zachsdad:

I have become a pessimist over the years about the future of our species.  We are users. 

I have been told that I can be exceptionally gloomy in my outlook but it is uncomfortable to think of ourselves in this way, even if it is true.  Maybe we should just stay home and doom ourselves rather than become the ultimate galactic users like the evil planet aliens of Independence Day!

I think reducing the CO2 emissions is prudent as we cannot be helping the atmoshere we all share but the rush to frenetic judgement on global warming is just too close to fear mongering in my view too.  We do need to take better care of our home but unless all of the countries of the world sign on to a prudent long term plan of gradual change than there is no hope.  Even if we wreck our economy and reduce all our emissions to zero that would accomplish nothing in the face of the Chinese who are determined to raise their standard of living to western standards regardless of the consequences.  But do you really blame them?  Why should they settle for less than we have?   Its not an easy question and there are no certainties or easy solutions and those who pander to the masses with simplistic panaceas are just making things worse.

OK, so now I will return to my whistling in the graveyard,

L

ngc2438:

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.

 

You are right, of course, but it is not what the models predicted. 

juvenilealchemist:

what is the real condition of our planet with regards to global warming?

That's a good question and I just happen to have the answer to it:

It depends on who you ask. 

let's say the question is for you what will be your answer?.....

how do you view the problem of our dear mother earth?

juvenilealchemist:

let's say the question is for you what will be your answer?.....

I'm skeptical. I think climate change is way too chaotic for us to really know and the whole issue is driven by politics (no way to get at the truth). I admit I haven't studied it closely, but the arguments I've seen just don't ring true. Also, I absolutely hate it when a few people try to get a lot of people to get the government to restrict other people's freedom.

juvenilealchemist:

how do you view the problem of our dear mother earth?

I think she'll be OK.  

 I kinda agree in what you said, things are being so chaotic now....everything seems to be so political...and their are so many false infos that are going around that might cause greater chaos in the society(like the end of the world issues)....

We have to admit the root of all these things is the lack of discipline of us people and we will also be the one to suffer all the consequences it brought.....

do you think we can still solve this problem?

The Sun as the Cause of Global Warming?

  Several posts have asserted that global warming is caused by a rise in average energy from the sun.  This is untrue.

   This hypothesis was tested by measuring the temp of the outer atmosphere as well as inner atmosphere and surface temps.  This science was done by NASA, ESA, and other science institutes vis satellites and earth based measurements. If the sun was increasing its output, outer atmosphere temps would rise.  This is not the case.  Instead, temps in the inner atmosphere are rising. 

   This is how scentists came to the conclusion that the green house effect was increasing, effectively trapping more of sun's energy within the earth's atmosphere, warming the planet.  This is what lead to concern about greenhouse gases, and the global warming crisis vs.  a 'Warming Sun' crisis, etc..

  Cow Flautlence?

  Another therory is that cattle are producing tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warming. However, this is untrue.

  Consider:  The grass the cows eat sequesters carbon, and in the process produce oxygen.  The cows eat the grass.  Some of it is rereleased into the atmosphere through flatulence, and some is returned to the Earth.   On a yearly cyclic basis, the grass grows, absorbs carbon in that process, and through its own photosythesis processes (CO2), producing oxygen.  Essentially, though Carbon is being cycled, no new carbon is being added to this large closed system.

  On the other hand, when we exhume 100+  million year old fossilized carbon (oil and coal) and burn it, we are introducing effectively isolated/long term sequestered carbon into this closed system, adding to the total aggregate of carbon in the atmosphere.

  The issue here isn't the amount of carbon per se, but the amounts of new carbon (fully sequestered/fossilized) introduced through human processes (industry).

I hope this makes sense, but whether it does or not, this information is true.

cyberpatzer:

The Sun as the Cause of Global Warming?

 

  Several posts have asserted that global warming is caused by a rise in average energy from the sun.  This is untrue.

  

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (a 160 year old organization of scientists and engineers) disagrees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

And cow flatuance is touted as a source of methane, not carbon dioxide.

Methane is a GH gas, and utilizes carbon in its compostion (offhand, C4H4...?).  It absorbs carbon from the food (grass) which absorbs the carbon from the earth and atmosphere, which is absorbed by the cow (chewing) and ejected into the atmosphere by well know aspirative processes that shall not be explicitly referenced here, lest the children be shocked.  The short term recycling of non-long term sequestered carbon is essentially the same.

  So we both can be right.  How grand!

  The IPCC, NASA, ESA, NSF and just about every other government science agency disagrees with the 160 years old  AAAS, if they do in fact feel that the sun is causing current greenhouse effects.  Why they would issue such a clear minority opinion is indeed puzzling.

   The article, if read closely,  indicates that all of the Earth's warming cannot be attributed to changes in the sun's energy.  Also, the description of global temp changes and timelines are clearly at odds with majority consensus.  Current statistical models indicate that solar warming cannot account for global temeprature changes as they are currently measured, indicating the greenhouse effect has to be the culprit.

  But if the AAAS does it for you, rock on.  At least there are scientists in the organization (I assume).

P.S.:  The article is from 1998! Somewhat early in the debate, and science!  It was good they were looking in that direction at that time!

The point is that, like it or not, there are still a lot of questions about the cause and extent of GW, so making broad statements that one point of view is a fact, or that another is "untrue" is overly simplistic.  The only fact is that we don't know yet what has caused the warming trend over the last 8 decades (the 40's were actually cooler).  There are opinions, and yes there is a current consensus among the scientists the media want to quote, but there is a minority voice of real scientists who disagree.  The majority is not always proved right in the long run.  I only mentioned the 160 year history of the AAAS because folks with a contrary view of this topic are often accused of being shills for industry. 

That consensus that the media likes to quote represents about 95% of all scientists and science institutes, just so we don't leave forum visitors ( including impressionable children who often 'ape' opinions they receive, without scrutinizing them...hey, wait a second..!) with the impression like it is still a contest, which is my concern with many of these posts. 

  Global warming is real, a serious threat, and demonstrable.  There is a 90% chance that human factors are the cause.  If we do nothing, we are fliritng with an epic disaster.  That is the consensus stand on the issue, and most of the world's governments stand.   

  I don't think anyone is accusing the AAAS, particularly in 1998, of being shills for the oil industry, when asking questions about solar changes at that time would be appropriate, given that it was fairly early in the serious scrutiny of the problem. 

Betting on global warming and the continued loss of sea ice in the north is kinda like betting on an 18,000 year long horse race just as the runaway leader is about to cross the finish line.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/firstnations/theories.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/megavolcano/shin-02.html

“And the beat goes on…”

now things are getting complicated....before we discuss the other aspects concerning    global warming can we first define global warming?(because it seems that we have different definitions of global warming) what is the real meaning of global warming?

 This should help to clarify the issue for you

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

cyberpatzer:

The artic ice continues to melt and yearly average temps continue to rise.

   I'm wondering if anyone has changed their views regarding warming, and US energy policy as a result of this?

  A nobel prize winning US politician recently gave a landmark speech advocating a 10 year initiative to make the US a 100% carbon free energy producer.

  In your opinion, why won' t this work?

The animations from a few posts ago are not provided so much to completely dismiss mankind's possible contribution to global warming, but since loss of sea ice has been a major "visual" used to support the alarmist side of the discussion, and the OP has mentioned it, it is an important thing to keep up front; warming has been in effect since the end of the last ice age 18,000 years ago. There have been many such cycles and we do not know what the natural max side of the current warming trend would have been in the absence of man.

We also cannot be certain yet our contribution to the current warming, or it's long term effect. Either way, global climate is not stable and never was. Warmer may be better, colder definitely would be worse.

The ice loss in the past 18,000 years looks to be a retreat of polar cap of about 3,000 miles or more… That would be 1/6 of a mile a year. To be completely honest about the situation… a photo from 60 years ago when compared to one from today could easily show a retreat of 10 miles.

My opinion of US energy policy has not changed significantly, though increasing tax breaks for toward the cost of proven solar and wind systems might be something I could get behind.

My opinion of Mr. Gore’s pronouncements is that he should do everything that he is telling others to do. Park his jet, lose the multi-SUV entourage, and reduce his carbon foot print to less then mine. With that example, and then the possibility that others may begin to believe that it is as serious as he says it is… perhaps we can make a dent in the CO2 output of the American society. Even then, it’s only a small perhaps.

So, since I don’t see Gore or others of his ilk surrendering to a carbon free lifestyle, no. And since in my opinion there is no physical or economically realistic way to get to that goal, no way are we going 100% carbon free in 10 years. But, did he mean be 100% CO2 free in 10 years, or get a good start on being CO2 free? That might be doable.

Why are you obsessed with AG!? 

   AG's estate in Tenn. is virtually 100% carbon neutral, due to solar, wind and geothermal investments.  He practices what he preaches.  He tries and is aware of his role model status.  He is aware he is not perfect, and, as with every other HUMAN, he could always do more.  But, seeing as he won a nice award for his work advocating responsibilty on the part of governments, and really added fuel to the movement, he has done more than many thousands of individual tree-hugging bicycling, yoga doin' greens combined.

  Obviously, not flying or driving to his various appointments, speaking engagements, meetings, etc...around the world would be not just difficult, but impossible.  It seems you are very determiend to cast AG as a hypocrite, insincere, and actually using this issue for some mysterious end, or a grand money grab.  His first book on the issue was written in 1992, and most of his adult life has been dedicated to this and other environmental issues.

  Let AG go, let him go...easy...easy...

  You wouldn't want a world where a major advocate and spokesperson for governmental action regarding GW couldn't get around, would you?

 Well, would you? (Rhetorical).  You might be well served by seperating your politics from you science.

  What you feel about realistic goals is totally overshadowed by your fear of being victimized by vague forces of evil.  Solar and windpower, coupled with carbon offsets and limited nuc is a sound and doable stategy in 8-15 years, with 10 being a good mean.  What the US needs is sober reasoning and leadership.

  Whatever nation gets to 75-100% green first is going to have a HUGE competitive advantage going into this century, regardless of GW.  Why can't we--the US-- be proactive, environmental and visionary, for a change???

  Wouldnt  it be nice to have a healthy project we could strive for and succeeed at, for the true benefit of ourselves and the world?

  Wouldn't it?

  Again, yes the weather changes on large geological cycles.  But again, GW we are experiencing is extremely likely to be caused --on the whole and in the main-- by human factors.  The effects from warming will NOT be helpful, due to a serious unbalancing of environmental factors (ocean PH, temperature zones, changes in organism/bacteria growth, changes in base food chain supplies, disease, and loss of agricultural land, loss of human habitat, environmental calamities (hurricanes, large fires, drought...). 

    Localized benefits are FAR outweighed by the global negatives, hence the 'crisis' and not looming 'environmental windfall' boon.

cyberpatzer:

You might be well served by seperating your politics from you science.

 

   

As would any discussions regarding politics be separated from this discussion. We have asked that you not turn this thread into a political discussion, and it seems to be creeping that way more and more with each post.  Please do not continue this track if this thread, such as it is, is to remain open.

Hey wait a secoind, cowboy.  Stars4life wanted to discuss AG, and no comment from the moderator.  If we stick to science, AG has little to do with it.

  Be consistent lest your extracurricular bent becomes too obvious as well.