My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[questor]

If you want to lower co2 emissions, by all means talk to the Chinese and Indians. They have 10 times the population we do and will be

pumping out co2 far in excess of ours when they all get autos. In reading some of the articles in Freeztars link, I saw much acknowledgement of the population problem, but no solutions. The true solutions are probably too painful to discuss. Humanity will not control population, but nature surely will.

[Zythryn]

Well, since I have no valid input with the Chinese or Indian governments, and I do ours, I think it is more constructive to start here;)

[Zythryn]

So Questor, you raised the questions below. Do you have any thoughts on the answers I offered?

So let's assume the human factor is indeed contributing to or is the major cause of global warming, what is the remedy?

1. Cut down on emissions by burning less fossil fuels? What would this do to the world economy? How do we force India and China ( non-signers of the Kyoto Treaty ) to cut back? They will quickly surpass the US in carbon emissions.

2. Must America become a totally agrarian nation? Only farms, no factories?

Don't forget, the rest of the world wants it's day in the sun.

3. America goes totally green, uses wind, solar, nuclear while the rest of the world uses up the remaining fossil fuel.

We don't control the world and in the next 25 years we will probably lose whatever influence we now possess.

The best solution would be for the world to reduce it's population. There are now 6 billion people in the world, all using oxygen, producing CO2, human waste, plastics, water, et cetera.

 

 

While I agree world population is a huge factor, without a plan to reduce it, other solutions that can be implimented are necessary.

How do you answer your own #2? Do you believe that would be necessary?

[REASON]

If you want to lower co2 emissions, by all means talk to the Chinese and Indians.

 

Does this mean we don't have to change unless they do? :eek_big: Currently, the United States is by far the biggest contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gases. As the technological and moral leader of the world, for which we claim to be, doesn't it make sense that we should be leading the way in the development of alternative energy solutions that reduce greenhouse gases? Or maybe we should just resist and let others take the lead so we don't have to get off our fat asses and do anything.

 

We don't control the Chinese and the Indians, but we are responsible for our own policies and behavior. If it is our intention to attempt to motivate them to change their poluting practices, our case would be far more legitimate if we were setting the right example in the first place. Why would anyone listen to us when we refuse to acknowledge our contribution to the problem and are unwilling to change our ways?

 

Blaming someone else never solves anything.

[Eclipse Now]

It's not just that the USA needs to act first to set the Global Warming example, it's the fact that the USA is importing so much oil now at such high prices that it will be bankrupt as a result if it doesn't learn how to become more energy independent. A big move to local renewable energy will guarantee energy independence, local jobs, economic growth, and security. As far as I know, no one has ever invaded another country for their wind or solar resources!

 

See the Pickens Plan (wiki). When an oil king starts spending $58 million promoting wind, you know change is in the air.

[freeztar]

MOD NOTE: It seems that we've drifted far off-topic. Questor, if you would like to start a thread in the Social Science forum about the immigrant discussion, then I will move over relavent posts from this thread. Otherwise, let's stick to the topic of this thread.

 

Moderation note: Several posts from this thread discussing illegal immigration have been moved to a new thread, 15695, because they were only distantly related to the thread’s subject of global warming

 

Now, back on topic...

 

Has anyone ever heard of dimethylsulfide (DMS)? Scientists are still unclear as to exactly how this gas is regulated in the environment. It seems quite important as this chemical quickly releases sulfur into the atmosphere which acts as a cloud seed, thus providing increased albedo.

 

Here's a great article on this little known climate influencer:

WHOI : Oceanus : DMS: The Climate Gas You've Never Heard Of

[Little Bang]

With our luck freez the rise in water temperatures will probably kill the algae that produce the DMS.

[freeztar]

Well, for our sake, I hope you're wrong little B.

 

I found it interesting that algae now play two known roles in regulating climate. They absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and also create these cloud seeders. Maybe once more is known about DMS, people will again consider the iron fertilization scheme.

[freeztar]

For those interested, the US Climate Change Science office just released a document that analyzes the different climate models and how well they represent changes. It's a hefty read and I haven't dug into it yet, but it looks like a good report.

 

Final Report, CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1: Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations

[Turtle]

For those interested, the US Climate Change Science office just released a document that analyzes the different climate models and how well they represent changes. It's a hefty read and I haven't dug into it yet, but it looks like a good report.

 

Final Report, CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1: Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations

 

Some tidbits from the Executive Summary section:

More important' date=' Chapter 4 includes an extensive discussion about radiative forcing of climate change and climate sensitivity. The response of

global mean temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide remains a useful measure of climate sensitivity. The equilibrium response—the response

expected after waiting long enough (many hundreds of years) for the system to reequilibrate—is the most commonly quoted measure. Remaining consistent for three decades, the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity obtained from models is roughly consistent with estimates from observations of recent and past climates. The canonical threefold range of uncertainty, 1.5 to 4.5°C, has

evolved very slowly. The lower limit has been nearly unchanged over time, with very few recent models below 2°. Difficulties in simulating Earth’s clouds and their response to climate change are the fundamental reasons preventing

a reduction in this range in model-generated climate sensitivity.

...

Climate model simulation of precipitation has improved over time but is still problematic. Correlation between models and observations is 50

to 60% for seasonal means on scales of a few hundred kilometers. Comparing simulated and observed latitude-longitude precipitation maps reveals similarity of magnitudes and patterns in most regions of the globe, with the most striking disagreements occurring in the tropics. In most models, the appearance of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone of cloudiness and rainfall

in the equatorial Pacific is distorted, and rainfall in the Amazon Basin is substantially underestimated. These errors may prove consequential

for a number of model predictions, such as forest uptake of atmospheric CO2.[/quote']

 

This seems in line with many of my objections to the modeling, as well as this specific case still under study: >> UAHuntsville News

 

I'm sure we'll get it right in time. :shrug:

[Moontanman]

Moderation note: Responses to this post have been moved to “15716”, because they’re not about questioning whether global warming is occurring, but about new scientific data.

 

Hey guys, has anyone read the report of the fossils that show Antarctica to have been much warmer and wetter 14.1 million years ago? It cooled down very fast and stayed that way. Does this have any bearing on the theory that the global set point should be colder rather than warmer?

[Little Bang]

Has anyone read this?

 

Ocean 'dead zones' becoming global problem - CNN.com

[SKBTE]

Moyself is delluding themself.

 

Yes, the natrual environment RECYCLES 120-150 billion tons (Gt) of CO2 each year into and out of the atmosphere to/from the plants and oceans. The key word is RECYCLES. Human activities, predominently the burning os fossil fuels ADDS more new CO2 into the siytem then there was in the past. Without humans, natural systems are in balance and have maintained an equilibrium balance of atmospheric carbon content vs Biosphere carbon content for many, many hundreds of thousands of years. The wrench that humans throw into the works in the past 150-160 years by burning 300 million year old fossil carbon and emitting 6-8 billion tons per year of previously not present CO2 into the atmosphere does have an effect.

 

Since humans have been ADDing fossil carbon based CO2 into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil carboin fuels, like coal, oil, and natural gas, starting in earnest circa 1850, the concentration of CO2 has risen steadily from about ~250 ppm (parts per million) to 384 ppm in 2007.

 

There is a formula for how increases in CO2 effect global average temperatures. This formula has correctly predicted global annual average temperatures and the rise in global annual average temperatures, since when records of both CO2 concentration and temperature have been measured. It will accurately predict temperatures changes comensurate with atmospheric CO2 concentration in the future as well.

 

The formula is ...

 

delta F (change in Fahrenheit temp) = 5.73 * ln (C/C0)

 

5.73 times the natrual log of the ratio of current CO2 concentration © over past concentration (C0).

 

This is a smooth, continuous function which only accounts for changes in CO2 concentration. There are other factors, though, effects from other green hous gases (GHG), etc., which can and do effect changes in global anuual average temperature, but by far the concentration of CO2 is the most prominent effect.

 

Non-human natural processes HAVE NOT increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations at an equivalent rate to present human processes in at least 20,000 years, perhaps longer. Non-human processes DO NOT currently increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by ~35% every century.

Only humans do that.

 

There is very little doubt about the validity of the Theory of Anthopogenic Global Warming (AGW) in the late second millenium AD. THousands of qualified climate scientists have heloed to develop this theory and they have independently supported one anothers work.

 

There are but a handful of public nay-sayers in the world, like Dr. Gray from Colorado. He does have a political agenda and he lacks the CV to actually say anything meaningful about climate. Most of the thousands qualified, experienced, and vetted climate scientists that contributed to the findings of the IPCC do not have any political agenda and they do certainly have the qualifications and data to back up everything they say.

[Michaelangelica]

Hi everybody,

 

I consider myself to be a life-long environmentalist. I have, in my own small ways, worked against aerosols, acid rain, general pollution, and of late Co2/Global Warming.

 

As a dad and a science-oriented person, I have always been able to logically explain scientific things to my kids. I have explained how optics work via experiments, illustrated Darwinian evolution via fossil records, I've mixed my baking soda and vinegar a dozen times.

 

To the point, I have not been able to explain man-made global warming to my eldest, 10 year old daughter. I simply can't find a shred of basic evidence that shows that carbon dioxide levels have any effect on how warm our planet is. I'm getting a little desperate.

 

So, what am I missing?

Here are some resources that might help

Most adults don't "get" it, so I can understand kids having problems

Making Climate Hot (K-12 Education Outreach Program)

 

Truth and Consequences: Teaching Global Warming Doesn't Have to Spell 'Doom' | Edutopia

 

Edutopia's Green Teacher's Resources | Edutopia

 

These sites were just posted on the

[email protected],

Forum, you might like to join in?

Bio char/ Terra preta gives me hope we can solve this problem

[Michaelangelica]

n May this year, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.

 

Exxon's decision comes after a shareholder revolt by members of the Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the oil giant to take climate change more seriously.

. . .

The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes that house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005 Exxon distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change". It asked Exxon to stop the funding and its protests helped force Exxon's recent retreat.

. . .

n Australia, the main group that tries to undermine the science of global warming is the Lavoisier Group. It maintains a website with links to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (over $2 million from Exxon), Science and Environmental Policy Project ($20,000) and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide (at least $100,000).

Who is behind climate change deniers? | watoday.com.au

[Eclipse Now]

Another regular piece of evidence in the denial lobby's PR campaign is the "Oregon Petition". This urges the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol and claims there is "no convincing scientific evidence" for global warming. It is said to be signed by 31,000 graduates, most of whom appear to have nothing to do with climate science.

 

Check out a sample of the supposed 'signatures' collected by Global Warming Petition Project and see whether it does not remind you of an Amway network system! What a rigorous signing system ;), verified by their very own 'volunteers'. :)

 

This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail.

 

Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project.

 

A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way.

 

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list.

[freeztar]

 

I do believe that's the first time I've heard the claims that GHG regulation will harm the environment and hinder science. :)

 

I also like how they claim that there is substantial scientific evidence that increased CO2 is beneficial to plant and animal communities. I can only suppose they came to this conclusion from looking at past warm climates and correlating that with species abundance and diversity. What everyone who makes this claim fails to realize is that it is the rate of warming that is not beneficial. Whole habitats are being wiped out at a pace that has not been seen before. I'd like to see the "substantial scientific evidence" that shows why massive biodiversity loss is beneficial to the "natural plant and animal environments on the Earth". ;)