternatives to oil powered cars, I think the trouble will be with the world deciding on what fuel will be the standard like gasoline/diesel is today, I would be more in favour of the hydrogen route as Bio fuels need huge areas of crop space to be grown which could be used for food, something that we will need all we can get of with a booming population and peak oil looming on the horizon, I've painted a horrible picture of the future now:cry:

[Matter-Eater Lad]

The number grows each year of scientist speaking out on global warming. I've yet to see any good science to prove man has caused it.

 

When scientist most the time have to falsify or mess with the tests to make the results fit their personal beliefs like in most global warmest studies, i know there is a major problem coming.

 

Earth is getting warmer, but no science has proven were causing it, when most studies show the solar system plays more of a role in that area then man.

 

Hell CO2 isn't even proven to be bad for the environment...

 

The fact is if you look at history and climate change, the answer is clear. Like C02 rising and temperature falling and vise versa. It's easy to see what the truth is when science is used.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Oh boy, it's the old "global warming is bogus/a hoax/etc." thing again...I'd better keep this short because otherwise it will be very, very long.

 

Main thing is, the Earth's temperature has been rising more quickly in the past few decades than in any other period recorded in the tens of thousands of years of ice core data. Don't try to tell me there's not something odd about that. And the start of this sudden increase matches up perfectly with the Industrial Revolution; hard to believe that's a coincidence.

 

Higher temperatures mean there's more energy in the atmosphere, probably causing more hurricanes and other storms; the sudden change in energy can also mess up established systems, shuffling around the distriubution of rain, which is obviously bad for farming and water collecting (this has already happened in some places). We can't predict exactly what may happen, but sudden, random change is usually bad.

 

As for this:

 

 

 

Not to sound like I'm bragging, but I went to a showing of Gore's movie at NASA a while back, where they had a bunch of climate scientists to criticize it and let the audience ask questions about it. Pretty much the only complaint they had was that he sometimes glossed over things in his graphs that weren't really relevant anyway. None of them questioned the main points. And there were no "stupid media" people involved there, as far as I know.

 

There's plenty of pseudoscience in this debate, but most of it's on the "no global warming" side; they always ignore the main data or distort it, attack things that sound far more important than they really are, and so on. Go to a moon hoax site; their arguments are surprisingly convincing, until you hear the scientific counterarguments that tear them to shreds. Don't ignore the vast majority of scientists just because a few of them are really persuasive.

 

...Sorry if that was rantlike, but I'm getting really tired of seeing stuff like this.

 

THe vast majority do not support global warming anymore. Most are speaking out but in the PC culture they aren't given a mike, just the scientist who are helping the government gain more power and money.

[chuck kottke]

Hmm.. Priuses are ugly and slow? Well, I suppose the colors are rather bland!:laugh3: If it's pickup isn't up to snuff, then we ought to be looking at more power-packing capacitors to allow for a faster acceleration. Unfortunately, one trade off of vehicles is to get better mileage, they generally have to have a lower profile. However, some wind tunnel tests on autos designed to look and mimic the shape of a boxfish, has been looking quite promising, so perhaps the SUV could be re-invented with this natural shape that offers an excellent slip-stream. Lots to learn from nature! I think SUV's are appealing because they offer a higher-up view, and a "sense of command of the terrain" not offered by low-slung cars, as well as large interiors. But, my feeling is that living rooms are where the space is, and riding high shouldn't come at a cost to the planet's ecological future.. I suppose anything's possible if we put our minds to it, so you might have to settle for an auto that looks more like a fish.:P

 

 

 

All fringe thinking aside, I think it's pretty clear that by removing huge quantities of stored carbon from the crust (coal, oil, gas, shale) and burning this carbon store in short order, allowing it to enter the biotic sphere of water, air, and organic matter.. it's bound to have an effect. Perhaps not quite the precision forecasting yet, but it's changing the Earth's "balance" no doubt. According to what I've been reading in Scientific American, it may be actually covering over a natural cooling trend; So, perhaps not necessarily all bad, if we could meter down the levels a bit. If the North Atlantic conveyor quits, it could disrupt much of the globe's weather, making Europe cooler as a result! Either way, we seem to be inducing the warming trend, which while offsetting a cooling trend that could have resulted in another ice age, is in the immediate causing ice to melt, seas to rise, etc.

[luckycharms2987]

Either way, we seem to be inducing the warming trend, which while offsetting a cooling trend that could have resulted in another ice age, is in the immediate causing ice to melt, seas to rise, etc.

 

Agree with you on this 100%. Since the ice is melting at a much faster rate than usual, it does not have time to refreeze itself during the winter months(I think thats correct)

[chuck kottke]

Yes!! It does make sense in terms of feed-back loops. Complex feed-back loops, but definitely as things warm and melt, more dark surfaces are exposed, and that accelerates the process. Bil McKibben's proposal to reduce our CO2 levels to 350 PPM makes sense to me, since this level reduces the acceleration rate, and it isn't all that hard to drop from some odd 387 PPM down to 350 PPM in the atmosphere.

While I do realize there is an incentive to create false fronts, and use them to one's advantage (which does happen in Scientific circles, as well as Business circles from time to time), often the biggest stumbling blocks to real progress come in the form of set ideas about how things work. At our present stage of research on the matter, we do have ample data to view, and can use a great deal more to get a better picture. I favor a cautious approach, as the stakes are high even if we haven't gotten it all figured out yet, and we can only improve our quality of life by making the changes necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's win-win really, and with much less hazards on other fronts as well..

If you're interested, McKibben's group has a group working on it. http://www.350.org/en/about