Good News on Global Warming

TheSync writes "OK, CO2 levels are rising, but iAfrica has a report that atmospheric methane concentrations are leveling off. Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas, accounting for one fifth of total warming. Researchers don't know why this is."

Comments

Re:For those not wanting to click

[stevew]

The problem with all this is that scientists are NOT united in accepting that man is responsible for the temperature going up. Small things like volanic emissions and the variability of the sun have MAJOR affect on our environment.

Things just aren't THAT simple!

Re:Not yet understood

[meta-monkey]

That's because global warming is junk science.

Is it happening? We don't know for sure.

Should it be happening? Maybe.

Was it even warmer last millenium? Could be.

If there is global climate change, is it our fault? Perhaps.

So what should be done? Throttle all industrial production for first-world nations, and leave third-world nations exempt.

Riiiiiiight...makes sense to me.

Correlation != Causation

[wind]

Researchers don't know why this is.

Right. And until they have a solid, convincing theory to account for this 'why', then we've only got (at best) a correlation between the two events - this does not necessarily mean there is a causal relationship between them.

Trouble is, this is such a politicized issue that I doubt we'll ever see any scientific evidence that everyone will consider convincing (for one side or the other).

Re:Correlation != Causation

[Lars T.]

Which two events? There is now less methane in the atmosphere than expected (IOW not more than before). Scientists don't know why. What is the other event?

Re:Correlation != Causation

[Red Rocket]

Correlation != Causation

That's a solid scientific principle.

Another one is that you don't experiment on production systems without some kind of backup. Do you have a backup atmosphere somewhere that we can use if the methane and CO2 we're adding to this one cause it to break? If not, then it's time to put a halt to the experiment.

Re:Correlation != Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Another one is that you don't experiment on production systems without some kind of backup. Do you have a backup atmosphere somewhere that we can use if the methane and CO2 we're adding to this one cause it to break? If not, then it's time to put a halt to the experiment.

Foolish moron. If you stop removing methane and CO2 from the atmosphere, you don't know what'll happen. You're just trying to slam the side of the debate you don't personally agree with using this ``experiment'' propaganda. Scientists don't know how the global climate works. You're the one proposing that everyone should change now to suit your wishes, consequences be damned.

It's scientific fact that the world's climate changes over time. It's been hotter than it is now, and it's been colder than it is now. Your proposal that we start trying to control these changes is ridiculous on its face, but moreso because nobody has any data on what the changes would do.

Re:Not yet understood

[Tiassa]

So what should be done? Throttle all industrial production for first-world nations, and leave third-world nations exempt.

Riiiiiiight...makes sense to me.

You, sir, are a troll. Last I heard, the emphasis was on reducing CO2, not production. Just because most industries today blow tons of CO2 into the atmosphere does not mean that they have to: there are ways to reduce CO2-output without hurting production.

You sound a bit like an automobile tycoon in the 70s saying: "There's no proof that exhaust emissions cause smog! And besides, cutting our cars' fuel consumption or cleaning up emissions is expensive and is going to hurt our competitive edge!"

Riiiiiiight...makes sense to me.

Even with no link, we still need cleaner energy

[whorfin]

I'm not so concerned with the global warming/cooling. I think that all sane people will agree that it is now cooler than when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, warmer than the mini-ice age.

What I am concerned about, however, are things like mercury in fish, which acts as a neurotoxin in humans that eat it.

Re:Even with no link, we still need cleaner energy

[Anonymous Coward]

mercury is a neurotoxin but if I understand the article it also makes you wealthy:

She correlated fish consumption with elevated mercury in her patients, and saw a range of symptoms classic to mercury poisoning, including fatigue, headache, decreased memory, muscle pain, hair loss, decreased concentration and joint pain.

Many of her middle- and high-income clientele -- CEOs of companies, physicians and artists -- were eating generous amounts of fish, the high-end tuna and swordfish steaks, Chilean sea bass and Alaskan halibut. Many ate canned tuna more than twice a week or fed it to their children.

Re:Inverse Time Capsule

[Sylver Dragon]

Actually, its both sides who are playing fast and loose with the facts. One of the things that still irks me to no end, is hearing some enviromentalist go off about how the global temperature has raised so much in the past century. While this is technically true, it ignores the fact that for the first part of the 20th century there was a slight decline in temperature, then the Global Pacific Occilation hit, circa mid-70's, and since then, there has only been a slight increse in global temperature. However, most envromentalists, don't see fit to inform people of this detail. Instead, they just smooth over this natural occurance, and use it to justify thier position.
Fact is, there has been some warming in the past century. Part of this is probably anthropogenic in nature, but you also have to keep in mind that we were comming out of a little ice age at the end of the 19th century, and that the GPO happened in the middle of the data set, which throws it all out of whack, and don't forget that recent studies have shown that solar output had been incresing slowly. While all of these factors together may not account for all of the warming seen in the 20th century, they do account for a good part of it.
This isn't to say that we should abandon all clean air policies. Quite the contrary, we should be working to make the air cleaner (have you ever seen LA in the summer, when the wind isn't blowing?) But, we should at least try and base the arguments on more than Global Warming, which is so poorly understood. Also, blaming one gas so heavily (CO2) is rather dumb, there is a lot more to it than that, but this is what gets center stage, and gets the research dollars.

You can't properly understand a lie

[Spamalamadingdong]

We know (we've seen) that large volcanic eruptions can cause the global temperature to drop several degrees.

True, but this is due to ash and sulfate particulates which screen out sunlight. These fall out of the atmosphere over a period of months.

We also know a single volcano can spew out more CO2 during an eruption than all of industry for the past 200 years.

This statement is not just false, it is a damned lie. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has been measured on a frequent basis for decades. It shows almost no correlation with volcanic activity, but has a seasonal swing on top of an exponential upward curve which is all but certainly from human activity.

Historic volcanic eruptions can't even compete with human emissions of sulfur dioxide. That's how important we are. (If you don't believe me, look at DOE and EPA figures for sulfur emissions vs. recent volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo or El Chicon. If you actually think rather than hold blindly to an ideology, you will find it sobering.)

My point is: Although we have some data, it's inconclusive.

And you use this as a reason to continue a vast, uncontrolled experiment with possibly dire consequences. Why?

An analogy is to claim that you ought to glue yourself into a winter coat because it was cold last month. If it turns out to be hot tomorrow (solar activity continues to increase), the coat (extra greenhouse gases) could kill you from heatstroke. This is the kind of risk we're taking.

Re:You can't properly understand a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

>This argument is no stronger than mine, actually. You're proposing that, based on someone's unsubstantiated analysis, we expend Trillions of dollars to make changes that may be unnecessary.

All experiments are unscientific if you do not have a "control" subject and a "test" subject.

That you are saying climate change is "unscientific" is ideological spin. Of COURSE it does not withstand normal lab conditions. We don't have another earth to mess with.

Given that pollution is man-made and has lots of other side-effects BESIDES flooding major US cities, I'd say it's a lot smarter to be cautions.

Then again, many of the ideological right would consider massive flooding of coatal urban areas to be a GOOD thing... sort of an Act Of God. His Vengance will wash away the poor, the tired, the crack dens. Oh, where will we get footage for next season's episode of Cops??

Re:You can't properly understand a lie

[Spamalamadingdong]

We do produce around two orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanic activity each year. Damn. That is a sobering number.

Ain't it the truth. The real scandal is that millions of people "know" otherwise, due to false claims in media like talk radio.

The ash and aerosols from St. Helens and Pinatubo each caused a 2-3 year long 1-2C drop in global temperature.

This is a nit and I don't have time to research it, but I bet you'll find that while the effects might have been detectable for years, the time for which they were of that magnitude was much shorter.

You're proposing that, based on someone's unsubstantiated analysis, we expend Trillions of dollars to make changes that may be unnecessary.

It's not one analysis, it's a whole family of analyses, and even the ones postulating the smallest climactic changes project effects that would turn our world umop apisdn.

The USA has a $10 trillion economy, we are going to be spending trillions to add to, replace or repair infrastructure and durable goods (cars, appliances) anyway. The issue is that each dollar spent locks in the choices for many years into the future, so we need to spend those dollars wisely starting today. If additional money has to be spent (efficiency doesn't always cost more), it can often be recovered from savings down the line. We could recover far more if factors such as defense are considered (giving money to Arab oil producers leads to their promotion of radical Islam in madrassas, with results we can all recount by now). For one example of what we could do fairly easily, take a look at my other post here. I think that doing these things just as insurance is essential.

An un-American point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

>yet the winters here

You must be an American.

That's not (intentionally) an insult - allow me to explain. You have to think globally not "where I live". People in America also wonder why most people in the world do not speak English, or why countries fight border wars. It's a result of culture that's used to dominating others, exporting their culture, and simply not having the inter-state history that Europe, Asia and even Africa has had over thousands of years.

Some places will get colder, and some places will get warmer. What's important is the AVERAGE worldwide temperature.

Try this:
Fill a metal pot with cold water. Let it settle so there is no kinetic energy in the water that is due to your pouring motion.

Then put a few drops of warm food coloring in the water. What happens?

Does the coloring immediately mix, or does it travel in currents? Will some places be more "colored" than others?

This analogy falls down a bit when you consider the fact that color simply accumulates... keep adding coloring, and eventually the color contrast is so weak you cannot distinguish the patterns (where on Earth some of that heat energy will dissipate, either by animal/plant life , space radiation or simply soaking into our massive oceans and the earth's crust. This is an obvious difference... but this is Slashdot so one must point it out).

Global warming means greater ocean currents, although desalination of the ocean will throw a monkey wrench in that.

Moisture will carry massive snow accumulation to places where little snow normally falls... while in other places glacier will melt.

What *usually* gets Americans motivated is the threat of TAXES. Convince them that "global warming" leads to higher taxes, and they'll kick out the politicians (who are really puppets of OPEC anyways).

How does global warming lead to US taxes? Well, how high above sea level is Washington DC, St. Louis, Boston, Manhattan, and all of Florida?

Not much higher.

How much would Netherlands-style "land reclaiming" efforts cost the US taxpayers? Trillions. And it wouldn't be effective.

Most of the US population lives within storm flood range of a good hurricane. That's a lot of work for FEMA!

When you let the same corporations that CAUSE this damage, in turn advertise on the news (or OUTRIGHT BUY networks!) I guess you can't blame the American voter public. How could they ever see through the corporate news propoganda?

Good news?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Good news on global warming? Sorry, good news is strictly forbidden. Even if there was bona fide good news with 100% scientific accuracy, such reports should still be repressed or discredited, in order to further our agenda. This is a media war we're fighting folks, and even though Russia just made the decision a few days ago not to cripple its economy in order to comply with Kyoto, we still have to try hard, everywhere.

Re:Methane?

[2marcus]

Yes, the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor.

The most important _anthropogenic_ greenhouse gases are (in order) CO2, CH4, N2O, then in lesser amounts HFCs, SF6, PFCs, etc. (And tropospheric O3, but we only indirectly produce that...)

Of course, the point is that increases of temperature due to the increased radiative forcing due to the increase in CO2 and CH4 will lead to more evaporation and therefore more water vapor in the air. Mmm, positive feedback loops.

Of course, it is more complicated than that, because more water vapor means more clouds. And more clouds sometimes means more cooling during the day, but more warming during the night. Depending on the altitude of the clouds. People disagree on the magnitude of this feedback (and sometimes even whether it is positive or negative).

And of course, particulate emissions can impact cloud formation. As well as having a direct climate impact through reflection/absorption (depending on whether they are sulfate based or black carbon based).

Complicated enough yet?