Current events tell us that nothing is going to happen, whether global warming is a problem or not, until the paint is blistering off the cars.

Why?  Look at the current situation.  Gas costs $4 +/- in the USA and you have truckers striking worldwide about fuel costs, consumers writing irate letters to politicians, and plans announced to suspend decades-old prohibitions against offshore drilling (and ANWAR soon to follow, no doubt).

What does this tell us?  Well, any plan to limit greenhouse-gas emissions depends upon making it prohibatively expensive to burn fossil fuels.  So, either you tax the people directly by adding a surcharge on gasoline, or you tax them indirectly with "Carbon Credits", etc.

What have we learned?  Nobody is going to pass a bill to increase energy costs until the peril - if it exists - is so great that the last sceptic throws in the towel.  Global warming is the political equivalent of Social Security.  Everyone acknowledges that it may be a problem.  However, any potential solution will be demolished by opportunists from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

So, what can we hope for? Either a private enterprise breakthrough on cheap, renewable energy.  (The public sector cannot answer this challenge.  If $1bn in tax revenue were pledged towards this, it would be Shanghai'd by corn-state politicians towards corn-based ethanol.) Or, we can hope that the global warming hub-bub is as misplaced as the "new ice age" hub-bub of the 70's.

Sorry to be a cynic.

I read about climate change whenever I get a chance.

I recently have been reading Dr Roy Spencer's book called Climate Confusion. It covers the subject well. Dr Spencer says that the Earth is probably in a natural state of warming and that CO2 emissions contribute very little if any.

He also says that:

1) the vast majority of scientific writings on the subject are flawed, based on flawed science, and most not even written by climate scientists and

2) we really don't know how to measure the temperature of the Earth since at any given time some places are warm and some not-so-warm, all are constantly changing, and we can't measure every place on the planet at once.

I haven't read anybody address what I think is a very important point - that the Al Gore model for global warming is a theory developed before the age of satellites and computers by a scientist now deceased.

  JustADude--

   Interesting perspectives.  I would recommend that you take an intro level statistics course or read a good textbook on statistics.   I also suggest you take and Earth and/or environmental science course as well.  It might be helpful if you read the summary report (2007) from the IPCC.

   It might also be appropriate to read up on who supports the work of scientists you refer to.  The oil and energy industry is pushing very hard against strong headwinds.  A pivotal point  in the strategy is to buy scientists to push the line that global warming and, more to the point,  that anthropic sources of warming are a myth.  Perhaps you could think of a reason or two why this might be advantageous.  Or, if not,  maybe someone could suggest it to you.

   Also, the current model of global climate change is really an aggregate of many hundreds of scientific teams' work, both in empirical measurement and in modeling various facets of the problem.  Al Gore is a politican who was influenced by a scientists who did early work on the subject using some basic parameters--parameters that are still relevant today, but incomplete.  Al Gore has no 'model'.

  It is difficult to free ourselves from our primal group loyalties and prejudices.  Ultimately, it will be humanity's inability to rise above emotion and embrace reason that will doom it, either through war, or population and industry -caused collapse.   Perhaps we could all search ourselves and ask if we, too, are not contributing in our own small, small, ways to a dim future for our descendants, and ask whether it was really worth it.

  Personally, I'd much rather be wrong and survive, but I acknowledge that I am in a minority.

The Gulf Stream- from another thread... 

 The issue of the gulf stream was brought up in "An Inconvienient Truth", and summarized quite well.  The basic idea is that the gulf stream acts like a heat pump, with the temperature differential driving this tremendous current both upward and southward into the larger oceanic system.  Should the temp differential decrease, the power of this pump will greatly diminish, and deny Europe significant heat brought with the stream, resulting in severe temperature drops.  This is a case of a 'tipping point' that breaks with incremental changes and produces a large catastrophic anomoly.

  A contributing factor of this change would be the melting polar ice cap, with significant evidence indicating human produced GHG contributing to the problem (see IPCC report).  Also, the general, demonstrated heating of the oceans will produce alterations in the current system on its own, largely unpredictable due to the complexity of the system.

cyberpatzer, I am well versed in statistics. I took many classes in stats in college, both undergrad and in graduate school. Also I have read the IPCC report that you mention.

cyberpatzer:

Al Gore is a politican who was influenced by a scientists who did early work on the subject using some basic parameters--parameters that are still relevant today, but incomplete.  Al Gore has no 'model'.

cyberpatzer, you are mistaken there. Al Gore hangs his hat on the Richard Revelle model from the late 1950's. It is in his book. The Revelle model is the Gore model. It is old and out-of-date, but it is the Gore model.

Then what is the difficulty here?

  I think (Edited by Moderator - conjectured statement)   

If you 'd just say something like, "Nothing that is good or true can come out of the mouth of that Al Gore",  (edited by moderator, for content) then we could eliminate all this phoney 'problem with global warming' junk and  just let it be.

   2,500 scientists beat 10, or 100 for that matter.  Science is done by consensus, where irrefutable proof is absent (which is often concerning very complex issues.).  Consensus says you are not just wrong, but dangerously wrong. 

  Status quo thinking scares the bejezus out of me.  The costs of being wrong are TOO HIGH for political nonsense.

  Even John McCain acknowledges a problem.  John McCain!

  In almost every other area, the costs are acceptable--economic collapse (it will bounce back), war (wars end),  health care (sometimes dead is better...)--but this is TOO big to take a chance.  At least, I don't want to look my child and grandchildren in the eyes 10 or 20 years from now and NOT be able to tell him that I did everything I could... 

  Call me a crazy humanitarian, but I wouldn't want to look your children in the eyes and be unable to say the same--no matter what my politics.  I'd rather pave over the Mideast than allow the earth to become toxic--I'll concede anything.  Just don't do it.  Please.

  I'm begging you.  Don't do this thing.

JustADude, to answer your question in the other thread:

Yes, Dr Walaszkovits did refer to many stats on GHG and their contribution to the warming. CO2 alone is not the problem. He mentioned that 20+ % of GHG emission is methane. Believe it or not, the world houses 22 Billion (!) cows - all of them produce an average 150 to 600 liters (under normal pressure) of methane per day!!! In Dr Walaszkovitz' words: "If you want do do something to fight global warming - stop eating steaks, cheese and don't drink milk..." That remark came, of course, with a big . Very recent research in Britain showed that old garbage dumps are a source of enormous amounts of GHGs.

One dangerous unknown factor is methane stored in the deep sea as well as in perma-frost regions of Russia and Canada. Melting grounds in those areas will eventually release huge amounts of methane, which is a much more potent GHG than CO2. The deep sea methane might not reach the surface until 100 years from now. That's because it will take that long for the surface heat to reach the deep sea waters.

Our world has seen rapid climate changes before - caused by smaller amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere than nowadays. We may not see the effects of climate change clearly for another two decades but, the signs are all over. The rising sea level is a hardcore indicator - 30cm (12 inches) in 150 years. What more of evidence do we need? Sea levels are predicted to rise by 1-3 meters over the next 100 years - until the system tips and a new ice age comes on. Mankind will survive both - the question mark is on the price tag...

Our situation now is comparable to a period after the end of the previous ice age. The climate did then flip back and forward for many centuries until it stabilised some 8000 yrs ago.

A very good book on climate change and its history is "The Weathermakers. The History and Impact of Climate Change" by the Australian scientist Tim Flannery (2005). Highly recommended!

Would somebody please tell me what to expect?  Should I expect another ice age?  Should I expect world-wide drought?  Or super storms and floods?  Read through the global warming rhetoric and you hear all of this and much more.  I don't understand why people always seem to need some looming disaster.  I understand why people (politicians, media, hucksters of all sorts) will prey on that need, but I've lived through the Red Menace, the Hole in the Ozone Layer, Y2K, and other doomsday scenarios and I expect to live through this one to see it in it's rightfull place in the pantheon of of unfulfilled doom, right next to Nibiru.  But before it does I expect to see us spend billions, maybe trillions, on ineffective idiocy like the Kyoto protocol just to keep Chicken Little happy.

  Maybe the answer is somewhere between Chicken Little and Dr. Pangloss ( from Candide by Voltaire):  This is the best of all possible worlds!

  The hole in the ozone layer IS for real, and concerted action has helped a great deal.  That also, was based on science. 

  The red menace--you know, the Chinese we give billions to and finances our debt--was an ideological conflict that happened to be very profiitable for several markets (the Lockheed Martin Huckseters, the General Dynamics Hucksters, the Martin-Marietta Hucksters, etc...).

  Y2K was a bull rush to cover the slim chance of liability and electronic chaos by corporations--partially driven the the geek corporations that made millions off of  the Y2K certification fraud.

  However, and regardless, I am helpless and agast before the (Edited by moderator - content)(FCC?)

  You guys win!  Hats off to ya! 

 So,  what do they win Bob?

   behind door number three....

zachsdad:

ineffective idiocy like the Kyoto protocol

zachsdad:

but I've lived through the Red Menace, the Hole in the Ozone Layer, Y2K, and other doomsday scenarios

The Kyoto protocol was a try. Expensive and ineffective nonsense in the end - I fully agree. But I do not give up hope for better agreements to come.

The Ozone Layer problem was solved by political action because off overwhelming scientific evidence.

Your other remarks comparing the climate problem to Nibiru, Y2K and the Red Menace are a bit disappointing... I expected a scientific discussion, sometimes heated, ok, but not like that. Discussing global warming has nothing to do with doomsday scenarios like the arrival of bloodthirsty aliens and all the other supernatural/supersticious junk.

ok-- get this!

  I was just censored for using the slang term for flatulence!  As in 'Flatulating Cow Coalition'.

  That is awesome!  I'll be laughing all day!  I hope I don't overdo it and-- flatulate!!

  oops...

   sorry.

  oops...

  I'm feeling that I've used up my goodwill tokens for several weeks--!

Allow me to take the time to extend my appreciation to all participant of this discussion for exercising a reasonable level of restraint.  We all know there is a fine line to walk when discussing a topic such as global warming when it is so politically charged and each has formed their own opinions.  As long as that line is not crossed, no member insults another, and we receive no complaint reports then it will stay open. However, if that line is crossed we will be left with no alternative other than to lock it from continued discussion.
  
We understand many people rely on, or enjoy the anonymity the Internet provides. Regardless of that, we must keep in mind this is a family oriented, multi-cultural forum. There are members and visitors to these forums from all walks of life, of all ages ranging from pre-teen to senior citizens. There is a cultural diversity here unlike what you may otherwise be accustomed to in your everyday contact with others.  These forums are open for all, visitors and members alike, to view at their own discretion any post or discussion on these forums.  All members when posting a message must be considerate to all who might read through this or other threads. Be careful of how Implications or insinuations you're conveying may be perceived.  Innuendo within a message can be just as insulting as a direct insult. Be Careful of the metaphors used in the content of your posts. Those too can be perceived as insulting towards an individual, or offensive to the values or beliefs of others.
If it isn't appropriate for our youngest members to read, then it isn't appropriate to post in any of these forums.  Keep these discussion friendly, and more importantly keep them clean.

Our original attraction here was because there is something we all have in common with each other. Astronomy!.  Please keep consider that too before dragging these things on forever.  We are here to enjoy ourselves and have a little fun. We are here to help each other when we can. 
Anonymity or not, We are not here to offend others.

Have A Nice ___________ 

cyberpatzer:

ok-- get this!

  I was just censored for using the slang term for flatulence!  As in 'Flatulating Cow Coalition'.

 

  That is awesome!  I'll be laughing all day!  I hope I don't overdo it and-- flatulate!!

 

 

Just so others are aware,  that is not completely true. Although that was one of the comments deleted,  It was a more offensive reference you used which was the cause for censorship to your post.  I am sure you know which comment I am referring to.  

Though it was not I who censored your above post, I believe it was Justifiable. Anyone who had time had already read it, and knows it was not exactly how you claim it to be.  

Right now it is apparent to myself and others here your lacking respect for the moderators. Your self admitted issue with authority is most evident., At the same time however, not only are you disrespecting the moderators and administration, it is a disrespect to other members of astronomy.com too. Such disrespect will only result in this thread being locked.  I am sure that is not what you or a few other really want.

Please read my above post and take that into consideration prior to posting anymore. 

Have A NIce ___________

I'd just like to say, what with all this global warming (or whining) stuff, that we should always consider the other sides of the issue. Could the money and resources for building solar power be better spent elsewhere?

As an example, lets go back to when DDT was being used as a pesticide. Researchers found out that it weakened the shells of falcon eggs, subsequently lowering birth rates. So we stopped using it. That was all fine until all the bugs that would have been killed by DDT now spread malaria among third-world countries and wrought havoc upon millions of unfortunate people.

Kyle:

As an example, lets go back to when DDT was being used as a pesticide. Researchers found out that it weakened the shells of falcon eggs, subsequently lowering birth rates. So we stopped using it. That was all fine until all the bugs that would have been killed by DDT now spread malaria among third-world countries and wrought havoc upon millions of unfortunate people

Sorry for going off-topic here but, restrictions on DDT are not connected to malaria distribution those days. A lot of malaria trouble started when the US Forces introduced prophylactic medication during the Vietnam War - moskitos developed resitances to those drugs and the drugs were afterwards not effective anymore in treatment. Had they used it for treatment only, millions of lives could have been saved.

My point in comparing the GW issue to other disaster scenarios from the past is only to point out that there is always some issue that segments of our society are willing to exploit for their own purposes.  And always more than enough people eager to belive the worst.  If you are looking for signs you will see signs.  I tread a fine line within myself when I advocate restraint in our response to the GW projections, as I am and have always been an environmental advocate.

My issue is with the concept of CO2 as the biggest boogyman on the block, and the blatant manipulation of the public by alarmists.  It's so much easier to make movies with dramatic footage of Polar Bears that to educate people about the pharmacuticals we are flushing down the drain everyday that are poisoning the water we drink.  The media would have us all driving hybrid cars and patting each other on the back with no regard for the strip mining and toxins involved in the production of all those neat little batteries.  Maybe the answer is fuel cells?  All they produce is water vapor, right?  Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.  Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, and makes up 95% of all greenhouse gasses. 

I have become a pessimist over the years about the future of our species.  We are users.  Even though we may cry out about the state of our environment we still rape it as it suits us.  How many of our telescopes are made in China?  Do you think the volitile chemicals used in the production of the paint, coatings, and plastics used to build it were handled in an environmentally conscious manner?  How about all the CO2 generated by the ships that brought it over here?  How environmentally friendly are all of the computers, I-Pods, and cell phones we use?  That's not going to change except to accelerate.  So we can talk all we want about how somebody needs to do something about the CO2 in the air, but until we stop consuming nothing is going to really change.  And we will never stop consuming our planet's resources, any more than a termite will stop eating wood.

Yes, we need to do what we can to clean up our environment.  That point has never been at issue with me.  But I refuse to support focusing our attention, and money, on one narrow aspect of the problem.  And those who use their positions of influence to manipulate the general public really me off.

If you go back through the history of the global warming threads on these forums for the past 8 or 9 months you will find that I have repeatedly produced data to support my position.  Not once has anyone dealt with the data.  Just as in this thread when I quoted the US Geological Survey data that shows no increase in global temperatures over the past 8 years.  People will believe what they choose.

 Well said Terry, and thanks for censoring yourself. That keeps me from having to push an extra button.

Zachsdad, all your points are true. Global warming should not be the sole issue we focus our discussions and finances on. Fact is that meteorology is complex and we have just started to understand it a little bit. And of course there are the ones who want to cash in on anything and the others who believe all the propaganda (I'd like to recommend a book here "Propaganda and the Public Mind", Noam Chomsky).

I am far from being a "doomsday preacher" or sitting in an air-conditioned bunker awaiting the next summer with 120 F.  I simply have a serious interest in meteorology and its impact on our world. Actually - I believe that higher average temperatures do have an impact on my astronomy. The number of clear nights in my chosen home in Thailand (since 1993) has steadily decreased due to increased cloud cover %. I can't tell if that is temporary or not (timeline not long enough) but, it's a fact.

In reference to the stats published by the US Geological Survey on global temperatures: Meteorologists do not see a timeline of 8 years as representative. A minimum 40 years is relevant for statistical explanation on world climate. I learned that during a climate seminary. BTW - that seminary was anything else than propaganda - pure scientific info and very, very little politics/economics.