Unexplained Leap In CO2 Levels

Cally writes "The Guardian is reporting that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have leapt by 4.5 ppm in the last two years. This raises the ugly possibility that the capacity of a large carbon sink (possibly the oceans) has been exceeded, and the worst-case scenario is that a tipping point has been reached and a runaway warming scenario is in progress. Quote from Dr. Piers Foster of Reading University: 'If this is a rate change, of course it will be very significant. It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all our global warming predictions for the next hundred years or so will have to be redone.'"

Comments

More on sinks

[erick99]

Carbon Sinks are an important component of this discussion. From the article referenced in the first sentence:

Buildup of atmospheric C02 is moderated by "sinks" on the earth's surface that use some C02 and store much of the carbon in living organisms, organic matter and carbonate minerals, says soil scientist H.H. Cheng. These carbon sinks include the oceans that cover more than 70 percent of the earth surface, forests and other vegetation covering the land, and organic matter in the soil.

Interestingly, this article talks about soil as a possible source of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, making the El Nino effect not always a good indicator of how much a rise or fall in atmospheric CO2 should be. Finally, here is article that that argues that rises in atmospheric CO2 are not a cause for alarm: PortlandTribune.com | Rise in CO2 levels is no cause for alarm

Re:More on sinks

[DreadPiratePizz]

PortlandTribune.com | Rise in CO2 levels is no cause for alarm

This isn't true. I heard an article on NPR the other day that discussed Global Warming's treatment in the media. The man being interviewed thought that the media did the issue a great disservice by trying to be fair and covering both sides of the issue. The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE. The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies. That article is true when it says that the effects we will have on climate aren't fully known, but the connection is there in a strong way. All of the research I have read suggests the link. We NEED to be concerned.

Re:More on sinks

[kiatoa]

Yeah, and do a back of the napkin calculation of how much carbon is tied up in the masses of humanity. Couple pounds carbon per human times 6 billion of us. So, go make babies to do your part to counter global warming :)

Just kidding. BTW I have no idea how much carbon there is in the average adult human.

Re:More on sinks

[moonbender]

Finally, here is article that that argues that rises in atmospheric CO2 are not a cause for alarm: PortlandTribune.com | Rise in CO2 levels is no cause for alarm

For what it's worth: The article - it's really just a brief op-ed piece - is fairly old (Fri, Jun 20, 2003), does not deal with the "leap" dealt with in the original article, and is written by the "environmental policy director at Cascade Policy Institute, a free-market think tank in Portland".

Re:More on sinks

[jd]

Agreed, 100%. The "other side" tends to be those causing the pollution. However, that's just how they are, right now, when their ultra-expensive coastal home is above water. If CO2 levels are spiralling rapidly, it's unlikely to remain that way.

On a side-note, British scientists have observed that, although they've largely eliminated acid rain causing pollution from power stations, etc, the problem of acid rain is actually getting worse in places. This has now been shown to be a product of marine fuels and an increase in shipping.

Consider, then, the impact this increase will be having on countries that have not put in the time, effort and money to reduce pollution...

Re:More on sinks

[0123456]

"The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day,"

Nonsense, of course. We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but hard evidence linking that to temperature rises is minimal.

"scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies"

You are parodying the lefties here and not being serious, I presume? That is, making fun of the fact that most scientists who claim that 'global warming' is a threat are being paid by governments to do 'global warming' research and would be out of a job if they didn't keep claiming that it's a big threat?

'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world: if you wouldn't believe McDonalds if they said that their meals are good for you, why would you believe the global warming industry?

Re:More on sinks

[GuyFawkes]

Yeah, it is a well known fact that the wooly mammoths driving around in dodge vipers were largely responsible for the end of the last ice age too.

Re:More on sinks

[Cat_Byte]

I believe Scientific American had an article about all of the CO2 that was trapped underwater. With all of the hurricane activity lately I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't just stirring it up a bit. This is just speculation though.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow dude, need a napkin? You're dripping foam everywhere.

Get a grip - your hysterics are only hurting your side of the argument. And yes, there are at least two sides, no matter how much you stamp your feet and chant 'watermelon watermelon watermelon'.

Re:More on sinks

[bgarcia]

The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day

Yes, because having 3 simultaneously-active volcanoes sputtering out CO2 couldn't possibly have anything to do with a rise in CO2 levels. It must be those pesky humans!

Everybody, stop exhaling immediately!

Re:More on sinks

[YE]

The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE....

... hired by special interest groups or oil companies

All of the research I have read...

Ahem... you're not convincing anyone who isn't already subscribed to your theory, you realize that?

I'm starting to think Goldwin's law [regarding Nazis in Internet discussions] should be ammended to include oil companies.

Re:More on sinks

[julesh]

The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE. The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies.

As a layman with a little scientific background, I think I can see both sides here. There are two sides, whatever you may say. There is the side saying that our CO2 emissions are going to bring about serious climate change that could be disastrous to us, and there is the side that says the other side is overreacting. The latter frequently point to evidence in this planet's fossil record that suggests that CO2 levels vary dramatically whether we're here or not, and that the amount of CO2 we produce is a drop in the ocean compared to what is produced and consumed every year by the rest of the planet. The argument is convincing, and I haven't heard a good counterargument.

Re:More on sinks

[RodgerDodger]

There is no question that human activity has resulted in increased carbon dioxide levels.

Of course, we don't emit as much CO2 now as was done in the mid-12th century (aka "the Little Ice Age"); over a period of about 50 years, it got so cold that about 75% of the Black Forest was cut down, reducing it to smaller than its current size. All of that went up in smoke.

And we don't emit as much in a year as a good size active volcano can do in a week. But we do emit enough to cause CO2 levels to rise.

Of course, the link to changes in _climate_ from increased CO2 levels isn't really clear. Global warming is the common concern, but the opposite has just as much evidence, and there's even a lot to show that any effect either way will simply cause a negative feedback loop to stop it. Nobody really knows, because climate studies are a real bitch to figure out.

Of the two, an iceage is probably more likely than warming, anyway; we're overdue for one, and the sun appears to be going into another contraction cycle (which means less heat coming in). And frankly, the Earth spends most of its time as a snowball; the nice weather we get these days is purely an aberation that will correct itself over time.

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"Nonsense, of course. We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but hard evidence linking that to temperature rises is minimal."

The main problem is that if the tipping point has been reached, then the first time you might get your 'hard evidence' is the entire population of Florida migrating north.

Still, it's fun to see people backpedalling from the 'global warming isn't caused by humans argument'. That was always fun.

"'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world:"

Really? How? Where did you get that figure? Your ass?

Re:More on sinks

[someme2]

The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE. [...] and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies.

(italics added by me)

Mhmmm, aahhhhh, I don't even know where to begin... It's so hard to resist writing something really sarcastic... okay, but I won't.
I think you should point at the "scientific process" and at refereed papers. If your claim is right then there should be minimal amounts of refereed papers claiming the contra-point (when compared to the papers claiming your point).
But certainly "oil companies" and "special interest groups" don't really qualify as "NO OTHER SIDE". Especially not in all caps.

Also don't get me started with puns going into the direction "siggraph and how they secretly dominate the world's oil industry".

Re:More on sinks

[amightywind]

The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE. The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies.

Six billion people in the world seeking a better life will have their affect on climate. What about increasing levels of more efficient greenhouse gases methane and water vapor?

The timing this report before an election is suspect. Proponents of the Kyoto Treaty are trying to spread their cause through inuendo, fear ,and coersion. It has no merit. Fortunately the reaty was rejected by a bipartisan vote of 95-0 in the U.S. Senate and is unlikely to be put to the vote again.

Re:More on sinks

[mrchaotica]

Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world

Hmm... So, where do I go to buy "Global Warming?" Is it sold in department stores, or do I have to order it through the mail?

Re:More on sinks

[dont_think_twice]

You must not be a scientist.

'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world: if you wouldn't believe McDonalds if they said that their meals are good for you, why would you believe the global warming industry?

Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power. You go into science because you have a fundamental desire to understand the truth about the world we live in.

I am glad you posted, though. I have always had a hard time understanding how anyone can dismess global warming, considering that 95% of the climate scientists agree that global warming is real. Now I understand. You think that scientists are a type of business-people who are just looking about for their own self interests. You are wrong.

I am not sure what I can say to persuade you otherwise, except that you should talk to some people who do science for a living. Ask them if they would rather have billions of dollars, or discover a fundamental law of nature. Or consider this: somewhere around 80% of scientists (or maybe physicists) believe in global warming, even though they don't study climate science. Why? Because they understand science and how scientists think.

I am sure that there are many scientists out there who are just trying to help their careers. But that vast majority of scientists would rather lose their job than publish dishonest work. To suggest that being a scientist is just like running a McDonalds proves that you have no idea what science is all about.

Re:More on sinks

[Yartrebo]

Nonsense, of course. We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but hard evidence linking that to temperature rises is minimal.

First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.

Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.

"scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies"

You are parodying the lefties here and not being serious, I presume? That is, making fun of the fact that most scientists who claim that 'global warming' is a threat are being paid by governments to do 'global warming' research and would be out of a job if they didn't keep claiming that it's a big threat?

Well, it's true. Most 'scientists' who are outspoken against there being global warming are paid by industry. Other scientists either believe that there is global warming, or are not informed on the subject and have no strong opinion.

As far as government hiring goes, my government (USA) tends to fire scientists with outspoken views in favor of global warming.

'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world: if you wouldn't believe McDonalds if they said that their meals are good for you, why would you believe the global warming industry?

Pollution and CO2 generation (essentially all heavy industry and transportation, along with the fossil fuel industries) are a multi-trillion dollar a year industry, and you could be more specific in terms what is the 'global warming' industry.

Re:More on sinks

[SnapShot]

The other bonus...

To make sure that the carbon stays tied up, your duty to the environment is clear: you must live forever.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

"... then the first time you might get your 'hard evidence' is the entire population of Florida migrating north."

Cue joke for "What do you call the entire population of Florida under water?"

Re:More on sinks

[Lars T.]

Having 3 active volcanoes now raised the CO2 levels the last 2 years. Yeah. And even though volcanoes produce large (even lethal) amounts of CO2 localy, they are dwarved by men-made sources world wide.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

Re:More on sinks

[arivanov]

Really? How? Where did you get that figure? Your ass?

Easy, man like many silly people, he is mistaking the cause and the effect.

The cost of Earth Simulator, other climate reasearch projects as well as marine and glaciology research goes to high hundreds of millions. Nearly all of this research shows global warming which makes people complain that it is an industry.

In fact this research would have been there without any global warming threat. There are plenty of other justifications around

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

"We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but hard evidence linking that to temperature rises is minimal."

This is insightful?
There's hardly any argument in this statement.

As a climatologist researching on global climate models, I can say, with the risk of losing my job, that global warming due to CO2 gases are definitly happening.

And almost all the climate models in the world will agree with me. Take a look at the Climate model inter-comparison project overview, especially Figure 20. That's a simulation for both the present state of the climate AND the future.

Given the limitations of computer models, the numbers may not be accurate yet, but we are very much sure that this trend is happening RIGHT NOW.

Re:More on sinks

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Given that on the one hand we don't fully understand the effects of more CO2 in the atmos. whilst on the other hand we know that (a). the planet operated fine before without us pumping out such ammounts of CO2 and (b). we know there is a likely a tipping point but we don't know where it is, *then* is it not prudent to perhaps look at cutting CO2 emitions?

I agree that waving arms around about impending doom isn't massively useful and that more research is needed given the huge number of unknowns, but I really think that trading the risks (passing tipping point, really really screwing the atmos., causing huge changes, inevitable famine on such a scale never seen likely consequent wars over resources... MAYBE versus not doing anything bar more research and therefore saving money/increasing profit (primarily for the benefit of western nations)) than it seems wise to try to reduce CO2 emitions!

Re:More on sinks

[Betelgeuse]

The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies.

This is simply not true. I'm as liberal as the next guy, but if you look at the data from a scientific perspective, you cannot say that the increased CO2 levels are causing a significant change in our atmosphere different from what the Earth has experienced in the past. You just can't. There's no definative evidence that the correlation exists, and I think that environmentalists (amung which I count myself) do their cause a disservice by trying to "massage the data" to manufacture catastrophe.

HOWEVER, I would argue that it is much better to err on the side of alarmism than the other way around. There are two options: we are either causing global warming, or we aren't. In either case, there is no harm done by cutting CO2 emission levels, and in the first case, there is SERIOUS good done by cutting emissions. This is just IMHO, but I think this is a much stronger argument than "we are definately causing global warming."

Re:More on sinks

[MrHanky]

There is a fundamental difference here, though. Climate and weather research would go on even if there was no possibility of global warming due to burning of fossil fuels. Because it is important. "Independent" think tanks and research centers that need corporate funding, needs to do research that can be used by the corporations funding them, though.

Governments also fund research in comparative literature, philosophy, theatre history and other studies that do just fine without any looming threat of global destruction.

Re:More on sinks

[asuffield]

We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere

Actually, we don't. We do not have an accurate record of what 'normal' CO2 levels are, so we cannot even say *if* CO2 levels have increased.

The global warming pundits insist that they must ordinarily be constant. That's fairly unlikely; there appear (in the small amount of data we have collected over the past few decades) to be complicated cycles at work. We do not understand those cycles. Therefore we cannot claim to have altered them.

Re:More on sinks

[mog007]

Either you're high, or these elevated levels of CO2 are making you light headed. We don't have nearly enough data to know if there's any global warming or not. Back in the 70's the average temperature was slowly decreasing, and lots of environmentalists spouted fears that we were on the verge of a new ice age. The planet is a few billion years old, we've only got about 100 years of reliable data for predicting temperature flucuations. We need a hell of a lot more data to come to ANY sort of conclusion.

Re:More on sinks

[ninthwave]

No read the article this report isn't a commisioned report it is a comment on two rise in CO2 out of phase with our previously observed triggers for such rises. The scientists in the article say if this continues for a 5 year period start the worry for now research into the trigger needs to be observed. But in the 2/5 portion start looking at the possibilities.

It is electoral these last two years happened. Should science only exist on the odd numbered years to avoid conflict with US elections?

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"Cue joke for "What do you call the entire population of Florida under water?""

One way to get rid of the niggling future medicare and pension problems.

Re:More on sinks

[angst7]

This isn't true. I heard an article on NPR the other day . . .
The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies.

This is known as poisoning the well. Since when do arguments based on heresay and logical fallicy get modded +5 insightful?

oh yeah, this is /.

Re:More on sinks

[JCMay]

The main problem is that if the tipping point has been reached, then the first time you might get your 'hard evidence' is the entire population of Florida migrating north.

Tipping point? Proof, please?

Look, just because we had a three- or four-sigma year doesn't mean that it's the end of the world. Has anyone around here taken statistics? I would think that the crowd around here would be better educated.

The language of the article indicates that it's a sham: atmospheric CO2 levels jumped 4 PPM? Four Parts Per Million? First of all, they don't mention what the level was before. Is 4PPM isn't a large number. From a table I found through Google, 4 PPM would be a normal monthly swing.

This is just like the TV news reporting that "unemployment claims skyrocketed 1% this past month." Attaching such emotional language to tiny numbers illustrates their political bent.

Re:More on sinks

[Lehk228]

And I suppose you are going to insist that global warming is going to melt antarctica and flood the world too, you seem to have an affinity for horseshit. Btw, NPR is not any more reliable source than other news outlets, perhaps even less so, they are just strongly biased anti-corporation and anti-progress.

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"Easy, man like many silly people, he is mistaking the cause and the effect."

I'm just miffed that the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American. The EU has already issued warnings and the UK in particular has been engaged on sorting the Co2 output for _ten years_.

"Nearly all of this research shows global warming which makes people complain that it is an industry."

Meanwhile, Rome burns.

Re:More on sinks

[Nspace13]

my question to you is: hasn't the earth been much hotter than this regularly? Isn't it natural for the Earth to cycle between a quite hot temperature and a quite cold one over a long period of time? so maybe humans are speeding up that cycle and maybe the Earth will get hotter than we can stand, but pretty much, it would have done that naturally anyway. If we make it a little faster, then we just eliminate ourselves as a species a little faster, something else will take over eventually.

Re:More on sinks

[Yartrebo]

Water vapor concentrations are rising because of global warming (a self-reenforcing mechanism). The only way they will come down is by countering global warming. On the plus side, water vapor lives a very short time in the atmosphere, a few weeks at most.

Methane comes from cows, rice, and leaked natural gas. Either way, it is much shorter lived. A push away from beef would have many other benefits as well (among meats, beef is about the least efficient of the mass-market meats to manufacture). Methane from rice could be reduced by abandoning flood irrigation. Much water would be saved in the process too.

It is possible that global warming could release large amounts of methane trapped in the permafrost, which would reenforce global warming.

Either way, all the problems should be attacked. CO2 alone is potent enough to cause serious global warming. Methane would just make it worse.

Re:More on sinks

[DZign]

Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power. You go into science because you have a fundamental desire to understand the truth about the world we live in.

That's true. That's why you get into science.

But then you're graduated and you are a scientist.
Only a few scientists can stay at university, the others will work for a company.. and then it's the company and the business-people who decide what direction your research goes.

Re:More on sinks

[aeroegnr]

Are these the same people that are incapable of predicting where a hurricane is going to hit on the panhandle of florida within the span of 3 days? Assuming the climate is a chaotic system with unknown variables (the sun's cycle isn't fully known, the model of the earth itself isn't entirely accurate, and who knows what other contributions are there), there is no way to extrapolate the data and say "We are all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED! Revert back to the energy levels of a few centuries ago!" The variables simply cannot be known within enough certainty to predict a chaotic system (and chaotic systems, are in fact, unpredictable because of this reason.) A change in one variable of .01% can result in a massive difference in the behavior of a system a period of time from now. Also, are these climate models being used to predict the weather now? I mean, if I were to plug in the values for the climate in 1970 could I predict to within any certainty the bounds for earth's climate in any reasonable time after 1970? I doubt that I could do such a thing without fudging my results.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

We emit 150 times more than volcanic activity on an annual basis.

Re:More on sinks

[DarkSarin]

Since you haven't shown any proof of your statements, then I don't feel the need to do so either.

I have heard a number of credible sources state that the case for global warming is not that strong. From what I remember, we know that there has been a very slight warming trend over the past few decades--but that we aren't truly certain of the causes. Remember, the correlation between rising C02 levels and rising temperatures is just that--a correlation, which does not indicate causality. This is a basic tenet of statistical based research.

Another important fact to remember is that we simply don't have the data over a long enough period to know if the current trend is abnormal, or if it is a cycle that repeats itself every so often.

Am I willing to dismiss, without any evidence, the possibility of global warming? Do I think that companies shouldn't be very careful? Do I think that companies should be allowed to run rampant and throw unlimited amounts of contaminants into the air? Absolutely not, on all counts. I think we should be careful.

That said, I do think that there is an OTHER side. One that is willing to learn and take measured, cautious action on this front, but isn't going to go nuts and react too quickly.

Re:More on sinks

[JCMay]

asuffield: All I can say is +5: Insightful. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:More on sinks

[Xugumad]

"My view is right" "Nonsene, my view is right"

Would either side care to produce some figures for how much CO2 humanity generates, ideally broken down into causes, plus some figures on how much CO2 was in the atmosphere anyway (earliest reliable measurement you can find will do)?

Re:More on sinks

[GooberToo]

I saw a story on (I think) PBS about this. A guy, many years ago (5-8 years) marked off some plots in various locations. Once a year he goes and samples the soil from these plots. His finding was that carbon (CO2) is being depleated from the soil. In turn, the the warming planet will increase the rate of CO2 release from the soil. IIRC, from his test plots, the carbon levels present in his plots were down something like 5x what they were when he started his experiment.

His conclusion that the warming of the planet will greatly accelerate the release of carbon from the soil, which in turn, will warm the planet, which in turn will release more carbon from the soil. As you can see, he predicts a nasty spiral.

Perhaps someone here saw this story too and can offer the name of it? Perhaps it was a Nova show? I must admit, I did not see the whole show, nor did I pay a lot of attention to it? So, perhaps I missed some details. At any rate, hopefully someone will provide more details.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't demonize anyone. He just said global warming denialists are stupid at best and dishonest at worst.

Re:More on sinks

[GooberToo]

The cost of Earth Simulator

There are many reasons to justify this project. As you saying the sole justification for this project is the looming threat of global warming?

Re:More on sinks

[Malinruin]

The people who scream the loudest tend to be heard the clearest, even if their views turn out to be flawed. If a scientist says in 10 years the earth is going to be 10 degrees warmer than it is today, people are going to perk up and listen. On the other hand if the same scientist were to say, the earth is fine, we'll experience some fluctuation but nothing too drastic, then that person would be essentially ignored. In the first case the scientist attracts funding to prolong their research. In the second case the scientist packs their bags and moves on. This type of mentality has led to a vicious cycle of denouncing any claim that global warming is false. Many in the industry now have a reason to protect their funding and will continue to argue the case for even more money. So is global warming really a threat? Perhaps, but the research thus far has not shown to be absolutely conclusive. In-fact, there is plenty of contradictory evidence. Take for instance the tree ring data stretching back millions of years. Much of this data implies that the Earth has experienced wild fluctuations in climate and temperature. Practically all of this fluctuation occured long before humans even walked the Earth. So what was the cause for the change back then? The answer, once again is inconclusive. It could be the natural fluctuations in the Sun, perhaps its a magnetic shift in the Earth, or asteroid impacts. Who knows, the data is not complete. While many claim to have the answers the facts remain that there simply isn't enough data to know the whole truth. Should we invest in more research? Probably, but we should do it in a more logical manner. Instead of studying how much the temperature changed this year, figure out what caused the temperature fluctuations millions of years ago. It may turn out that there is nothing we can do except invest in more sunscreen and shorts. -Mal

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"I'm as liberal as the next guy, but if you look at the data from a scientific perspective"

You mean peer-reviewed, right? Not internet sources, but solid peer-reviewed papers?

"increased CO2 levels are causing a significant change in our atmosphere different from what the Earth has experienced in the past."

True, but you're missing the point that we have much more population in low-lying areas and there's a fairly tight boundary in terms of feeding populations, not to mention that there is a correlation between industrial output and a rise in Co2. To say that we don't have any data that it's rising is generally to state that we need indications of serious problems to even start curing a problem that could take centuries.

Oh, and this isn't a political issue. I wish people would get off that hobby horse.

"I think that environmentalists (amung which I count myself) do their cause a disservice by trying to "massage the data" to manufacture catastrophe."

I have serious problems with Greenpeace and other such organisations as 'degenerate' rather than being constructive, especially in terms of the fever-pitch 'we're destroying the planet', but the basic fact exists that we're affecting our environment to the point where we could end up with serious problems, and by that I mean deaths in the millions or a serious change in the amount of land available for living on. So we're generally in agreement.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

And volcanic activity in the past has raised temperatures globally (Siberian traps).

Re:More on sinks

[clawDATA]

You guys. You're so, like, freaking out over this.

By the time this gets really bad -- where it starts affecting humanity -- we'll all be dead! (Hopefully by natural causes, but I suspect a bunch of you will have your grossly overweight carcass found on the toilet with a PDA stuffed with porn.)

What do you care?

Oh wait, let me guess:

"Won't somebody think of the children!"

Let them figure it out -- not our problem! They're going to have domes on the moon and rocket-cars anyway -- why should we spoil them with a perfect environment?

(I know I'll get modded a troll (which I am, and proudly so), but there are people who really think like this who happen to be either in power right now, or influencing those in power.)

Re:More on sinks

[woodlander]

This kind of reasoning could still get you a job with a tobacco company. The 'hard evidence' linking cigarettes to cancer just isn't there.

Re:More on sinks

[LegendOfLink]

Agreed, there is no scientific evidence proving global warming.

But scientists can never be wrong. Let us never forget how great cold fusion really is.

Re:More on sinks

[jalet]

> BTW I have no idea how much carbon there is in the
> average adult human.

This should be computable by burning said adult human in a laboratory.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't got the time to find out who's right because, if global warming is true, by then it will be too late.

Re:More on sinks

[Dr. GeneMachine]

But, but... I **NEVER** inhaled!!

Re:More on sinks

[amorsen]

The latter frequently point to evidence in this planet's fossil record that suggests that CO2 levels vary dramatically whether we're here or not

If I starve to death because farming failed because of global warming, am I really going to die happy if I know it was a perfectly natural process? If the Earth's climate looked like it was going to change rapidly due to entirely natural processes, I sure hope that mankind would unite in an attempt to terraform. The obvious way to counteract global warming is to reduce the levels of greenhouse gasses. Other options include increasing albedo by painting dark areas light. Unfortunately parts of the ocean that used to be frozen (and white) are now open water (and darker).

Re:More on sinks

[goldstein]

Also, it will solve the problem of Florida election irregularities.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

What have you got to win from dissing global warming? It's a fact. It's happening. Just saying it isn't so and closing your eyes doesn't change it. Unless we act now there will be no Earth to act for. We'll all be dead. Including YOU.

Re:More on sinks

[GooberToo]

First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.

This is exactly right. Those that say global warming doesn't exist, is living, 100% in a fantasy world. AFAIK, the only question is, is global warming part of a cyclical trend, directly caused by human efforts, or both?

There is certainly some trending which indicates that human's are part of the "cycle". The only question is, are human causing the trend to be above what the "normal" cycle would normally be.

Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.

I personally believe that humans are pushing the trend above the bell curve. Simple fact is, the theory is well supported by physics, as we understand it, and we are able to make observations which support our level of understanding. To me, the only question which remains, how far off the curve are we? And, will the departure be enough to matter in the long run? Those questions, IMO, are the really tough questions to answer. Frankly, I'm not sure we have the ability to answer it unless the environment makes a huge swing, for good or bad.

'global warming' industry

It seems, he considers basic science to be part of that budget. I agree with you, that his numbers appear to be completely baseless.

Re:More on sinks

[Matrix272]

First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.

I find that in particular hard to believe. I don't know what kind of thermometer you have, but the last few years where I live (Pennsylvania, USA) have been much colder than usual. In fact, it's been a running joke around here. Whenever someone mentions how cold it is, inevitably, someone says "Yeah, must be that Global Warming."

In fact, we're on track to beat a record for the number of days without seeing a 100+ degree day in summer. It's been at least 2 years now, and we definitely won't see it for another year at least. It used to be at least once a year that we'd see a few days that hit 100+ degrees.

Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.

IANAS, but doesn't less energy mean that the Earth will cool down? If I run my laptop with half a battery, it won't run hotter... in fact, after a long enough period, it'll cool down quite a bit.

If you accept that the average temperature around the world is rising (which I do not yet), would you suppose it has nothing at all to do with sunspots or solar flares? Is the fact that the solar activity has increased greatly in the last few decades of no consequence? Have you taken into account the previous thousand years, and worked the reported data into your algorithms to see if modern industry is truly the culprit? Have any of these possible explanations been tested and studied?

Re:More on sinks

[Daniel Dvorkin]

[sigh] Sometimes, you know, the other side is just wrong, or lying, and pointing this out does not constitute demonization. The idea that we should always be "balanced" when it comes to arguments of political import leads to a lot of bullshit getting consideration it doesn't deserve. Global warming deniers at this point are in the same class as creationists, Holocaust-deniers, and flat-earthers -- it's not that they're being dismissed out of hand, it's that their arguments have been proven wrong time and time again, to the point that there's really no point in continuing the argument, and yet they just keep going.

Re:More on sinks

[sarabob]

But from that chart, the annual increase has consistently been around 1-2ppm for the last 50 years. A 4ppm increase in the annual figure could therefore be argued to be statistically significant.

Re:More on sinks

[krunk7]

Nah, because it'd have the same number of delegates, except it'll just be Jeb sitting in a voting booth on a row boat in the middle of the ocean that determines the race.

Re:More on sinks

[Short Circuit]

Sure...when your POV has already been explained in countless scientific (and non-scientific) circles using evidence that's been collected for over one hundred years.

The real problem is human nature; Most people don't have any sort of reliable memory for things they don't understand...which is why it's frequently necessary to reiterate valid scientific positions.

Re:More on sinks

[GigsVT]

I agree that sometimes the other side is wrong or lying. Sometimes the other side might take a correlation, and somehow transmute that into a causation. You must be vigilant in watching for such junk science, especially if the other side claims that there's no point in even evaluating the criticism against their claims.

Re:More on sinks

[KilobyteKnight]

I heard an article on NPR the other day that discussed Global Warming's treatment in the media. The man being interviewed thought that the media did the issue a great disservice by trying to be fair and covering both sides of the issue. The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE.

You know, it really doesn't surprise me to be told that NPR would be so brazen as to air the opinion that there are no other sides to an issue.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

"... most scientists who claim that 'global warming' is a threat are being paid by governments to do 'global warming' research and would be out of a job if they didn't keep claiming that it's a big threat?"

They don't have to claim the "global warming" is a reality, only that climate research is important, and even if it wasn't important they could easily find a job in related field depending on their expertise, if they are real scientists anyway.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Watermelon? What on earth are you talking about?

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

Oh go away! Climate research would carry on whether human CO2 releases are found to be warming the planet or not.

As one example among many, the US National Academy of Sciences, whose leaders have all the grant money they could ask for already, and everything to lose in terms of reputation if they distort their science for any reason at all were asked by the Bush administration to take a skeptical look at global warming. Given the administrations attitude, they could clearly have pleased their lords and masters and perpetuated their influence and funding by reporting that there was no problem, but they did not! They concluded in a detailed study, after considering a huge range of alternatives that the evidence strongly favoured human releases of CO2 as a major cause of the warming which is being observed.

If we don't believe climatologists, who should we believe? oil companies? Ford?

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

PortlandTribune.com | Rise in CO2 levels is no cause for alarm

This is true. I saw a report on FOX news the other day that discussed Global Warming's treatment in the media. The man being interviewed thought that the media did the issue a great disservice by trying to be fair and covering both sides of the issue. The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE. The scientific evidence that humans are NOT affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or left wing organizations. That article is true when it says that the effects we will have on climate aren't fully known, and the connection is NOT there in a strong way. All of the research I have read suggests there is no link. We NEED NOT be concerned.

Re:More on sinks

[10Ghz]

First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.

Few points:
a) Is the warming caused by humans? And not by the sun for example?
b) Did you know that we are still recovering from the previous ice-age? And that means (naturally) that temperature rises towards the "normal" temperature.
c) They showed a documentary here few weeks ago about global warming. After studying the glaciers in Sweden, they noticed that they haven't got any smaller. Sure, the size does change a bit every year, but they have been more or less stable in the big picture.
d) They also showed that while temperature has risen a bit in urban areas, there has been no rise in the wilderness
e) IIRC the satellite-readouts showed that the Earth is getting cooler, not warmer. But then again, my data is from few years back

Re:More on sinks

[armb]

If there was proof, he wouldn't be saying if the tipping point has been reached, would he? Too busy doing statistics to do logic?

Anyway, that article might not specifiy the levels before, but this one does.
The key parts: "measurements that have been made since 1958 ... When he began, ... 315 parts per million by volume (ppm); today ... 376ppm."
"Across all 46 years of Dr Keeling's measurements, the average annual CO2 rise has been 1.3ppm, although in recent decades it has gone up to about 1.6ppm.
There have been several peaks, all associated with El Niño"
[...]
"Throughout the series those peaks have been followed by troughs, and there has been no annual increase in CO2 above 2ppm that has been sustained for more than a year. Until now.
From 2001 to 2002, the increase was 2.08ppm (from 371.02 to 373.10); and from 2002 to 2003 the increase was 2.54ppm (from 373.10 to 375.64). Neither of these were El Niño years, and there has been no sudden leap in emissions."

Re:More on sinks

[kiatoa]

Google is much easier and a lot less messy. Carbon in human body by weight: 18% Average weight 110 lbs (just a guess) * 6 billion people - I get 60 million tons carbon sequestered by humanity. We also help keep the sea levels from wiping out low lying areas: Water in human body: 75% by weight - I get 250 million tons. All joking aside, unfortunately these are paltry amounts compared with what we burn as oil , gas and coal every year.

Re:More on sinks

[Lars T.]

Or they lowered temperatures globally (Krakatoa).

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, climate has changed before. It is changing now. It will change until the Sun dies. What do you have to "win" by getting all hysterical about it? Earth has survived mass extinctions and meteor strikes since the beginning. I find that people like you (hysterical lefties) usually just spout rhetoric so they can bang hairy hippy-chicks. Face it, humans have very little influence over the climate. It will change wether we drive big cars or bike to work.

Re:More on sinks

[julesh]

If I starve to death because farming failed because of global warming, am I really going to die happy if I know it was a perfectly natural process?

Obviously not, but with the information in question you can determine that merely reducing our CO2 output isn't enough -- in fact, it will achieve next to nothing. We ought to be investigating ways to manage CO2 levels, whatever is generating that CO2.

Re:More on sinks

[RodgerDodger]

In a normal year, yes... but volcanos don't erupt every year.

A decent size volcanic eruption emits a lot more carbon dioxide than human activities does.

Re:More on sinks

[Feanturi]

We may not have an accurate record, but we can say that CO2 levels have increased over the past decades. How could they not? We've come up with many many ways to pump out more of it, and we weren't doing that a few hundred years ago. The planet puts out CO2 on its own, and now we are adding to that, so of course levels are going to be higher now than they used to be.

Re:More on sinks

[Fred_A]

Actually quite a few Americans are concerned, most of them live in the southern hemisphere though.

But most of the activity indeed seems to be centered in Europe. Russia recently joined the Kyoto treaty so that it would look good on paper. China seems moderately active but they probably don't have the means to do much yet. And the US policy is to do nothing that will harm the bottom line. As usual.

Re:More on sinks

[Snocone]

I have always had a hard time understanding how anyone can dismess global warming, considering that 95% of the climate scientists agree that global warming is real.

Well, for starters, we happen to be in an unusually cold period right now by geological standards; for over 70% of the lifespan of the planet, geology tells us, there have been no icecaps at either pole, and there's a wide consensus that we are actually in an interglacial period right now, which could go back to a full on Ice Age, or back to the more accustomed steambath. So, given that; if things are getting warmer, it's a lot more plausible to figure that climate is just reverting to geological norms than that there's anything significant humans are doing or can do to affect it. The sunspot activity data over recorded history sure seems a hell of a lot more compelling proof that our climate depends directly on the Sun's activity than it does on anything that humans do or don't do. But it's a lot harder to indulge your anti-capitalist prejudices if the problem is sunspots, so the fear-mongering types do their ignore any astronomical contributions to the global warming debate, and actively supress funding for that line of inquiry if they can. However, if the sunspot theorists are right, there should be a slight cooling over the next couple of years and a marked cooling by 2012 or so, so if that happens and their models are the only ones that explain it, well it won't matter at that point what anyone's politics are, I imagine.

On a more philosophical level; you little kiddies may be easy to work up about the sky falling, but us grizzled oldies remember the 70s when that same 95% of climate scientists, using the same data, assured us that a new Ice Age was just about to engulf us all and we had to panic to deal with *that* threat. So when we hear that everything's flipped 180 and now there's a 95% consensus around the exact opposite position, although the data hasn't changed; well, fool me once, and all that...

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

another very simple point is that most of these CO2 emissions are America's fault. The USA consumes something like 40-50% percent of the entire worlds resources whilst producing 40-50% of the worlds pollution and only actually containing 5% of the worlds population, why? cos george bush refuses to ratify kyoto. If the rest of the world has the balls to ratify kyoto why can't ONE american president show he has more than half an IQ point to his name and make a sensible choice. One nuke on america and there'd much less pollution, less exploitation of the third world by unscrupulous business scum, no more illegal wars.... and they call it the land of the free? free to do what? to kill murder and destroy anyone who isn't enough of neo-nazi republican ball-biting piece of shit?
America I hate you for what you have done to our mother.

Re:More on sinks

[Fred_A]

Looks like you've just added yourself to the "no flight list"...

Re:More on sinks

[gmknobl]

No, I don't think you've done your research. And I am educated enough to tell you 4PPM is big in this instance.

See, it's not that it's a small amount in our eyes. What is small differs greatly from one area of science to another. Some chemicals, if put into your system will be enough to give you cancer. Some, breathed in over the course of a few months, say by being in the atmostphere you have in your office, will make you sick and if you keep going back to the office will kill your at worst or cause permanent damage to your system.

Now, given that fact, is 4PPM small and insignificant. No. It's large and it's bad in those instances. So what makes you so sure 4PPM is insignificant here?

The people that are saying that this is nothing to worry about or okay or even that we are in a minor perturbation (sp?) not a true warming event are 1% of the scientists out there. Plus, I have not heard from one who isn't a paid spokesman for the oil industry in one way or another. And given big industries vested self interest in making us think everything is okay - these "scientists" are not to be trusted. You need independant, real scientists, and you won't find them saying we don't have a problem.

Re:More on sinks

[mpcooke3]

*then* is it not prudent to perhaps look at cutting CO2 emitions?

No, because current world leaders are normally only in power for a few years :)

Re:More on sinks

[mrseth]

"Agreed, 100%. The "other side" tends to be those causing the pollution. However, that's just how they are, right now, when their ultra-expensive coastal home is above water. If CO2 levels are spiralling rapidly, it's unlikely to remain that way."

This is the unfortunate thing about the so-called neoconservative mindset. Modern conservatism is nothing more than the rationalization of greed, avarice, and self-interest. The only time you see these folks change their mind about issues such as gay marriage or stem cells is when it touches them emotionally such as when Dick Cheny's daughter is gay or Nancy Reagan's husband develops Alzhiemer's. Global warming has not affected them adversely yet, so therefore they will always take the decision that allows them to continue their quest on attempting to collect more shiny things then their neighbors.

Re:More on sinks

[Dr. Evil]

Of those who work for companies, most don't work as scientists, and of those that do, most don't work on research which the general public would find remotely interesting... like studying abrasion and powder formation on Cheerios.

A handful, a scant tiny handful might be pulled to be given 6 figure salaries to run long studies countering univeristy and government sponsored research, so as to fortify their company's position in the marketplace. Their agenda is clear, and they're not working as scientists, they're spreading jibberish and they're being paid well to counter the damage to their reputation... but... These might be the scientists which would rather create media circuses and travel the world spreading lies than hanging out in a lab devising new ways to abrade breakfast cereals.

I'm just saying that even if the majority of scientists are in corporate back pockets, it's no worse than the fact that most of the working population is in the back pocket of one corporation or another... we don't all feel such undying corporate loyalty as to irrationally defend our company's policies.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Am i the only one that started masturbating while reading this?

Re:More on sinks

[Trailer Trash]

The "other side" tends to be people like me - informed scientists who recognize that the surface temperature of the planet, and the patterns of those temperatures, have naturally fluxuated since the beginning of time, long before human involvement. While human-created CO2 may well be causing global warming (if there is a warming trend), it might also be the natural warming trend that started at the end of the last ice age.

We need to understand that climates change, always have and always will. We like our current climates, but they won't be here forever, even if we reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels.

I can imagine you fruitcakes at the end of the ice age: "The glaciers will be *gone* if we don't act now!!!!"

Well, they're gone.

Re:More on sinks

[Trailer Trash]

the planet operated fine before without us pumping out such ammounts of CO2

Are you joking? Seriously. 100,000 years ago my home in Indiana was under a two-mile-thick sheet of ice. What's your idea of "fine"?

You fruitcakes need to realize that the global climate, and localized climates, have been fluctuating since the beginning of the planet. While we *might* be impacting that, there's no way to tell.

Re:More on sinks

[Urkki]

• The global warming pundits insist that they must ordinarily be constant. That's fairly unlikely; there appear (in the small amount of data we have collected over the past few decades) to be complicated cycles at work. We do not understand those cycles. Therefore we cannot claim to have altered them.

Uhum. We're digging and pumping carbon (oil and coal) out of the ground all the time and dumping most of it into the atmosphere. Do you disagree with this "claim" (more like an observation)?

If you claim that this does not affect CO2 levels of our atmosphere, I'd like to hear some reasoning and explanation... Where does the carbon we burn go then, if it doesn't increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

Re:More on sinks

[esonik]

Why are you risking your job for a scientific statement? What country are you living in? In my country a scientist can not lose his job for a scientific statement. Of course he might have problems to get funding beyond what he gets from university.

Re:More on sinks

[whimdot]

The UK in particular has been jumping on the global warming band-wagon because its government thinks they can get away with raising taxes on things that are thought to be bad.
So they tax car fuel disproportionately despite the alternative (public transport) having even worse CO2 emissions per passenger mile.

Re:More on sinks

[pere]

but hard evidence linking that to temperature rises is minimal.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of hard evidence would you concider adequate? A randomised controlled trial? Just give me the funding for another planet and a few billions years and Ill be more than happy to conduct the research..

The nature of the subject makes it impossible that any such link of causuality would be in the form of "hard evidence". It will always be just theories and models, but in this case the theories seems to be very well grounded.

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

First the meta point. You can find "qualified scientists" taking both sides of practically any question you can think of. This is good, from an academic freedom point of view, and because, just occasionally, some idea will slowly creep in from "a silly point of view held by a few awkward cranks that no one listens to" to eventually become mainstream (although it is important to remember that 99+% of such ideas will NOT do this). It is precisely to ensure this breadth of viewpoints that academics have tenure, so that they cannot be fired just because their views are unpopular.

The down side of this breadth is that when the media present a scientific issue, they, wishing to be "balanced" and not understanding the issue, will look around for some one who takes the opposite view, and find someone. So, they give equal air time to someone who represents the consensus view of 99.5% of the world's scientists who have thought about the question, and a random member of the other 0.5%. The result is that the public really has no idea what is a genuine scientific controversy with the world's experts split 50/50 and what is a few oddballs railing against an otherwise solid consensus.

Global warming is a good example of this. The media makes it seem like a closely fought evenly balanced scientific dispute, which it might have been 20 years ago, rather than an issue that the vast majority of climatologists will agree is settled in general terms (although many important questions remain), which it is today. This is exacerbated when oil companies and their hirelings (like the US federal government) spend their billions to push their viewpoint as well.

On your technical points. Firstly the "drop in the ocean" thing is just wrong. We are emitting a substantial fraction (something like 30% I think) of all the CO2 released every year. The CO2 levels and temperatures have varied historically, but (a) The consequences were pretty unpleasant (rising sea levels, etc.) and (b) many of the changes happened over millions of years, not decades.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

(In agreement with Asuffield)

This is basically what I have indicated since I was in gradeschool. And I do not see why it is so hard for others to see.

We get taught/learn that this world is billions of years old. The Weather research data we have is less than 100.

For all we know this is part of a cycle that happens every 10 or 100 thousand years.

I am not saying we should not be concerned and do our best to limit harmful things. I would LOVE to see alternate fuel methods other than this outrageously priced Crude Oil.

But the bottom line is this: We cannot know for certain. We can guess/estimate with the data we have. The problem is the data we have is a tiny blip on the vast sea of the Earth's timeline.

Re:More on sinks

[mdfst13]

"So what makes you so sure 4PPM is insignificant here?"

The link your parent posted showing that 4 PPM increases have been seen in a single month? The problem is not the 4PPM increase, it's the possibility that the increases will have permanently changed from 1-2 PPM/year to 4PPM/year or more.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

The Earth has survived, yes. The Earth will survive whatever happens. That isn't the problem.

It's us susrviving that's the point in question.

Re:More on sinks

[ElvenMonkey]

So they tax car fuel disproportionately despite the alternative (public transport) having even worse CO2 emissions per passenger mile.

Which is why public transport is (and has been for a couple of years now) making a very public transition to using environmentally fuels / power systems. Sure the transition isn't fast, but the writing off a bus after a few years service, just to get an environmentally friendly one isn't good economics. Several of the major busses that run through my town have been EF almost since the scheme was introduced

Besides this, I wonder if your statistics supporting your viewpoint (sources would be nice?) about public transport were actually using the polution cost per person, or whether it was just an overal look at running a bus / train / whatever for a few hours?

Re:More on sinks

[Atzanteol]

the planet operated fine before without us pumping out such ammounts of CO2

With such things as ice ages and over heated tropical periods. Now, I'm not arguing against "Global Warming(TM)", but do not pretend the Earth is as it is now, and was perfectly "stable" for millions of year. Quite the contrary actually.

Re:More on sinks

[MrDoh!]

And the UK is expected to get colder in the short term due to GlobalWarming.
Thing is, the keyword there is GLOBAL. With something as complex as the weather, there'll be wierd things happening all over. Hotter hot, colder cold, this is showing the scales are starting to wobble.
IANAS, but doesn't less energy mean that the Earth will cool down? Read the paragraph, it was Less energy out not less energy. Means less energy is being bounced back out and being absorbed/radiated where we don't want it.
Think Global, act Local

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

The evidence for a global rise in average temperature really is irrefutable. If your neighbourhood is cooling it could be random, or it could be some weird feedback where hotter seas somewhere else makes more cloud, or diverts some wind pattern or ...., but satellite and other measurements give a very exact overall picture and it is warming.

Next the energy budget. The point is that energy comes IN from the Sun mainly in visible light, to which CO2 is transparent. It goes OUT mainly in IR at wavelengths which CO2 absorbs quite well. So heat can get in just as easily, but cannot get out as easily. So we heat up.

Finally, yes, the other possible explanations have been tested and studied, exhaustively, and

(a) they don't stack up
(b) even if they did, we would still want to lower atmospheric CO2 to cool the planet.

Re:More on sinks

[prairiedock]

The author of the above-mentioned article in the Portland Tribune works for a free-market think tank. This means to me that the article is more likely to be ideological propaganda than any kind of thoughtful analysis, and indeed it provides very little comfort to anybody who is worried about the possibility of runaway global warming.

Quoting the Portland Tribune article:

Moreover, economic growth no longer means an automatic rise in CO2. While the U.S. gross domestic product grew by 32 percent from 1990 to 1999, energy-related CO2 emissions grew by only 12 percent. This means that we do not have to impose growth controls in order to minimize greenhouse gases; we simply have to encourage the continued technological innovation that is characteristic of a free-market economy.

The increase in efficiency is admirable, but CO2 production is still increasing with increasing GDP. Nobody should conclude from this statistic that "economic growth no longer means an automatic rise in CO2."

The rest of the article repeats the tired assertion to the effect we don't have incontrovertible evidence that increasing CO2 leads to global warming. Lack of incontrovertible evidence for something is not evidence to the contrary. We probably never will have conclusive evidence, but given the catastrophic nature of global warming, we likely won't be able to wait for it before trying to do something.

Re:More on sinks

[Twylite]

Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power.

I am eagerly awaiting the first mad accountant who tries to take over the world...

More seriously, I see media articles on a regular basis about scientists forging their results in order to gain recognition, about scientists responsible for Environmental Impact Assessments accepting bribes, about scientists deliberately overstating the risk of some activity in order to further their own agendas. Scientists are just people; they don't have special immunity to the concerns of the the masses.

Science is a disciplined approach to a subject that involves building up a sound theoretical knowledge and questioning all assumptions and hypotheses. Thus we not only have natural sciences but commercial sciences, including accounting science, economic science, and legal science. All uses the same fundamental principles to build the theoretical foundations of their subjects, and all practices by very different individuals.

The logical underpinnings of modern science have their roots in millennia of philosophy. Sadly the study of philosophy is neglected in modern science, otherwise you would be able to spot the many fallacious arguments you are making.

A true scientist always questions until shown proof. You cannot accuse someone of "not being a scientist" because they question a widely held belief. Neither is "95% of climate scientists" enough to prove anything. Proof requires objective observation and/or deduction that holds up under peer review. Belief is irrelevant.

As for the "80% of scientists (that) believe in global warming", ask yourself: why do these scientists believe that theory? Have the read the research, have they checked the conclusions, or do they, like your average citizen, simply trust in the beliefs of the majority of climate scientists? Why do 5% of climate scientists disagree, and who are those 5%? If (say) only 10% of climate scientists are actively involved in academic research, and the 5% that disagree about global warming are all academics, then fully half of the climate research community doesn't support global warming.

You also need to ask yourself what "believe in global warming" means. Does it mean that the average temperature of the world's surface is rising, or just certain parts? Is there an implication of human involvement? How does this weigh up against glacial records of CO2 levels? Does it mean that we (humanity) can take action to reduce or reverse this effect?

Re:More on sinks

[MallardDuck]

Ahhhh, but if you will notice, the 4ppm rate was for a TWO year period. If it has consistently been at or near 2%/yr and just happens to be at or slightly above 2%/yr for two straight years, that's not statistically significant.

Re:More on sinks

[brsmith4]

Quoting Lars T. from earlier, Regarding "And we don't emit as much in a year as a good size active volcano can do in a week. But we do emit enough to cause CO2 levels to rise."

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

Hope this helps.

Re:More on sinks

[bobetov]

Um. Factually incorrect. Not sure why you think we don't know what historic CO2 levels are, but you might want to check out:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_P la nning/New_Data/index.html

which is has a graph of findings from Antarctic ice cores, whose trapped bubbles of gas nicely record CO2 levels back some 500k years. Note the big red spike at the end of the graph, way above previous highs. On a following page:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_P la nning/Closer_Look/

You can see that in the last 200 years, CO2 levels have shot up 25%.

Just because this issue gets mainstream press (read: hysteric and unreliable) coverage, doesn't make the issue go away.

Re:More on sinks

[southpolesammy]

It's worked for President Bush so far....

Re:More on sinks

[mark2003]

Interesting the diference in opinion on this topic in the US as compared to the rest of the world.

I have not seen any articles in credible scientific magazines, such as New Scientist, Scientific American, Science etc. that have dismissed the link between carbon dioxide and global warming or that man is responsible for the majority of the change in CO2 levels and I have not seen (in a long time) any articles in major European newspapers denying the existence of global warming. Yet the Portland Tribune is held up as evidence. The author has a Masters degree and works for a free market think tank - what is his Masters in? What is this author's scientific qualification for his claims?

Unfortunately it seems that in the US the press is full of this kind of political opinion masquerading as science. You can see the consequences on Slashdot - the discussion generally becomes divided into US readers and everyone else. The readers from the US denying the cause and effect relationship that appears to exist and everyone else expressing their amazement that people living in the world's most industrial nation do not seem to understand this simple science...

Re:More on sinks

[famebait]

We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but hard evidence linking that to temperature rises is minimal.

You can't get lots of hard evidence until it's too late to avoid massive costs, financial and humanitarian. Demanding hard eveidence when the experiment more or less puts your existence at stake is meaningless. Informed estimates and simulations are all we have to go on.

Industry uses risk analyses on analogous problems all the time, and even if the probability of the human-caused global warming scenario was very low (which it is not), the potential cost is unbelievably huge. If this was a company-internal issue, a standard risk analysis would flag it so red, no sane management would ignore it the way governments (even the ones who have signed up for kyoto) are now doing.

From the media you get the impression either that scientists are roughly equally divided about the issue, or that there are just a few flakes still whining about global warming. The truth is that the "no need to worry" camp are a completely marginal fringe within the field.

The only reason they get heard is because people have heard the warnings for ages, many have grown up with them, so it isn't news and doesn't "sell", wheras the critics go "against the grain", say what people like to hear, and gives the outlets a fake veneer of "balancedness", so the masses lap it up.

'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry

What you're basically saying is all research is bogus if the scientists get paid. How do you propose to generate any real information?

Re:More on sinks

[R.Caley]

O2 levels vary dramatically whether we're here or not,

This is, of course, irrelevant. That the CO2 level, and hence climate, has varied in the past is not going to be much comfort if you wake up to find your bedroom 3 feet deep in seawater.

No one (sane) is arguing that the change in CO2 and hence climate we seem to be seeing is moving the earth somewhere it hasn't been before, or that it will somehow destroy the biosphere. Indeed if it seriously impacts on human life it will likely improve things by reducing the number of people and their ability to screw things up.

The isssues are

1. Is it happening.
2. If it is and keeps happening, will we be seriously screwed.
3. Is human activity part of the cause.
4. If 1, 2, and 3, then how can we change our activity to minimise the `we are screwed' level.

The people who think it is a bad thing when evidence is found that human activity is causing CO2 levels to rise haven't thought it through[*]. If you are in a car accelerating towards a wall, would you prefer it to be because you are going down hill, or because you absent mindedly put your foot on the accelerator?

Personally I like Terry Pratchett's suggestion that we should all buy more books.

[*] Well, haven't thought it through or are part of the fossil fuel industry and hope to earn enough to build a bunker.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well we've proven that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, and that our carbon sinks aren't soaking it up as fast as we pull it out of the earth and burn it.

It isn't that much of a leap of faith to forsee what the next stage will be, just as it isn't a leap of faith to go some place devoid of hills (like the ocean), and see that the horizon ends about 26 miles away no matter where you are, and then base an idea that the world is round on that fact, just like the greeks did ~5,000 years ago, just to have a bunch of goddamned christians to burn your libraries down, and contribute that much more to global warming.

'Fo shizzlee.

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

Convieniently you forget that 'your' side is also afflicted by special interest. How useful is a climat researcher (appearantly anyone who has ever seen an uni from the inside) that tells the government that there is nothing to do? It is beyond doubt that anyone on the government payroll strives from problems, the bigger and the longer to resolve the better. Sucessfull 'programs' always get dismantelt after a set goal is archieved. For the people that get paid for solving the problems this obviously generates a conflict of interest. The research budget for 2000 climate researchers in the US has been 2 billion$ in 2002. When do you think that the budget is increased? The need for generating a problem to justify ones income clearly biases scientists on government payroll. Or why else do you think that the 'industry' is mainly concerned with churning out solutions while the government immediatly jumps unto any scare-train that runs past? Examples are numerous, the murderous scandal regarding DDT quite a ways ahead. Just to think that malaria was on the verge of disappearing and now, after the swift prohibition of DDT because some birds eggs might have fragile shells (utterly debunked claim by the way), it afflicts 500 million people. Incredible.

The effects of acting upon the fear of global warming, despite conflicting evidence (like the NASA satelite meassurement of global temperature), would be even worse. Civilization strives on energy. Restricting the use of affordable energy sources in the draconian manner that computer models would require will bring about widespread un-civilitation: poverty, hunger, diseases etc. For all people already living on the verge of civilitation this will be certain death. The cost of kyoto alone run into the hundred billion range depending on the actual country. The $150 billion predicted for germany amount to be 5% of the GDP. This is a huge dent for the productivity of an economy and by extension for the wealth of its participants. The extra cost inflicted on industries can have only one consequence: The companies that are already producing 'on the margin' (meaning that any slight increase in costs will convert profits to losses) will have to move somewhere else (presumably somewhere where the kyoto protocol is not in effect) or go broke. The consequential stagnation of tax revenue coupled with the increase in entitlement to government aid (the unemployed) will futher diminish the states chances of implementing necessary wellfare reforms an thereby bringing it closer to the point of 'state-default' with all the really scary effects this can have (see germany in the 1930ies)
But kyoto alone will hardly do anything if you believe the models that predict the catastrophic climate change.

Re:More on sinks

[Matrix272]

We may not have an accurate record, but we can say that CO2 levels have increased over the past decades. How could they not?

Little trivia fact for the global warming pundits: There are more trees in North America now than there were in 1970. It's true.

(For the less-intuitive of you, here's a very brief explanation.) Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Yet global warming people don't advocate killing everyone in China and India, which would reduce human exhalation of CO2 levels by nearly 40%. Now here's where the trivia fact comes in. Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.

We've come up with many many ways to pump out more of it, and we weren't doing that a few hundred years ago.

I would expect you to provide some evidence showing CO2 levels and the average global temperature from a few hundred years ago. I think going back 1000 years should be sufficient for this exercise. Most experts agree that the average global temperature was higher in the middle-ages than it is now... except those experts who don't like to talk about things like that.

Re:More on sinks

[hypnagogue]

Look at those numbers: you've just proven that a short duration 4PPM increase in C02 can be explained by an increase in volcanic activity.
*gasp*

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

See? Classic. Classic dismissal.

Parent post is Flamebait? Hardly. But this is the rarified air of Slashdot, where unpopular viewpoints, even if reasonably presented, are such an affront to the groupthink that any method of doing harm to the poster can be rationalized.

That's so much easier than defending one's position, isn't it.

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

Lots of solid data -- temperatures, CO2 levels, etc. at:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/ cu rrent/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle_new .html

Human activity produces net CO2 emission around 8 billion tons of carbon per year. While about 200 billion tons is cycled annually between plants, the atmosphere and the seas, this basically consists of two fairly balanced processes -- into and out of plants and into and out of the sea. If you look at net uptakes or releases by plants and the seas, the human contribution is huge.

Re:More on sinks

[Dr. Evil]

Tipping point? Proof, please?

Do you want proof that the tipping point exists? Do you want proof that the tipping point is a problem? Do you want proof that the tipping point has been reached? Do you want proof that the problem is imminent? Do you want proof that no other affect will appear which counteracts the tipping point?

Or are you just going to change the question until you reach a point where science is forced to answer "we don't have the data", and raise your finger, proclaiming "a-ha! so this is an emotional argument!"

The bottom line is that there is a proponderance of evidence that the vast change in industry and global human activity has impacted our environment. Lakes are poluted, the oceans are polluted, even harmful chemicals are spreading through the arctic. Species are dying, there is no question that these things are real. The only question is... what is going to happen?

There is a personal ethical decision one must make to determine if these things are important to you. I think it is a legitimate decision for a person to say "hey, this is the world I live in, you're talking me destroying a world I won't be living in. I can't say it is important to me."

Now science doesn't have a full handle on what is going to happen. Humanity hasn't destroyed a planet before, so it is tough to tell how bad things might be. We should however, err on the side of caution. If we care about the world we leave behind, we should only be as damaging to the environment as the best of science says we can afford to be be.

Finally, if the majority of humanity feels that the environment is important, then to preserve their interests (the planet), regulations must be established to prevent those who do not share their interests from attaining immense profits from destructively exploiting the planet.

So as long as the scientists are out for debate on global warming, the government should treat it as seriously as if it were real... whether it is real or not.

If you don't care, and again, I think that is a legitimate position, you should not be refuting the science and pretending that it is in the best interest of those who do care, but you should simply state "I don't care!"

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a few scientists can stay at university, the others will work for a company..

And those who stay at universities have to write papers that get research grants, and you don't get research grants by saying everything's okey-dokey.

Of course no scientist would ever falsify data to improve his reputation or get research funding.

Re:More on sinks

[peawee03]

Global warming has much more to do than the direct heat you recieve. For example: a body of water will temper the local climate of an area, by absorbing heat during the warmer months and releasing it during the winter months. Now, you get melting arctic ice, that means the largest thermal regulation device in the world (the Oceans) is getting larger, and colder. This affects *everything*.

I live in the Chicago area, and it's been getting colder there, too, but the temperature affect we're seeing isn't from a massive cooldown, it's from the jet stream that normally swings far north into Canada coming down and sweeping across our home towns. I've heard this is more than a likely effect of global warming.

Fact of the matter is that, yes, this is most likely another swing to an extreme in the Earth's climate cycle. But the question is that "Does Man have a significant impact upon this natural cycle?" Most research points to "yes"

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same logic, you also cannot claim that we have NOT altered them. And in this case, I would rather err on the side of caution.

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

Your data is just wrong for b, d and e. See any of several sites linked from posts in this debate. The global temperature curve may have wandered up 0.1 degree or so in the 1000 years to 1800, but since then it has gone up at least a clear degree (Centigrade!).

I don't know about c, but Sweden is pretty far North. If warmer seas made it wetter there (ie more snow) glaciers could easily grow. Glaciers on the Alps and in Africa are retreating.

As for (a) other theories have been pretty closely examined, and the vast majority of scientists who have examined them found that they did not account for the facts.

Re:More on sinks

[Artifakt]

Climate=!Weather
What you are argueing is basically equivalent to saying, "My insurance company can't predict the exact date of my death, so why should I believe those actuarial tables that show smoking reduces life expectancy?"
Some climateologists have predicted an increase in tornados in the midwest US as the average water table levels in the west drop, along with a shift in the distribution of those tornados. We've seen that, with 2002 being a very high year for numbers of tornados, 2003 setting a new hundred+ year record, and 2004 also running way above the old averages.
What happened with Hurricanes this year may not prove much by itself, but it's a suspicious case. In addition to the effects most US'ians have noted, the Pacific Monsoon season has been unusually tough, particularly on Japan and the Phillippines. I'd prefer to see if this pattern continues before making too much of what, granted, could still be a fluke, but the alternate theory of the 30 year natural hurricane cycle would have to be extended to cover Pacific storms as well if it's to make any sense.
In my region of the country, the deciduous tree line is rising higher on the mountaintops. Trees don't walk - for the line to rise, conditions have to favor deciduous seedling growth higher up the mountainsides, and they have to stay that way long enough for new generations to continue the process. Measurable increases in tree species altitude take a minimum of 10 years, requiring a change that has been consistent over at least that much time. For some slower growing species whose seeds don't usually travel far, the numbers are much higher than that. We can look at which species have migrated the most, and which are becoming rare or locally extinct instead of moving, and get some pretty interesting estimates of when the climate zigs and zags.
The people who have been rejecting any arguements for serious climate shift locally keep referring to each year's data as an individual case, and refusing to admit that those individual cases have to be part of a larger pattern for the observed changes to have taken place.
Local weather shows an abrupt shift, now about 5 years old, towards a major increase in rainfall. Before that time, the average August might go a whole month without rain, and could be expected to have at least 1 two week dry period. "Indian" Summers were standard (we had one 80-90% of the time), and periods when the reservoirs were very low in both the late summer and the late winter. We've seen a local average of 14" increase in yearly rainfall in these last five years. There has not been a single July or August where rains have been more than 5 days apart (And for the rest of the year, usually wetter, that number is more like 3 days).
The way this gets reported is the new years get averaged in with the older ones, so the amount we are above average keeps decreasing, and so technically each year is not as much over the hundred year average as the last. Actually graphing the numbers by week or month shows an old average and a new average, with a spectacularly sharp contrast over a few years where the graph really ramps up and then becomes a still gradually rising plateau.
The Chaos theory arguement makes a certain amount of sense, and certainly ought to be taken into account in explaining why some specific, short term predictions are a waste of time, but... Some variables are more important than others. A Hurricane is basically an enormous energy sink. The rates for heat exchange and such can vary, but still, the 2nd law overides many possibilities, and a hurricane always lasts until enough energy has poured into the low energy zone to balance out. When the energy differential is great, the flow is rapid, and when it becomes smaller, the flow is less, and Chaos effects don't overide those general trends. If the planet really is retaining more energy due to the greenhouse effect, then I don't expect any 0.01% changes in any other variables to over-ride the 2nd law, just because it's a larger scale.

Re:More on sinks

[Twylite]

And you're assuming it is there. Creating a truely objective longitudinal study to observe the effects of smoking on a group as compared to a control group is incredibly difficult.

Few of studies that are cited as "hard evidence" take into account psychological factors -- stress, for example, is a predisposing factor for both smoking and many forms of cancer.

Other studies are worse, turning to geographically disparate groups in an effort to separate smokers from non-smokers who will not be subjected to cigaratte smoke, i.e. people in rural areas. This obviously doesn't take into account the effect of city pollutants, etc.

Consider for a moment the difficulty in taking two groups of people from the same environment (same building, various people from various job levels) and ensuring that your control group isn't subject to secondary smoke. Since these studies have concluded that secondary smoke is bad, they must have had to keep the control group in a "clean" environment, somehow, for 10+ years.

In other words most of the research linking smoking to cancer is tainted in some way, and comes down to manipulatable statistical models based on estimates of environmental influences. It is only because we have dozens of such studies by various independent groups using different control models over a period of more than 30 years that we are generally satisfied now that there is a statistically significant relationship between smoking and cancer. In other words we have extensive circumstantial evidence rather than 'hard evidence'.

Re:More on sinks

[iBod]

The "other side" tends to be people like me - informed scientists...

What kind of science are you qualified in? It's certainly not climatology.

Re:More on sinks

[Feanturi]

The average global temperature may have been higher a few hundred years ago, but this does not say anything about us making somehow less CO2 now. Yes I know trees breathe the stuff.. But I also know that a few hundred years ago we didn't have cars and factories. We didn't dig oil wells and then have them blown up and burn out of control for months on end. We plant trees, but we cut down a hell of a lot of them too, and we burn a lot of them.

Re:More on sinks

[teromajusa]

We need to understand that climates change, always have and always will. We like our current climates, but they won't be here forever, even if we reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels.

You won't be here forever either, but if people were trying to accelerate your death, I doubt you would be so fatalistic. Stopping global warming isn't about halting climate change. Proponents of the global warming theory aren't claiming that the climate does not change naturally. You claim to be an 'informed scientist', but your representation of the views you dismiss are grossly uninformed.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you joking? Seriously. 100,000 years ago my home in Indiana was under a two-mile-thick sheet of ice. What's your idea of "fine"?

Indiana under two miles of ice.

Re:More on sinks

[mi]

And you are convinced, because you heard a man -- whose named you don't even remember -- interviewed on radio?.. So easily impressed, be sure not to tune to a radio cleric of some sort...

As for the subject at hand, I'll remain sceptical until Ice Age is adequately explained...

There was no humanity back then, but if there was, part of it would've blamed the phenomenon on the other part...

Re:More on sinks

[Matrix272]

And the UK is expected to get colder in the short term due to GlobalWarming.

So are you suggesting that the poles will remain cold? That's going to hurt your argument for stopping global warming due to the melting of the polar ice caps...

Re:More on sinks

[CreatureComfort]

Perhaps most of the people in this discussion should do more research and get a better handle on reality and the past climate of the earth.

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

For the approximately 600 million years that we can reconstruct climatological data, approximately 80 million of those, or 16%, has been at a mean global temerature comparable to today's levels. Another 80 million, or 16%, has been spent at temperatures averaging 5 C higher than current levels, and about 330 million years, or 67%, have been spent a full 10 C higher than current levels. These three "stable" points show great consistancy over the course of millions of years. The remaining 20% falls outside of these three points, but almost completely above the current global mean.

Global warming is occurring... but it has very little to do with Human presence, and would still continue even if we all killed ourselves off this afternoon. This may be distressing to those living in low lying areas, however eliminating global human emissions of greenhouse gases isn't going to change the fact.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so full of shit that your eyes are brown.

Volcanos erupt ALL the time, more or less *everywhere*. That there isn't one in your backyard dosen't discout the fact that for every active volcano that can be seen, there are about two under the ocean, that can't be seen. And, for the most part, they're going ALL the time. Most of that gas gets diffused right into that super-cold water, but lots does go to the atmosphere. Don't forget that there are trillions of tons of solid methane down there. If the oceans heat up, and currents change, we risk the release of these hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, and that could cause a run away feedback loop that not many could imagine.

Re:More on sinks

[abulafia]

Debate desperation tactic #5: Attack the medium when you have no way to counter the factuals.

So, now that that's taken care of, AC: back on track: Please post _anything_ that (a) has not been amply proven false and (b) supports the notion that rising CO2 levels aren't a problem. If you can't, can I suggest you head to a forum that you might like better?

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past the planet was warmer and the ocean levels were much higher. (See fossil record and arctic ice cores.) Why was that? The carbon that we are now digging up was floating around in the atmosphere at that time. Then, over the course of many years, some of the carbon was buried. My best guess is due to flooding, volcanoes covering everything with ash, etc. That would bury plants and animals. Of course the volcanoes would release lots of carbon as well... Then we have an ice age, lots of animals die and are buried in the ice. Perhaps even squished into the dirt. It seems to me that all of the carbon we are burning now was once in the atmosphere when the planet was warmer.

Now we are releasing the buried carbon back into the atmosphere and are wondering why it's getting warmer. Since the air is warmer, there's more energy in the atmosphere. The planet wants to cool off(One of them damn thermo laws), so the atmosphere creates more tornadoes and hurricanes. Then el nino, the warming of the ocean, occurs and releases the heat back into the atmosphere through evaporation... More storms. Hotter air has trouble holding on to the water so more storms...

With all that said, this does not rule out the heat input from the sun causing some of the temperature swings.

In summary,
1.We know carbon traps heat. (See Venus)
2.We know there was more carbon in the carbon cycle. (See coal and oil deposits.)
3.We know they come from animals and plants.(Look at some coal and see the plant fossils)
4.We know there was lots of carbon in the atmosphere and that it was hot for many years... (See what type of fossils we are digging up... Assuming the large lizards were cold blooded and really tall ferns needed hot moist air)
5.Carbon gets buried, planet cools down... (See ice ages. However the last one could have been caused by a very large volcanic explosion in the Yellow stone area as well as Indonesia.)
6.Dig up carbon and put back into atmosphere, planet heats back up... (Walk outside... It's October here in Kentucky and it's been in the upper 70's F. Normal temps are mid 60's. I know this is only this year, but the summers and winters are getting warmer from when I was a child.)

I know this over simplifies things, but it is something we should think about and include in the discussion.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well.

Besides, look at the bright side: the longer the rich, powerful men keep deluding themselves about no
global warming, the longer we can borrow money and not have to pay it back later. 'Cause the joke is on them. We'll all be dead by then!

"..."

Is this the only Earth I get to live on? Afraid so.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot. The only reason there is a "Global Warming Industry" is because of people like you who keep saying "Nonsense, there is no global warming. We need clear research if we're going to draw that conclusion." So, more research gets funded. But once that research is carried out, you get to say "Whoa, you put all that money into global warming research? Don't be naive! You have created a self-sustaining industry now, and we can't trust their results!"...

So we're damned if we don't have evidence, and if we give people enough money to gather evidence, we're damned by creating a research industry, which as everyone knows can't be trusted.

If that is your opinion, it sounds like bullshit.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we don't. We do not have an accurate record of what 'normal' CO2 levels are,

What do you call 20,000 years worth of air samples extracted from ice-cores, then?

Re:More on sinks

[Pandion]

No, you should always be balanced. Balanced, as it relates to politics, means that BOTH sides could either be lying or wrong. Last time I checked, not a whole lot has been PROVEN about global warming. Or maybe I'm wrong and we can model the entire atmosphere now?

Re:More on sinks

[darkmeridian]

Global warming may cause areas to cool off. The climate of the entire world warms up. A warm area in one place may cause coolness in another because of how all the tides and jet streams interact. It's counter-intuitive, certainly, but have a run of cold weather doesn't mean there is no global warmning. When you see icecaps melting and huge chunks of the poles break off, there is global warming.

Re:More on sinks

[tigersha]

SIgh. Yes, that is in the end the problem, but I have to wonder if this does not come from some kind of human arrogance. So what if we die out? WIll the earth's ecosystem die out when we die out? No.

We are just another species, one of zillions. One with the capability of language and the explosive effect it had with reasoning because it allowed us to express abstract thoughts.

But if we die off earth will conitunue. The problem is one of arrogance, that humand think they are exalted or something. You are not exalted. Your cells are pretty much the same as any eukaryote. Your DNA is 90% similar to that of a chimpanzee. So is your body (2 arms, 2 legs, laterally symmetrical, bla, bla bla. You basic functions are the same. Lungs, heart that pumps blood, kidney, liver, all these things do the same job in a chimp and other mammals, and, for that matter reptiles and birds too. So, for that matter are most of what makes your personality. Fear, anger, the fight-or-flight-recation, all comes from animals. YOU ARE JUST THE SAME. And earth is what it is all about. We will die out someday, maybe we should get used to the idea.

Re:More on sinks

[untaken_name]

True. All these people worried about 'the Earth' are in reality worried about their own asses. The Earth has, can, and will survive much worse than humanity could ever do without a coordinated intentional effort. All this talk about 'oh no! species are dying!!1!1', as if that has never happened before. New species arise and old ones die all the time. That's like, the natural order of things and stuff. If humans all died tomorrow, this planet would continue to exist quite happily. Now, whether or not humanity should survive is a valid question, but the survival of the planet isn't in doubt at all. That's why all the 'pro-environment' people all seem so disingenuous to me.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

If its such iron clad science, why is it that

• They constantly have to rework their figures.
  
• They arent able to actually predict anything.
  

If anyone has misrepresented their positions, its the scientists who use brimstone predicitions based on loose theory to continue their funding.

Re:More on sinks

[whimdot]

This statistic has been bandied about recently in the UK press and television (e.g. on bbc Top Gear programme), but I can't find a recent reference to back that up. A swift googling revealed a few sources to suggest that modern railway locomotives were less efficient than automobiles.
See:
http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20 th-1.html

It would be nice to think that the government was spending the additional tax revenues on improving public transport (and making it more efficient) or on some other CO2 reduction system, but they're not.

I'm surprised the pensioners' winter fuel allowance has survived so long. It is time to replace it with a winter thermal undies allowance. Surely that would be the better solution for global warming. ;-)

Re:More on sinks

[keli]

... continue their quest on attempting to collect more shiny things then their neighbors.
[emphasis mine]

Yes those neighbour-collecting neoconservatives can be a pain in the behind. :-P

Re:More on sinks

[mi]

we would still want to lower atmospheric CO2 to cool the planet

Why are you so conservative? There are dinosaur remains in Antarctica -- the Earth used to be much hotter...

I don't think, I would mind it getting warmer -- it is not going to happen overnight anyway -- the humans will adjust.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, CO2 isn't the primary greenhouse gas, so your point isn't complete.

Re:More on sinks

[tigersha]

Sigh. Yes, that is the problem in the end, but I have to wonder if this does not come from some kind of human arrogance. So what if we die out? Will the earth's ecosystem die out when we die out? No.

We are just another species, one of zillions. One with the capability of language and the explosive effect it had with reasoning because it allowed us to express abstract thoughts.

But if we die off earth will continue. The problem is one of arrogance, that humans think they are exalted or something. You are not exalted. Your cells are pretty much the same as any eukaryote. Your DNA is 90% similar to that of a chimpanzee.

So is your body. 2 arms, 2 legs, laterally symmetrical, bla, bla bla. You basic functions are the same. Lungs, heart that pumps blood, kidney, liver, all these things do the same job in a chimp and other mammals and, for that matter, reptiles and birds too.

So are most things that makes your personality. Fear, anger, the fight-or-flight-reaction, all comes from animals.

YOU ARE JUST THE SAME.

And earth's ecosystem is what it is all about. We will die out someday, maybe we should get used to the idea.

Earth has had several mass extinctions. Once the entire ocean froze up. We are not the first species to cause mass dieoffs by pumping gas into the atmosphere (Google for Cyanobacteria and Oxygen Holocaust). We could well be in the normal rise after an ice age. Or maybe not.

The question we should be asking is whether it really matters if Florida drowns. The earth will be a different place, sure, but will it be worse? From what perspective? And, the most important question, will it cost less to adapt to the new warmer planet than to carry the cost of preventing the warmup? Maybe we should look at things with a 15000 year timespan, but I seriously do not think politicians or, for that matter, most people are willing to do that.

Its not as if the earth's oceans are going to go up 2 meter in one horrible night, it will take a few decades. There are things that MAY take a single season (the way warm water in the North Atlantic is carried north and heats up Europe is a system that is apparently somewhat precarious). But in the looong run, it probably does not matter.

Re:More on sinks

[c4miles]

IANAS, but doesn't less energy mean that the Earth will cool down? If I run my laptop with half a battery, it won't run hotter... in fact, after a long enough period, it'll cool down quite a bit

You misunderstood. CO2 buildup prevents energy being radiated beyond the earth's atmosphere. Less energy out of the system means more stays in the system, leading to a heat buildup. Like closing the windows on a glasshouse in the sun.

Re:More on sinks

[jinxidoru]

That is, making fun of the fact that most scientists who claim that 'global warming' is a threat are being paid by governments to do 'global warming' research and would be out of a job if they didn't keep claiming that it's a big threat?

Maybe it's my naivity, but I believe that everyone does things for some reason or another, whether it be monetary, emotional, political, etc.. Now why in the world would the government want to fund scientists to falsely declare that global warming is occuring? What do governments gain from encouraging the population to be in favor of expensive resolutions (Kyoto)? The only thing I can think of is the continued existance of humanity. So, you're also saying that the people at National Geographic were paid off my the government for their entire magazine being dedicated to global warming last month?

Now, on the other hand, do the big oil corps have incentive to fund anti-research? Of course. Keeping down said research saves them millions of dollars.

I've found that a little bit of critical thinking as well as an examination of motives can generally dispel most conspiracy theories, and on occasion start a new more appropriate one.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are you? A cookiescratcher??

Re:More on sinks

[jd]

"Informed" scientists tend not to need to boast about how informed they are. It's so obvious by the content that the labelling and branding become superfluous. Steven Hawking doesn't need to have "PhD" stuck in large neon colors on his books and papers, for example.

Truly informed scientists also recognise that, yes, climates change over time. We're actually in a warm spell, in the middle of an Ice Age. The tempertures should, on average, be going down, not up. The fact that the temperatures are rising at all is significant. The fact that they have sharply risen only since the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s is also significant.

The fact that industrialists aren't keen on paying the costs to upgrade and modernise their rather archaic and inefficient systems is significant only in the amazing naivety of it. Modernising costs, sure, but if you can produce more for less, then you end up the long-term winner from spending that money.

By avoiding responsibility, industrialists not only endanger the environment, they also hurt themselves. So, even if you disregard the environmental aspect, these people are STILL commiting suicide.

Are you sure it's the suicidal lunatics we want to be listening to?

Re:More on sinks

[teromajusa]

Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Yet global warming people don't advocate killing everyone in China and India, which would reduce human exhalation of CO2 levels by nearly 40%.

Humans, like all living things are carbon stores. Killing them frees the carbon.

Now here's where the trivia fact comes in. Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.

We've come up with many many ways to pump out more of it, and we weren't doing that a few hundred years ago.

I would expect you to provide some evidence showing CO2 levels and the average global temperature from a few hundred years ago.

You'd expect wrong. We weren't pumping massive amounts of oil out of the ground and burning it a few hundred years ago. A few hundred years ago the Amazon rainforest wasn't being razed at breakneck speed. Do everyone a favor and aquaint yourself with the theories before dismissing them.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everybody, stop exhaling immediately!"

Maybe we could just convince the stupid people to stop exhaling, thereby killing two birds with one stone.

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

I'm not sure Antartica was at the pole when the dinosaurs left their remains there.

Yes, we will adjust, probably, but it will not be fun. A sea level rise of a few metres by 2100 will cause huge expense in the rich North (builfing dykes) and huge misery in the poor South (as when the population of Bangladesh tries to fit the small part of their country which will be left). Also, while it doesn't take long for (say) Kansas to become too hot and dry to grow wheat or grass, it takes rather longer for (say) Greenland to thaw out and develop decent soil.

Re:More on sinks

[WhiplashII]

I think that attempting to alter conditions on such a large scale would be wasteful. Pretend that we get hit by a comet, composed entirely of CO2. Would it make more sense to create atmospheric cleansers, that would process the entire atmosphere, or would it be smarter to make our homes airtight with local oxygen processors.

As for "mankind uniting", the only way that would happen would be in war. Look at history, man! People do not become friendly when nations are threatened!

Re:More on sinks

[JCMay]

Do you want proof that the tipping point exists? Do you want proof that the tipping point is a problem? Do you want proof that the tipping point has been reached? Do you want proof that the problem is imminent? Do you want proof that no other affect will appear which counteracts the tipping point?

I'm somewhat familiar with Catastrophe Theory. We have examples around here every year: smelly red tide fish kills. The Conventional Wisdom says that they are, like global warming, totally human-generated events: Nitrogen-rich domestic yard fertilizer runoff causes an explosion in the algae population. After this food supply is used up the algae die, consuming all the oxygen in the water and suffocating the fish.

Re:More on sinks

[drinkypoo]

Agreed, 100%. The "other side" tends to be those causing the pollution. However, that's just how they are, right now, when their ultra-expensive coastal home is above water. If CO2 levels are spiralling rapidly, it's unlikely to remain that way.

The problem with your statement is that those people can afford to have their coastal home picked up and moved to where projections indicate the new coast will be.

These people do not and will not care about global warming eventually pitching us into the next ice age (the earth, after all, is self-regulating) because they can afford to be relatively unaffected by it.

Re:More on sinks

[jd]

The medium denies all responsibility for demons, and urges those in conflict with reality (such as polluters) to contact the spirit world. A good single-malt scotch, for example.

Re:More on sinks

[Untimely Ripp'd]

'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world: if you wouldn't believe McDonalds if they said that their meals are good for you, why would you believe the global warming industry?

well, mainly because i had the chance to work in this "industry" for a while, so i actually know some of the people involved. a few of them are really, really smart, and not many of them are getting rich. as far as i can tell, the ones who ARE making a bundle are the ones whose research funding keeps going up as long as the idiot-in-chief insists that more research, rather than action, is called for.

Re:More on sinks

[drinkypoo]

By avoiding responsibility, industrialists not only endanger the environment, they also hurt themselves. So, even if you disregard the environmental aspect, these people are STILL commiting suicide.

By the time this process makes the world a substantially more dangerous place to live these people and their children will both be dead. Their stockholders don't pay them to care, and they personally have no real interest in it - protecting the environment doesn't make them any money - so why should they care? I mean, I understand why they should care, but from a purely selfish standpoint there's really no reason.

Re:More on sinks

[flyneye]

Gosh!NPR said it?
RUN!Flee to the hills,the sky is falling,the sky is falling!
Get over it,science has less to do with this environmental shit than politics do.NPR is immediatley recognisable as a voice for the left agenda and they play bad jazz.
The fact is,as you say,there is no other side(as long as it can be obscured)
However if you want facts,familiarize yourself with the research that you disagree with,equally as the research you settled for in bias.
Compare that research in an unbiased light and take account for politics and agendas.
You may find that whats been worrying you is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors put up by hippies who cant admit theyre wrong after all the fuss and rigor.
You may find that you could have driven a powerful easy to repair auto on inexpensive petrolium products.You may find that youve spent WAAAAY too much money in taxes on foolish initiatives,money that couldve been useful for real problems.
The truth is we arent nearly going to run out of petrolium.Even dry oil wells capped for years are refilling and ready to be pumped again.No need to overthrow the oil business with fringe legislation on account of"the sky is falling scares.We arent making an appreciable dent in mother nature(I'd watch those gassy cows though).
The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with C02 is murky and dissappears when
brought under review.
Chances are if you keep reading from the same comfortable sources,you are only utilizing the information for reaffirming your belief system and not digging for truth.

Re:More on sinks

[julesh]

The people who think it is a bad thing when evidence is found that human activity is causing CO2 levels to rise haven't thought it through[*]. If you are in a car accelerating towards a wall, would you prefer it to be because you are going down hill, or because you absent mindedly put your foot on the accelerator?

Absolutely. The fact that natural processes produce more CO2 than we do and are highly variable in the amount they produce scares me. The potential for a natural disaster based on a sudden release of large volumes of CO2 is real, and has probably happened before (some explanations of the permian/triassic mass extinction, approximately ~245 million years ago, involve a large release of CO2, probably from vulcanism).

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

I have always had a hard time understanding how anyone can dismess global warming, considering that 95%

Repeat after me: the majority is always right. A minority of one is always insane. This has been so since the party invented the word revolution, shortly before it invented the plane. Everyone agrees to be sane, that must make you insane.

Show me the fucking data, meanwhile I'll stick to nasa satellite meassurements:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_glbave.h tml

Re:More on sinks

[Profane MuthaFucka]

A question: Who is paying you?
Another question: Why isn't any of this "scientist" stuff listed on your resume?/b?

Re:More on sinks

[Typingsux]

I dunno, have you ever even looked at the weather on Venus?

Re:More on sinks

[abulafia]

I would expect you to provide some evidence showing CO2 levels and the average global temperature from a few hundred years ago. I think going back 1000 years should be sufficient for this exercise.

Will a dataset covering 500x that long be sufficient?

Note the current ramp up, from a cyclic highpoint.

Sooooo... next quibble? If we work through enough, maybe you'll notice that reality isn't optional.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Most scientists in climate research work for universities, government agencies or non-profit organisations. They are usually not in it for the money.

Re:More on sinks

[SEWilco]

The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies. That article is true when it says that the effects we will have on climate aren't fully known, but the connection is there in a strong way.

The effects we will have on climate aren't fully known because the science has a lot of unknowns. Because the science has a lot of unknowns, the "predictions" of effects are very weak. This news item is just another example.

For other examples, look at the bible of Global Warming: the IPCC reports upon which the Kyoto Protocol is based. Kyoto is based on the 2nd IPCC report. Look at the 3rd IPCC report ("Third Assessment Report") and notice the mentions of "significant progress" since the second report. That means that a lot of stuff was unknown and they've learned a lot more -- but Kyoto is still based on the report before that stuff was known. Then move on to the mentions of existing "uncertainty". Advanced Understanding

Re:More on sinks

[Matrix272]

Global warming may cause areas to cool off. The climate of the entire world warms up. A warm area in one place may cause coolness in another because of how all the tides and jet streams interact. It's counter-intuitive, certainly, but have a run of cold weather doesn't mean there is no global warmning.

Yeah, I saw that movie too. I went for the special effects... I didn't think much of the plot or the acting. But seriously, why won't anyone even acknowledge the increase in sun activity over the last 30 years? Also, why won't anyone provide any evidence that the average temperature has increased more in the past few decades than it historically has in similar timeframes before modern industry (i.e., back a thousand years or so)?

Re:More on sinks

[gfxguy]

Ahem... you're not convincing anyone who isn't already subscribed to your theory, you realize that?

How is that different than any other slashdot "discussion"?

Re:More on sinks

[greenhide]

Figures, please!

If this is true, I want to know.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

same mnemonic as 'lalalalalallala cant hear you lalalalalalala'

Re:More on sinks

[gfxguy]

Will you be happier knowing that you wasted all that money and effort that made for a lower quality of life for everyone, all for nothing?

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE. The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies.

Spoken like a true left-wing environmentalist liberal.

Seriously, my name-calling may be inappropriate but your suggestion that all scientists that disagree with the human-induced global warming are hired by special interests is untrue. Also to suggest that there is "no other side" is dangerously fascist.

Regardless of your position on global warming, your response to it essetially advocating censorship of opposing views in science is even more cause of concerned than global warming.

Re:More on sinks

[amorsen]

Since mankind is single largest net CO2 contributor, I find it hard to believe that reducing the CO2 output would achieve next to nothing, if the aim is to manage CO2 levels.

You can possibly argue that CO2 does not cause global warming (presumably because some other process offsets it), but you cannot at this point argue that the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere comes from non-manmade sources.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Some chemicals, if put into your system will be enough to give you cancer.

Can you really name a chemical that a small single dosage will give you cancer? Certainly there are chemicals that will cool you very quickly in small dosages.

Re:More on sinks

[Matrix272]

Will a dataset covering 500x that long be sufficient?

No, it will not. Not unless you can zoom in and see hard data for this millenium. Each vertical bar in that chart shows a period of 10,000 years. Considering that each vertical bar is about 10 pixels wide, that means 1000 years is represented by 1 pixel. Noting that the last 150 years is of peak importance, you'd have to show a close-up of that chart that's about 200x that size.

Re:More on sinks

[invenustus]

If Florida had a population that size, it would only have 3 electors.

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

Funny, I'd say the same thing about most of the folks that believe in global warming.

There IS another side to the issue and to say that there isn't is simply disingenuous. Makes you wonder about the motivations of the person that suggests such an obvious fallacy and makes you wonder what else that person is saying that might be equally false.

Re:More on sinks

[teromajusa]

The sunspot activity data over recorded history sure seems a hell of a lot more compelling proof that our climate depends directly on the Sun's activity than it does on anything that humans do or don't do

So why not earn yourself some karma and link to a good study showing this?

But it's a lot harder to indulge your anti-capitalist prejudices if the problem is sunspots, so the fear-mongering types do their ignore any astronomical contributions to the global warming debate, and actively supress funding for that line of inquiry if they can.

I have a hard time buying any postion founded on the notion that capitalists in this country are being supressed. Corporations don't usually have much difficulty getting a hearing.

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

Yeah, well we've proven that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, and that our carbon sinks aren't soaking it up as fast as we pull it out of the earth and burn it.

We have? I've seen that asserted. I've seen that theorized But I havent' seen that proof. Can you link to it please?

Re:More on sinks

[JCMay]

Do you want proof that the tipping point exists? Do you want proof that the tipping point is a problem? Do you want proof that the tipping point has been reached? Do you want proof that the problem is imminent? Do you want proof that no other affect will appear which counteracts the tipping point?

I'm somewhat familiar with Catastrophe Theory. We have examples around here every year: smelly red tide fish kills. The Conventional Wisdom says that they are, like global warming, totally human-generated events: Nitrogen-rich domestic yard fertilizer runoff causes an explosion in the algae population. After this food supply is used up the algae die, consuming all the oxygen in the water and suffocating the fish.

[CRAP-- hit the wrong button, meant to hit PREVIEW!]

Anyway, I shall continue, this should take more than two minutes.

The bottom line is that there is a proponderance of evidence that the vast change in industry and global human activity has impacted our environment. Lakes are poluted, the oceans are polluted, even harmful chemicals are spreading through the arctic.

The scale of your first assertation is what I disagree with. I do not dispute that human activity such as damming rivers, draining swamps and clearing timberland change the local environment. I think it's the height of vanity to think that mere people could perform permanent damage to the Earth on a scale that environmentalists claim.

Species are dying, there is no question that these things are real. The only question is... what is going to happen?

So this didn't happen before the Industrial Revolution? Where can I go find an eighteenth-century Tyrannosaur? :^)

Finally, if the majority of humanity feels that the environment is important, then to preserve their interests (the planet), regulations must be established to prevent those who do not share their interests from attaining immense profits from destructively exploiting the planet.

I agree with your first point here, and am a member of that group: environmental quality is important. I do NOT think, however, that restrictive regulation how to go about it. Using automobiles as an analogy, note that nobody ever washes a rental car. Rental cars don't get vacuumed. Renters don't change oil. Want real conservation? Let people own their own land!

So as long as the scientists are out for debate on global warming, the government should treat it as seriously as if it were real... whether it is real or not.

Disagree completely. First of all, at least in the United States, it is out of the purview of the Federal Government-- it's not an enumerated power. [Now, if the States want to pass environmental laws, that's their business.]. Second, superstitious obsessions are in themselves distructive. To treat superstitious beliefs as real is to step away from science!

If you don't care, and again, I think that is a legitimate position, you should not be refuting the science and pretending that it is in the best interest of those who do care, but you should simply state "I don't care!"

Oh, but I do care! I care that each year a man with a gun comes and steals my money and spends it on programs that have no substantiated scientific basis! Yes, there's evedince that the environment is changing, but the causality has not been proven.

Re:More on sinks

[ChodeMonkey]

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that there are many many natural cycles and fluctuations in the short term weather and long term climactic behavior of the planet. It is also quite true that there is a significant amount of data that documents this ongoing process as contributing to the current changes in the Earth's ecosystem. The problem with this line of thought is that these natural processes, which are well known and well documented through detail analysis of tree cores, ice cores, rock sedimentary layers etc., do NOT explain all the existing data about current climactic trends. They do fill in some of the puzzle pieces but can not explian the existing data. The reason for serious worry and concern is that the parts of the data that all the natual phenomenon can't explain are large shifts in the chemical compositon of the atmophere, soil, and oceans that have occured in the last 100 years.

In simple words, this is a bullet to the head of the idea that humanity has no impact on the environment and that we should all just go about our business like nothing is happening.

Re:More on sinks

[testadicazzo]

informed scientists like me know how to spell "fluctuate"

Re:More on sinks

[BeBoxer]

You are parodying the lefties here and not being serious, I presume? That is, making fun of the fact that most scientists who claim that 'global warming' is a threat are being paid by governments to do 'global warming' research and would be out of a job if they didn't keep claiming that it's a big threat?

First, many of them are simply studying climate in general. They are not "global warming" researchers at all, it's just that that's what their work keeps pointing at. So to claim that their funding is based on global warming being a threat is simply false. Many of them had their jobs long before global warming became a hot issue. And they will continue to have jobs if/when global warming stops being a hot issue.

Second, to dismiss a scientist simply because they are paid by somebody is to basically dismiss all science. Or do you prefer to trust the views of all the un-employed scientists out there?

Re:More on sinks

[greenhide]

I'm not sure whether you count among this group, but many conservatives (including Limbaugh) have often cited this kind of argument. I believe Limbaugh quoted from a few paragraphs in Crichton's Jurassic Park that expressed an opinion similar to yours -- it was Dr. Ian Malcolm who said it.

The irony here is that they themselves are being arrogant, in a sense, by assuming that they don't need to make any changes in their own lifestyles or in their behavior or life choices. I mean, if they actually don't want any great-great-grandchildren, that's fine and dandy, but I expect that they don't really consider it -- pretty much the same mentality that makes a teenager start smoking even if by now they'd actually have to be mentally retarded to not know that the cigarettes *will* eventually kill them.

There are people who drive SUVs and then brag about it, and gloat about how upset hippies get when they drive their giant gleaming Hummers past the hippie's fuel-efficient compact car. It's these people that I don't really understand. I mean, that seems like the height of arrogance to me.

Re:More on sinks

[pete-classic]

I am open to evidence that we are causing climate change, but I see two major problems with the theory.

1. There is (I think) definitive evidence that the climate heats and cools cyclically. Given the fact that this is the nature of the climate, wouldn't one expect it to keep getting warmer until such time as it starts getting cooler?

2. These cycles are on a scale of tens of thousands of years. Can we really make any sort of analysis based on direct observation of less than 10% of a cycle, and clam that it is scientific with a straight face?

I'm not saying that we aren't causing climatic change. I am saying that I don't believe that anyone can make a definitive, much less a scientific, statement that we are.

I think that conclusions about the impact of this or that human activity can be fairly characterized as "conjecture," at best.

So we are left making policy based on conjecture. That's okay. But we have to decide how much power we are willing to give to our governments based solely on that conjecture. We have to decide how much of a regulatory burden is tolerable, when it is supported only by that conjecture.

There are real world costs to ANY decisions we make based on this information, pro or con.

This idea that there is no other side is ludicrous. Something will be done based on the conclusions we reach. If we are going to do things that are to our benefit in the long run, we must make the decisions based on honest examination of the facts and the probable meaning of those facts.

-Peter

Re:More on sinks

[Xugumad]

Wonderful, thankyou, if I hadn't already commented on this thread I'd mod you up!

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

We're actually in a warm spell, in the middle of an Ice Age. The tempertures should, on average, be going down, not up.

How on earth can you possibly presume to know that? Perhaps we're still on the upward slope aiming for a temperature peak before temperatures come down. On what science are you basing your assumption that temperatures should, on average, be coming down?

The fact that the temperatures are rising at all is significant.

The fact is that it's not a fact that temperatures are rising. Or do you global warmers still ignore the satellite record of the last 2+ decades?

The fact that they have sharply risen only since the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s is also significant.

And the fact that they haven't risen in the 2+ decades that we've had a truly accurate global measure of temperature is also significant.

Re:More on sinks

[amorsen]

What good would the oxygen processors do? And what good does making the homes airtight do? The problem with CO2 isn't that it is poisonous (it is almost harmless to humans) but that it screws up the climate.

Incidentally, a 10km comet of CO2 would have a mass of around 10^16kg. Yearly CO2 emissions by humans are around 10^13kg. So that comet would only contribute a thousand years extra of CO2 emissions. Surely you are not suggesting that a thousand years of CO2 emissions will make the atmosphere unbreathable?

Re:More on sinks

[amorsen]

I'm sure I could live with the horrible feeling of having wasted money if it meant that I was alive rather than dead.

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

A question: Why is that anyone that disagrees with the theory of human-induced global warming is automatically being paid by someone while alarmists based on junk science are assumed to be as pure as the white-driven snow?

Come on guys, your liberalism is showing.

Re:More on sinks

[drinkypoo]

Actually quite a few Americans are concerned, most of them live in the southern hemisphere though.

I think that everyone but you realized that he was talking about a country. There are no countries on the South American continent with "America" in the name.

But most of the activity indeed seems to be centered in Europe. Russia recently joined the Kyoto treaty so that it would look good on paper. China seems moderately active but they probably don't have the means to do much yet.

The American (If I must be specific, Estados Unidos Norteamericanos) position on pollution seems to be that the developing world isn't watching their pollution, so why should we? On one hand it's unfair, every nation goes through a period of heavy pollution and some just never stop, like us. On the other hand, it's a perfectly fair thing considering that if per capita pollution is worse in china or india than it is here, US pollution is going to be essentially insignificant. We're not there now because those nations experience so little development, again per capita, but what happens when we do get there? Food for thought even if (like me) you think that American corporations need to be held accountable for their pollution. I feel the same way about pollution that I feel about the behavior of police. Police are supposed to uphold the law so we should be holding them to a higher standard of behavior than ordinary citizens, and when they unnecessarily brutalize someone or speed without turning on the lights on top of the car we should always punish them. Similarly, if we're really the greatest nation on Earth, we have a responsibility to be greater in every way, not just per capita GDP.

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

Ah, yes, because humans have repeatedly shown a complete inability to adapt to their environment. :)

Re:More on sinks

[Wavicle]

China seems moderately active but they probably don't have the means to do much yet.

How do they not have the means to do much yet? Everybody and their brother is eyeing China's explosively growing economy. Or is it that they need to seem somewhat passive because they like the Kyoto accords which limits Europe, Russia and America but lets them dump all the CO2 they want since they are a 'developing' country?

Perhaps the US is not the only country watching the bottom line?

Re:More on sinks

[evilpenguin]

This is the same argument an addict makes. Anyone who argues that we will "destroy all life on earth" is clearly engaged in hyperbole. But when folks point up the massive shifts in earth's climate in the past, they should remember that they correspond (in geologic terms) with epochs of mass extinction. We might be clever enough to survive a massive upheaval in the climate of the planet, or we might not. Still, if the upheval is caused or accelerated by human activity, then wouldn't it be even more clever to slow or stop it?

Please note that I am not taking sides on that question. I don't know enough about it. But I do know that the assertion made at the top is true: The majority of climatologists not directly funded by energy companies believe human production of greenhouse gases are warming the planet.

The famous wager between ecologist Paul Ehrlich and economist Julian Simon illustrates the difficulty that the environmental side of the argument will always have. The environmental argument can only be made on the assumption "if things remain the same." But things never remain the same. Scarcity doesn't have to "kill," it can simply make alternatives economical. The cost to run enough wire through the ocean to support modern global telecommunications became too high. Putting satellites in orbit (a ridiculously expensive undertaking in the days of telegraphs and slow boats) became quite reasonable.

I very firmly believe that once the costs of global warming are realized, market forces will push us into alternatives. This is already happening. Insurance companies are funding climate research. They have a powerful economic interest that may be opposite to the energy industry's interests.

I believe global warming is happening (and I say "believe" because I don't know the science well, and I would be surprised if more than 1% of the people reading and posting here actually know the science well), and I believe that eventually markets respond to all forces that act on them. The question is how far wrong can things go before the market "understands" the problem?

The problem is one of measurement. We need to be able to quantify the human impact on the environment. We can point out things like the PPM of CO2, but we can't tie that directly to costs, or even to climate change. Alas, global climate is a system much more complex than even the international system of currency, and look how well we understand that.

I am hopeful, but not sanguine about our ability to deal with the issue.

But, I must acknowledge, I rely upon argumentum ad vericundium. And so do the "global warming is bunk" crowd here. So our discussion may be interesting, but is certainly not terribly useful.

But, if I may ask, why in the world do you think it is a bad thing to be interested in the persistence of one's own ass?

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

a) Yes. The sun's output, the only other possible reason for global warming that is not due to various atmospheric effects, has been stable.
b) You mean to say that there was a mini ice-age as recently as the mid-1700s. Does this mean that we are still in one? I'd say we listen to the climatologists on this one, who say no.
c) Apparently, that documentary did not show the bigger picture. Glaciers in Alaska have receded by kilometers, the Arctic Ice is farther and farther up North, and they're talking about the famed Northwest Passage finally opening up enough for summer travel. While I wouldn't call your documentary a lie, it is treading mighty close to lying by ommission.
d) False as well. See above.
e) Wrong again. Satellite data is showing the earth getting warmer. Check data from the EOS (eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/).

Good god, who moderates these things up???? I understand that I'll be ignored as I'm posting as AC and without proof, but I thought that anybody posting crap like this without any proof would not be labeled insightful either.

Re:More on sinks

[WhiplashII]

Getting one thousand years CO2 in one jump could very well make the climate extremely uncomfortable, which is what I was talking about. The reason you make the homes airtight is to deal with all the side effects of CO2, too hot, too cold, underwater, whatever. I was actually trying to say that I think we would survive by changing our lifestyle to the new conditions, not by trying to change something noone understands. Any technology we create with the capability to fix a CO2 filled atmosphere will likely also make things even worse!

Re:More on sinks

[TheHornedOne]

While your resume is sufficient to qualify you to discuss computers and technology, I can't see anything that remotely suggests that you have anything of value to add to a conversation on climatology. And no, a few years of watching Kevin Orpurt predict the weather on WTHI doesn't count.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

The people that are saying that this is nothing to worry about or okay or even that we are in a minor perturbation (sp?) not a true warming event are 1% of the scientists out there.

I presume you'll be able to provide a link to some paper, study, or credible poll of scientists that backs up your claim that only 1% of scientists disagree with human-induced global warming? Otherwise we have no choice but to conclude that you pulled that number out of your leftist ass.

Re:More on sinks

[drinkypoo]

A true scientist always questions until shown proof. You cannot accuse someone of "not being a scientist" because they question a widely held belief. Neither is "95% of climate scientists" enough to prove anything.

A true scientist also learns to trust the opinions of the majority of his peers, especially those who have passed an accreditation program similar to their own. You can't trust them all, obviously, but the majority of scientists are people who got into the field through their love of science and facts. In general they are trustworthy, even though specific individuals sometimes are anything but.

As for the "80% of scientists (that) believe in global warming", ask yourself: why do these scientists believe that theory? Have the read the research, have they checked the conclusions, or do they, like your average citizen, simply trust in the beliefs of the majority of climate scientists?

That's pretty much how science operates, my friend. Sometimes it misses important conclusions in the process but as technology marches on humans are forced to become more and more specialized because one person can't know everything. It's hard enough to just become a master mechanic and know everything about repairing cars, now you want people to become master scientists (so to speak) and know everything about science? It can't be done, even if for no reason other than the fact that we make new discoveries literally every day.

The fact is that climatological studies require years to execute and you can't check them without doing another study, which also takes years to execute. Your average scientist isn't in climatological research and doesn't have time to do that sort of thing. The overwhelming majority of scientific research into global warming suggests that it IS a real problem and that we ARE a real influence. The only way to actually test this theory is to stop polluting for a few years and see what happens - even one year isn't enough because global processes tend to have a certain amount of inertia.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power. You go into science because you have a fundamental desire to understand the truth about the world we live in.

You are naive about how most scientists in academia are funded. Please check back with us when you've matured and faced reality for another decade or two.

Re:More on sinks

[rjh]

Either that, or else the global-warming advocates are consistently misrepresenting and/or demonizing the careful, considered objections the "anti-global-warmers". Me, for instance. Do I believe global warming exists? Sure I do. Am I in favor of Kyoto? Hell, no.

Even its proponents agree that it would only delay global warming by a handful of months, at a cost of trillions of dollars. Kyoto opponents, such as myself, are generally not opposed to fighting global warming: we're opposed to fighting it in silly non-cost-effective means which are more public relations than results. For a trillion dollars, I'd far rather see Kyoto abandoned and a thousand coal plants converted to nuclear. Think about those carbon savings for a moment--uff da!

On the other hand, do you know how often "global-warming advocates" have heard my alternative to Kyoto, given it consideration, and responded intelligently? Zero. All they hear is I'm anti-Kyoto, and suddenly I'm a crackpot neocon. (I'm neither.)

You're right that "sometimes, you know, the other side is just wrong, or lying, and pointing this out does not constitute demonization."

On the other hand, sometimes the side that's just wrong is your side, when you state what the other person's perspective is.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire population of Florida is moving north. (Well, not the entire population, but large numbers are being dislocated.)

Hurricanes are created by weather fluctuations, warm weather pockets, etc. Now it's not for certain what causes this, it's something that should be looked into. But some guesses are the increases in global temperature. You can decide if those are wild ass guesses or scientifically valid.

Re:More on sinks

[tigersha]

Well, I DO work at a non-profit org dedicated to promotion of Renewables. I think I am perhaps just very cynical and I have a longstanding interest in things like evolution and history (as in, my idea of tracing my roots is to read up about paleomicrobiology...). I like it because it gives me another perspective of where and what we are and where we are going.

Re:More on sinks

[julesh]

There's a more detailed graph of the last few thousand years on the next page.

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.

Please provide link to satellite data that shows global warming. Thank you.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother environmentalists with little things like logic. :)

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually quite a few US citizens are concerned as well. The DOE has an agenda for cutting back energy uses, with new goals set every 4 years. More stringent emissions standars are being set for personal vehicles, and tax breaks are offered for very low emissions vehicles. These are just some of the efforts being put into reducing the US's exceedingly bloated energy usage/polution generating position. I'm sure there are many other examples.

I just hope it's not too few too late.

Re:More on sinks

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Personally, I always advocate for more windmills and more atomic power. That way, most people disagree. It even makes sense, yet there are very few who think it is a good idea. It seems to be

• Me right. Me want nuclear power
• Me left. Me want windmills

What's the sense in that?

Re:More on sinks

[evilpenguin]

Oh, and I misspelled "verecundium".

I know how quick Latin fans are to pounce!

Re:More on sinks

[d-Orb]

Carbon sinks are still an active area of research. What seems interesting is that just taking a sink as a combination of trees is simplistic. Some research has shown (and I haven't got quotes in here, but bear with me!) that a new forest will act as a source of C for around 12-15 years, at which point will start absorbing C, reaching a threshold at around 20-25 years. The variables here are many: from soil type, rainfall and other weather variables... But soil is a major source of concern. That means thatjust growing loads of trees in boreal regions (when they were not there anyway) can be counterproductive, as the process might liberate a lot of C safely tuck away in very peaty soils.

Without going into further elucidations on the veracity of this claims, this unexpected rise in C could be due to vast forest fires in Siberia (2003 was a particularly nasty year), which have been documented (though not properly quantified) by some researchers.

Re:More on sinks

[Martin Blank]

That has much more to do with how American "environmentalists" go so far out to one side, and almost always refuse to compromise. They want zero emissions, but refuse to accept nuclear reactors. They want nuclear waste stored safely, but then refuse to allow it to be transported, even inside of steel-reinforced concrete containers under armed guard and with tracking devices. They want solar power to become a main source of energy, but don't bother to get informed about what goes into making them, or the batteries that store the power overnight.

I have some environmentalist friends, and they are willing to compromise on things. The ability to logically compromise shows intelligence that seems to be lacking in many. I don't have any problem with helping to cap CO2 emissions, even though I'm not entirely sure that man-made global warming exists. If it means more efficient vehicles, factories, and power plants, then so much the better. I can buy a new car that gets a hundred miles to the gallon, and spend the money saved on gas elsewhere. But such should be approached carefully, evaluated, and planned well, instead of hurtling headlong into something that may not have a point.

Re:More on sinks

[roman_mir]

here is a lesson: do not expect the human nature to change.

---

I personally hope that we burn as much oil now as at all possible so that there will be left none for us to burn (or at least it will become so extremely expensive that it will cut off ability of 99% of population to burn it.) Unfortunately this will not happen fast enough. Besides, we still will have coal for just too damn long.

Humans will not stop burning things until there is none left to burn. I sure hope that this moment arrives sooner than later. Why? Because at that point we will just have to switch to nuclear all the way and do more research in thermonuclear. Fuel cell research comes in handy.

With all of this it is natural to assume that the global economy will slow down quite a lot. This probably will mean less food production and probably starvation among the nations less equiped to deal with this problem. There will be much more deseases around with the population underfed, lacking drinking water, clean air and various hygienic environment. This also means that there will be new wars fought for the remaining few resources. All of the above of-course will cause a population reduction.

Probably the consumption will fall to the pre-industrial levels and this planet of ours will have a few hundred years to recover (if of-course the recovery can be as fast as the problems caused by our pollution today.)

This sounds stupid but I believe that this is what it will take for us to 'understand' the problem. Just like humans in power and most others are unable to really understand the effects of software patents for example, they (us) are unable to really appreciate our effect on the pollution of this planet.

Will we learn anything? I am not sure that the lessons will be applicable. Even if a 1000 years from now the planet is back to some sort of normal climate and the humans start developing a new industrial age there will be no easy access the same levels of fuel production. Fuel will be much more scarce and that in itself will prevent us from doing the same thing again at least for the next 200 million years ;/ And by then all the lessons learned today will be forgotten for sure.

A new Bible is in order.

Re:More on sinks

[Shotgun]

I see. You heard it on NPR, so it is unquestionably true. All other viewpoints are inherently self-promoting. How dare the blasphemous infidels question the immutable authority of the High Priest and Priestess of the sanctified auspices of the Holy NPR?

Re:More on sinks

[drew]

while i don't think it made it down into indiana, some parts of the united states have been buried by large glaciers as recently as 10,000 years ago. and more recently, say 500 years ago, the vikings established a thriving settlement on a rich and fertile island they called "Green Land".

anyway, i don't dispute the fact that the earth has been getting warmer, and i will even accept that there is a correlation with atmospheric co2 levels. and while i think that it would be a good idea for the u.s. to commit to reducing co2 emmissions (at least for political/diplomatic reasons if not out of genuine concern) until we understand the earth's climate model better, i don't believe that our understanding will improve much given the current situation. all of the research i've seen with regard to the actual _cause_ of the climate changes seems to have clear motivations, either commercially or politically. the only thing that people really seem to agree on is that the earth has indeed gotten warmer in the last hundred years or so, and that co2 levels have been observed to increase during that same timeframe.

Re:More on sinks

[Kehvarl]

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? because I think you made the point perfectly.

Re:More on sinks

[avdp]

Do you expect *anything* on slashdot to be anything but hearsay? Unless there are climatologists hanging out on slashdot (someone unlikely) everything will be hearsay. Quoting websites, newscasts, etc is pretty much the way it works here.

Re:More on sinks

[at_slashdot]

I would think that the crowd around here would be better educated.

New here, right?

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

a 100% increase does seem statistically significant to me.

Considering the amounts of e. coli in your drinking water at .05ppm, parts per million does start to be significant. I've done a minimal amount of reading to know that just because 1 is a small number and a million is larger doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on sustaining life.

Re:More on sinks

[Kehvarl]

Where does the carbon we burn go then, if it doesn't increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

Most likely the same place it came from. it's not as if carbon were being created from thin air.

Re:More on sinks

[jafuser]

There aren't really any more hurricanes than usual lately, it's just that they're hitting land more often instead of just swinging up the middle of the Atlantic to fizzle out. =)

Re:More on sinks

[tomcode]

Fossil record? That is exactly the problem. You have to look at ice core samples, not fossils.

Carbon-14 dating of sea shells proves the Earth was created 4-6,000 years ago.

Re:More on sinks

[Matrix272]

There's a more detailed graph of the last few thousand years on the next page.

I was waiting for someone to point that out. If you look at those graphs, in the last 40 years, the line bounces up and down like a rubber ball. In fact, on graph #4, they don't even have a line for more than 40 years ago. I'm left believing that they don't have reliable data for more than 40 years ago, and any data shown for pre-1960's is implied, at best.

Re:More on sinks

[avdp]

NPR is a pretty good source for news, yes. They are non-profit, and they do quality in-depth work that I haven't seen or heard in any other medium yet. If they have a bias, I have not seen it yet. But I guess from your perspective, anything that doesn't agree with you has a bias, right?

Re:More on sinks

[Martin Blank]

China's oil use is becoming very significant. Oil consumption in China jumped more than 11% in 2003, and looks set to exceed that this year. China expects usage to jump by 50% from 2005 to 2010, and to double from 2010 to 2020.

I read something last year that underground coal fires in China are a major CO2 producer, equaling that of all of the cars and trucks in the US. Trouble is, they're either hard to get to, or expensive to put out, so China lets them burn.

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

Regarding the cycles, your points are somewhat in opposition to one another. Yes, there are cycles (or at least variations, I have no idea how periodic they are) but they run over long periods. Changes as rapid as what we are seeing in the last 200 years do not appear to be a part of those cycles (except, perhaps when a massive volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike plays a part). So, we are left looking around for what makes the last 200 years dramatically different from other times. We have a theory for that, backed by both by plausible and fairly simple physics (CO2 blocks the IR that carries heat away from the Earth) and by a preponderence of the computer models that look in more detail at the processes.
This theory has stood up to several pretty serious honest examinations (eg the National Academy of Sciences) while the competing theories basically haven't.

It's a lot more than conjecture, if not a "proof beyond all doubt" and, I think, clearly worth giving up your SUVs and air conditioning for.

Re:More on sinks

[Squeeze Truck]

The "other side" tends to be people like me - informed scientists who recognize that the surface temperature of the planet, and the patterns of those temperatures, have naturally fluxuated since the beginning of time, long before human involvement.

Mass extinctions have happened since the beginning of time as well. There have also been civilizations that overfarmed or otherwise befouled their natural environment and managed to effectively wipe themselves out.

I also notice that Ice ages, magnetic pole reversals, and the rising and falling of the oceans are also natural processes.

What does it matter if the temperatures fluxuate naturally or not?
More CO2 == warmer planet == flooding. Why accelerate the process if you don't have to?

Re:More on sinks

[drew]

has anybody ever figured out *how much* extra co2 humans have been pumping into the atmosphere? if we add up the millions of barrels of oil burned every year, and all the other co2 that we have been providing, does that add up to 1-2ppm increase per year for the last hundred years or so? i'm not trying to make a point one way or the other here, i'm asking an honest question.... the atmosphere is a big place, and the earth has a lot of it's own ways of adding co2 to it. how do we even know that our contributions make up 1% of that increase?

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got two words - Fruit Cake. What ever happend to global cooling?

Re:More on sinks

[gfxguy]

The question is if stopping all of our CO2 emissions will have the desired effect. It's certainly not helping, but the question is, and always has been, exactly how much is it hurting?

I'm in the camp that realizes and understands this, but also realizes and understands that everything on the planet is, and always has been, cyclical - how many ice ages does it take to drive that point home? I know it's warmer than it used to be - the pilgrims to America had horrible winters to deal with - it's not just that they didn't have proper clothing and housing, they REALLY did have harsher, colder winters... but things changed long before our CO2 emissions increased, and they'll continue to change even if we stopped it completely.

Re:More on sinks

[mefus]

Last time I checked, not a whole lot has been PROVEN about global warming.

Both the CO2 levels and average temperature are rising. That's a priori knowledge beyond dispute.

You are laboring under some misapprehension. Global warming is a reality. There is a small cadre of pseudo-scientists (they are working outside their domain of knowledge in an area of science which is notoriously inaccessible) in the pay of the big polluters that are casting about for any indication it may not be caused by human activities. And the refutation of their so-called analyses are done in the scientific community and the scientific community lays the controversy to rest. Unfortunately, the "skeptics" have chosen a public forum to air their notions, and that's all their masters really wanted: a way to influence public policy comprising an end run around the experts and their inconvenient opinions.

Re:More on sinks

[julesh]

Yes. All data before that date would be calculated based on a variety of factors extracted from the same core samples as the CO2 samples. I don't have a reference for how its done, and there have been some recent corrections to the technique that may or may not be included in this data (I think they are, but I'm not sure). So yeah, the earlier data is largely 'best guess', but is probably fairly accurate.

Re:More on sinks

[ajs318]

British scientists have observed that, although they've largely eliminated acid rain causing pollution from power stations

That's because instead of using coal {which contains sulphur, and consequently emits SO2 -- onion gas -- when burned; though it isn't actually that hard to remove most of the SO2 from coal emissions}, they largely switched to natural gas {which is, as near as damn is to swearing, pure methane; } for electricity generation -- and now there isn't enough gas left under the North Sea for electricity generation and home heating, so British Gas is having to buy in gas from abroad. This has resulted in a gas price hike, and in all probability an electricity price hike will follow.

Does anyone know whether British Gas has a royal charter which states something to the effect that every molecule of CH4 anywhere under the British Isles belongs to them? If that was the case, then it ought to be possible for them to bill landfill operators at the going rate for the methane they have been venting and burning {since by rights it's British Gas's gas, not theirs}. Of course, that would put up the price of landfill, but then if councils actually took recycling seriously, they would be able to raise enough money selling goods for recycling to offset the increase in landfill cost. And some of the stuff that can't be melted down could be burned to produce electricity -- except they tried that once, and "Friends of the Earth" objected on the grounds that (a) they apparently did not know the difference between a power plant and a minging bonfire, and (b) they misunderstood Hess's Law

Re:More on sinks

[djmurdoch]

The monthly swing isn't really relevant: it's just caused by seasonal changes. The concern is about the change in the annual average, or the change from year to year in any particular month.

If you plot the data you posted, it's clear that there's a general increasing trend in CO2, and an increasing trend in the year-by-year rate of change (neither of which is good news), but the last two years are not particularly out of line with what's been happening for the last 30 years. They're well within two sigmas of the trend line.

So you're right, it's just more of the same.

Re:More on sinks

[Trailer Trash]

If you think I'm a conservative, you don't know me very well....

Re:More on sinks

[Sir Holo]

That is, making fun of the fact that most scientists who claim that 'global warming' is a threat are being paid by governments to do 'global warming' research

I am a scientist who is not being paid to do global warming research; I do solid state physics. Global warming is a real threat.

If you know any scientists, you should ask them yourself. Particularly those with PhDs in Chemistry and Physics. A great part of our training is in understanding the dynamics of energy and matter in systems, which is the underlying principle here. Those with PhDs in other fields, like biology, geology, or climatology, will have an equally informed opinion, but from a different and equally valid perspective.

Oh, and talk to more than one scientist. That wouldn't be a stasticially significant sample. :)

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider, then, the impact this increase will be having on countries that have not put in the time, effort and money to reduce pollution...

... or those which are downwind of them.

Re:More on sinks

[mefus]

C02 has physical properties such that it creates a heat retaining insulating blanket around the globe. And it is beyond dispute that both CO2 levels and temperature are rising.

This is probably about as well established as the gravitational effect the earth and the moon exert on one another. But proven? You would have to look at Hume's treatment of causality. Most scientists (and other rational people) have taken Kant as an antidote to your problem.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't you have tossed a gratuitous "Girlie Man" in there somewhere?

Sheesh... get with The Program!

Re:More on sinks

[djmurdoch]

the possibility that the increases will have permanently changed from 1-2 PPM/year to 4PPM/year or more.

Read the article, or look at the table. The worry is that there were two years which totalled over 4 PPM. There has never been a single year increase of that size.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

A whole 100 years! Compared to the age of the Earth that's what? Nothing, that's what.

That's like going to a doctor, him taking your temperature twice in a couple of minutes, finding that it went up one degree, then telling you that you're going to die in twenty minutes because of alarming rate your temperature is rising.

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

You'd say that, but you'd be stupid and disingenous. There's another side to the statement "poison is bad for you". Won't someone please think of the poisoners!

Re:More on sinks

[Da Fokka]

The fact is that it's not a fact that temperatures are rising. Or do you global warmers still ignore the satellite record of the last 2+ decades?

* SNIP *

And the fact that they haven't risen in the 2+ decades that we've had a truly accurate global measure of temperature is also significant.

The very thesis of the Global Warming Theory is that less energy is radiated outward because of greenhouse gases. The observation that sattelite measurements do not show a rise in radiated energy (the only kind you can measure from space) only support this thesis.

Re:More on sinks

[Obfuscant]

I'll skip your wonderful proof that 4ppm of CO2 is a serious problem because it can be a problem for other chemicals, and your comparison to cancer, and just respond to this...

You need independant, real scientists, ...

Do you really believe that there are any "independant" scientists anymore? You tell us that funding from the oil industry "in one way or another" doesn't make them independent. That may be true.

But if that is true, then it is just as true that those funded to seek out global warming are just as dependent. If your paycheck comes only because there is some potential catastrophe that you want to investigate, you are not independent. The moment you announce "there isn't a catastrophe", you lose your funding.

But it's even broader than that. Science deals with peer review. If you aren't funded by global warming research money directly, the chances are that someone who is a peer is, and if you come out saying there is no catastrophe, you jeopardize HIS funding, and whatever review of your work he does is likely to be less than friendly. When it is a review for a grant, there goes YOUR money, too.

If you work in a college or other institute that is getting global warming research money, then you threaten that money if you say there is no catastrophe coming, and have a building or two of people who want to see you go away.

If you thought that the "religion" in science went away after Galileo, you are wrong. Science is still rife with beliefs in things not proven (what religion calls "faith", but science sometimes calls "theory"), and going against the science papacy is still dangerous.

As for 4ppm being a problem, you ought to know that your breath when you exhale is several percent CO2. Each percent is 10,000ppm. How many people are you killing every time you breath out?

Re:More on sinks

[Sir Holo]

To boil it down a little:

In only 46 years, CO2 levels have increased 19%!

In each of the last two years, it has gone up by half a percent per year.

Re:More on sinks

[gadget junkie]

"The idea that we should always be "balanced" when it comes to arguments of political import leads to a lot of bullshit getting consideration it doesn't deserve. Global warming deniers at this point are in the same class as creationists, Holocaust-deniers, and flat-earthers"

.....oh, dearie me, and I always thought I was a balanced person. Now I am put into the same corner as (sigh) holocaust deniers.
let me recap: there is at least one person (me) thinking that at the basis of science there is at least a modicum of methods, like Occam's razor, .
Now, the raw data are before our very eyes, and I do not dispute them; but, dear Sir, I dispute their extrapolations in the future, on the grounds that all these so called models do not explain great climate changes of the past, like the maunders minimum and the other variations of temperature in historical times in which the Impact of human activity was, by today's standards, negligible.
Now, I can understand the primeval impulse of Man, in the face of things that hurt him and that he doesn't comprehend, to atone and offer sacrifices; after all, we are but a few generations removed from ancestors that made human sacrifices to appease the weather.I do not understand the same behaviour in people that follow a scientific site, in which the ability to deliver balanced reasoning and correct behaviour is defined as "Kharma".

So who is wrong, or lying: the person who says that today's model are inadequate and require further study, or the person that in the face of exogenous events says :"It is all my fault" and self mutilates, in an unselfish sacrifice to blind and deaf Gods?

As I said, further study is worthwhile. But remember, in science, it is the true scientist that tries to prove himself wrong. No opposition is required.

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

You've got a plutonium fetish. Your .sig,

'Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.'

is telling. It keeps you from supporting Kyoto as a start, because that first step doesn't complete your agenda to produce more poisonous and risky radioactivity. If you saw past your nuclear messiah complex, you'd see that Kyoto would produce a demand for more clean fuel, which would actually serve your preferred poison. We can argue about why nuclear is too treacherous to indulge than the actually clean alternatives, once we pass the bottleneck of actually surviving the Greenhouse.

Re:More on sinks

[RealSalmon]

Modern conservatism is nothing more than the rationalization of greed, avarice, and self-interest.

The same generalization could be made for modern day liberalism being nothing more than the rationalization of laziness, lack of personal responsibility, and cowardidce. The only time you see one of those guys change their mind on an issue like CO2 levels is when John Kerry flies around in his private jet.

Re:More on sinks

[Grym]

Modern conservatism is nothing more than the rationalization of greed, avarice, and self-interest.

Oh come on. Why don't you just start name-calling while you're at it?

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, that fact doesn't make them morally bankrupt or *puts pinkie near mouth*... E-VILE.

I'm sure if you bothered to look, you'd find that there are just as many corrupt liberal politicians as there are (neo-)conservative ones. Or did you forget Bill Clinton's involvement with the Chinese during his run?

Don't get me wrong, the Bush administration is dead wrong with respect to global warming, but that doesn't mean they sold their souls, eat babies, or whatever else you'd have us believe.

-Grym

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

'Anyone who questions man's reasoning, particularly on the origin of the physical world, faces an arrogance almost beyond comprehension. Many scientists realize the weak underpinnings of scientific models but the spokesmen of naturalism and their media advocates will not abide anything that questions either the supremacy of man, his reasoning power or his conclusions. I have seen media interviewers, who gladly try to tear Christian and conservative guests to pieces, grovel before a scientist who is [one of the] illuminati of evolutionary thought. No one would dare to try to question a living example of the superiority of man's reasoning power. They are in the presence of a high priest of the one and only knowledge--let all the earth keep silent before him!'

- Dr. Emmett Williams

Re:More on sinks

[Sir Holo]

I believe Scientific American had an article about all of the CO2 that was trapped underwater. With all of the hurricane activity lately I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't just stirring it up a bit. This is just speculation though.

Interesting idea. Consider your speculation in light of the fact that global warming models predict an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes.

Re:More on sinks

[BrokenHalo]

Hmmm... Maybe it's time to dust off that Kyoto protocol that neither the US nor Australian governments could be bothered ratifying.

Re:More on sinks

[dazed-n-confused]

Russia recently joined the Kyoto treaty so that it would look good on paper.

Actually, Russia would do very well out of any reasonable emissions trading regime growing out of Kyoto, given the collapse of Soviet-era polluting industries in the interim. Selling all those surplus "permissions to pollute" on the global market should be a nice little earner for them. (And that's quite all right by me).

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

Where is this "satellite record" of stable temperatures? The last 20 years have featured most of the hottest years ever recorded, mostly in the past decade. Let's see you back that one up.

Re:More on sinks

[Martin Blank]

I thought you might like this page. I happened to find it last night when I saw the first mention of the CO2 changes, and I went looking. For the last few years, I have been seeing mention that 1998 was the warmest year on record. This was fine in 1999 -- 1998 was the latest year in which data was available for the full twelve months. Even in 2000, 2001, and 2002, I figured that complete data wasn't analyzed yet. This kind of thing happens in complex analytical environments.

By the end of 2002, and on through this year, I was still hearing how 1998 was the warmest year on record, so I finally went looking in a real effort to find numbers, and I found that site. I ran some of the numbers (the global mean surface temperature [GMST]) in a spreadsheet and put them in a graph, and while there's a definite increase in the last, oh, roughly 30 years, I also see that the average temps jump around -- a lot. The in 1999, GMST decreased by 0.24 degrees C, the largest drop in the time recorded (1880 to present). There was a further decrease of 0.01 degrees the next year, followed an increase of 0.15 degrees and then 0.05 degrees, and then 2003 was flat. If the current trend for 2004 holds, it will be a touch cooler this year. All of the years are very erratic when looked at in terms of the annual changes instead of cumulative changes.

I'll admit, I'm not a climatologist (nor are most of the people here). There are benefits to come from conserving energy and coming up with more efficient means of energy generation (look at the benefits of Los Angeles air in the last 30 years), and they should be encouraged. But with as much as the numbers jump around, I'm not entirely sure that man has as much to do with it as many people think.

Re:More on sinks

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Global warming deniers at this point are in the same class as creationists, Holocaust-deniers, and flat-earthers -- it's not that they're being dismissed out of hand, it's that their arguments have been proven wrong time and time again, to the point that there's really no point in continuing the argument, and yet they just keep going.

Allow me to interject something here. What you're really arguing is two separate things. First, you're saying the Earth is getting warmer. Second, you're attributing that climate change solely, completely, and unequivocally to human-caused CO2 emissions. While it's easy to argue the former, it is nearly impossible to prove the latter, but that's what you're trying to do here.

Is the planet getting warmer? Yes, it is. Global reviews agree on this no matter what. But is this change due to humans? Consider, for a moment, that our sun varies its solar output quite a bit over a fairly regular period, heating and cooling the entire planet. As it so happens, the sun *is* warming up a bit right now, so naturally the planet would get a bit warmer. I'll quote from the following website:

The sunspot or solar cycle does not have the same magnitude every eleven years, however. Entire cycles can have lower activity levels than usual, as during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1700, or the upcoming maximum might have more activity than ever. A look at the sunspot plot for the last two centuries will show the fluctuation in minima and maxima.

.

Source: http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/outreach/solarm ax/learnmain.html

I think it's safe to say NASA knows a bit more about this solar phenomena than you do. It's also worth noting that these solar cycles do not have predictable magnitudes. It could be that this solar maxima is unusually large. There could also be larger patterns outside of the standard 11-year solar cycle that we do not yet understand about our sun.

So, not to put too fine a point on it, your insistence on referring to those who disagree with you as "lying" is merely showing your own ignorance in this matter. The bald truth is that nobody is sure why the planet is heating up. CO2 emissions may or may not have anything to do with it, although scientific evidence actually does seem to indicate our CO2 output is far below what is necessary to cause global climactic change (a large volcanic erruption can issue more CO2 than a major industrialized nation, yet we don't see massive climate change after those).

So, to use your phrase, I plant to "just keep going" in my quest to discover exactly why the planet might be getting warmer. If it is indeed human-caused, I fully support anything that must be done to curtail it. Now is not the time, however, to close one's mind to the scientific process. The scientific community as a whole has not reached consensus over this issue, despite what the one-sided press would have us believe. Right now, there is just not enough data to blame humanity for any kind of global climate alteration. But if more people reacted like you, making up your mind on incomplete facts, supposition, and wild-assed guesses, we could end up doing more harm than good. I strongly urge you to reconsider your close-minded approach to this issue. You are doing nobody any favors by ignoring evidence you simply don't agree with.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a creationist. So your saying I'm stupid, that I don't believe in science? For us - who do you think created earth. Science is just proof of inteligent design. People don't want to admit there is a God so they bury their head in the sand and search for decades for evidence that doesn't exist. Albert Einstein belived that God created the earth, You think he's full of BS too?

Re:More on sinks

[ZB Mowrey]

Late breaking news flash: We All Die. Every last one of us, every time. Get used to it, it's inevitable. ;)

Re:More on sinks

[pete-classic]

Yes, there are cycles (or at least variations, I have no idea how periodic they are) but they run over long periods. Changes as rapid as what we are seeing in the last 200 years do not appear to be a part of those cycles (except, perhaps when a massive volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike plays a part)

I'm not sure that we even have 200 years of reliable direct observation. Do we?

In any case how can you possibly support the claim that the rate over the entire period of observation is abnormal?

I have no reason to believe that the naturally occurring changes are in any way regular. There is every possibility that there are cycles within cycles, brief periods (a few hundred years) of reversal of the trend, or similar periods of greater than average changes along the trend.

Like I said, I'm not saying we aren't causing global climate change. It is going to take more than an appeal to authority to convince me that basing policy on the theory is a good idea.

-Peter

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

I might add that the Greenhouse is an increase in global chaos, and selfserving averages merely hide the extremes that are killing people in record numbers, threatening our species with extinction. If your "satellite record" shows record highs combined with record lows that "balance" each other the way you'd like Greenhouse scientists to be balanced by Greenhouse deniers, then just forget that ploy.

Re:More on sinks

[Sir Holo]

I forgot to leave room in the middle.

Some scientist will say that they are not convinced that it is happening now. It is then a question of "when and not "if." There is no doubt about the if.

Re:More on sinks

[Lars T.]

Errm, you need more numbers to get that (do you even know what PPM means?). Could you post those numbers? And (to stay on-topic) where is the increased volcanic activity in the last two years?

Re:More on sinks

[rjh]

Your .sig is telling.

I'm impressed by how you come to that conclusion without knowing how that came to pass. That was something my friend Phil Munson said about me in October 1994, at his marriage to Sonja Backstrom. Phil's employer was a DoD agency concerned with secrecy, and thus whenever he was asked what he did, his answer was the same: "Unamerican activities, like fortifying cereals and irradiating meats."

At his bachelor party, I gave him a box of Golden Grahams and an irradiated pot roast. His brother, Mike, asked if it was really irradiated. I was about to answer when Phil interjected with "Most people are never thought about after they're gone. 'I wonder where Rob got the plutonium' is better than most get."

It was, is, probably the funniest thing anyone's ever said about me, and that's why it's my .sig.

Now that you've heard the story, would you care to revise your theory about me having a plutonium fetish?

Re:More on sinks

[julesh]

Quite simply, it isn't the increase in CO2 content at present that concerns me; it is the possibility of cataclysmic events, like the vulcanism that may (or may not, depending on who you listen to) have lead to a massive release of CO2, causing the Permian/Triassic mass extinction. This is the kind of effect I worry about... compared to the CO2 levels that were involved in this event (according to some studies), what we are producing is nothing. A key component of this was a single volcanic erruption which is estimated to have produced 10^11 tonnes of CO2. This is, I believe, numerous orders of magnitude more CO2 than we put into the atmosphere each year, and would actually increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by a factor approaching 100 (current figures have slightly over 10^9 tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere).

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:More on sinks

[teeker]

most don't work on research which the general public would find remotely interesting... like studying abrasion and powder formation on Cheerios.

Oh the Crunch enhancer? Yeah it's a non-nutritive cereal varnish. It's semi-permiable. It's not osmotic. What it does is it coats and seals the flake, prevents the milk from penetrating it.

Re:More on sinks

[mengel]

Oh, but I do care! I care that each year a man with a gun comes and steals my money and spends it on programs that have no substantiated scientific basis! Yes, there's evedince that the environment is changing, but the causality has not been proven.

Actually, the people who are doing this research are simply trying to predict the weather -- annual rainfalls, hurricanes, etc. If you don't think its worth the tax money to predict the course of hurricane Charley, and thereby save lots of lives, then I'm forced to disagree with you.

The fact of the matter is, if you don't take CO2 levels into consideration, you can't predict the weather even with the moderate accuracy available today. Thats why all of these places are measuring CO2 levels -- not out of some global-warming-research rip-off, but to accurately predict the weather.

I think you owe the researchers who do that sort of work an apology. They're out there doing careful research that saves lives and protects people and businesses. You're making baseless and insulting claims about them and their motives.

Next thing you know, you'll be complaining about firemen's associations publishing electrical codes and not letting you wire your 220V circuits with telephone wire...

Re:More on sinks

[mefus]

Come on guys, your liberalism is showing.

We aren't necessarily liberals. It is not a requirement that we be liberals only to recognize that societal intervention in the common practices of a few be imposed.

It is the form that intervention takes that lends the flavor of politics to the situation. The nature of the problem dictates, however, that we use whatever means we have available to us to enact change NOW, rather than waiting until some form of governance to bloom that is more amenable to your peculiar sensitivities.

So stop calling people names.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrogance?? How is it arrogant for me to want to continue living, or for me to want my children, grandchildren, etc. to live? It's not that I think I have more of a right to live than any other living thing, but I damn sure have as much right. I will not sacrifice myself out of some asinine assumption that some other creature (or inanimate rock such as the Earth) has more of a right to life than I do. And BTW, earth is NOT what it is all about, not for me. Call it selfish (not arrogant), but ME ME ME ME ME ME (well, and other humans) is what it is about. I don't give a rip if the Earth implodes, explodes, melts, whatever, as long as the human race can go live on Mars afterwards. If you're nice, we'll take you with us :)

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's even worse. Because people that sell their souls know that they are wrong. They have just come to terms with the fact they want to do what is wrong. Bush...well he thinks what he is doing is really really really correct. And that can be more deadly than being evil, because your inner strength derived from a feeling of moral correctness can lead you to easily succeed at something that ends up being very awful. Bush's presidency is almost like one of those genies-in-a-bottle stories. I just hope he runs out of wishes before the next election.

Re:More on sinks

[gadget junkie]

"I'm just miffed that the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American. The EU has already issued warnings and the UK in particular has been engaged on sorting the Co2 output for _ten years_."

Europe also spends half it income at the European level on farm subsidies ( for the great unwashed: taxing 96% of the population to pay money to the other 4%). go figure.

Re:More on sinks

[joeldg]

just add further weight to this argument.
I have spent a lot of time surfing when I lived on the west coast.
the water there is cold and you have to wear a wetsuit.
Normally one degree in temperature is not something people think about. But when you are "IN" it, one degree makes ALL the difference in the world. 52 degrees vs 53 degrees when you are submerged in it makes all the difference in the world.
Unfourtunatly in this instance of the articles here, we are all "submerged" in the atmosphere and don't really have any place to go.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you fell into a pool, instead of swimming to the side and climbing out, you would just think "Ah well, we all must die sometime." and drown?? I guess Darwin was right!

Re:More on sinks

[the_Bionic_lemming]

If we don't believe climatologists

Err - climatologists get paid for studying the climate. They get paid more if there's a "crisis" in the climate. More funds for more equiptment, more pay. Bigger Crisis gets Bigger pay - Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Now - I just want the climatologists to explain why Mars and Pluto are heating globally as well.

http://www.charleston.net/stories/071103/wor_11p lu to.shtml

(before modding me flamebait - read the article)

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

hey [you insensitive clod]-- everyone's gotta' pay their bills.

so a lot of us wound up having to run 'fire-fighting' b.s. for corp.s after graduation...

that doesn't mean that we actually like "spreading jibberish", nor does it mean that we're being "paid well" -- (nowhere near what the exec's get paid). I know of secondary-school teachers who make more than some of my co-workers.

most of the time, rather than "creat[ing] media circuses...", our job entails trying to keep stuff out of the media (or at least to fix things before the story hits the media). Have you ever heard of the concepts of 'confidential', or 'secret'?

"countering univeristy and government sponsored research"? heck -- you might be lucky enough to find yourself sharing a lab with these people (university study == post doc.s == free 'slave' labor pool; "government sponsored" == funding (+paperwork p.i.t.a. -- see 'post doc' for paperwork solution))

as far as "travel[ing] the world" goes -- heh. as long as the conference/seminar/whatever is schedualed for Q1 or Q2, you might be able to make it -- if it's after Q3, chances are that the budget will have been ammended to eliminate 'unnecessary' travel, by then.

Re:More on sinks

[Vanieter]

Constructing more nuclear plants is yet another short term solution. Alright, so maybe it'll help solve global warming - but our supply of fissile material *is* finite, whereas our supply of wind, sunrays or water is not (and most rivers that can accodomate a damn have one, so ...).

And then there's the whole automobile issue ...

Re:More on sinks

[Firethorn]

Let me propose a different reasoning.

1. longer term temperature measurements, where sombody actually read a thermometer each day (or recorded by a machine) tended to be located in towns and cities. I'm talking more centuries than a couple decades here.
   
2. Population centers, because of heating, AC, vehicles and everything else tend to have higher temperatures than undeveloped areas
   
3. Over time, these centers have grown on average, making the area where the temperature is being taken more within these locally heated areas.
   
4. In the age of industrialization, the average heat produced by humans and their activities has grown. Examples are the deployment of AC, motor vehicles, various electronics.
   
5. Even without "human" input, five of the seven climatic models that show global warming show increases in temperature. They have a run-away problem in that they don't eventually stop heating up. A equilibrium point should be reached sometime.
   

And as far as measuring radiated heat from satellites, don't they comensate for that?

-Oh and I'd replace every coal plant with a nuclear one for the pollution savings. I haven't been convinced that carbon dioxide is a problem.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but I tend to distrust anybody who says "THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE".

Re:More on sinks

[Lord Ender]

Moderators: Please mod the parent comment up! He makes some very good points, even if they don't support your own view.

Re:More on sinks

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Actually, I think you're a cum sink.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Kyoto is not a method. Basically it's a contract saying "we'll reduce our CO2 emission". Nothing more. If you wish to reduce your CO2 emission by using nuclear power, that's fine. In fact, Kyoto is all about letting countries choose the way they want to implement the accord.

People who are against kyoto are simply against being forced to reduce CO2 emission.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

"there IS NO OTHER SIDE"

Well I'm glad the people that are "more equal than others" (1984-Orwell for the unschooled) have risen to the occasion to tell us that there is no other side of this particular scientific debate. Science is no longer about defending a scientific arguement against all contrary information. The policy of forming hypothesis, progressing on to theories and the confimation of experiments by others is no longer necessary. The "elite" have spoken, the results are in and are not to be questioned. As a matter of fact the other side of any scientific arguement that has been divined by the "elite" doesn't even exist. This will naturally decrease our waste of resources on disproving theories that are already self evident.

I was going to suggest some other links to read, but from the tone of your comments, your so far gone in your own self-centeredness/rightousness that I consider it a waste of my time and effort. I will spend a few seconds and help the wayward student to temper his knowledge. I suggest the obvious things such as: plants like CO2; and, the CO2 levels in the past have been demonstrated to be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than current levels which you already undoubtedly know from "all the research you have read".

This incident also makes me question the Slashdot rating system that would allow an absolute statement of this fashion that is in direct opposition to standard scientific practices to be elevated to 5, Insightful. I for one am not "hired by special interest groups", nor own/work for/own stock in an "oil company" and I still don't agree with his either/or statement which puts the statement itself in great jeapardy.

Re:More on sinks

[mrseth]

What did I say that had anything to do with liberalism? I am only speaking to the current lot in power. They want us to all live like a bacteria culture in a petri dish which just grows unchecked until it either dies from drowning in its own waste products or from exhausting all of its resources. I am simply saying that greed is negating rational judgement.

Perhaps we need to restate the issue in a way that will resonate with greed: I would imagine many a conservative would find it unprofitable if the surface temperature if the Earth was hot enough to melt lead (like on Venus). Until they figure that out, they will continue on their current course.

Re:More on sinks

[rjh]

U238 is very common in nature; it's pretty much dirt cheap. Is it a finite energy supply? Sure, it's a finite energy supply, but we're talking about centuries of power generation even assuming the most wild energy use imaginable. By the time we need to start worrying about uranium prices--hell, long before we ever need to worry about filling up Yucca Mountain--we'll have the technology to put orbital satellites up, hundreds of kilometers on a side, beaming terawatts of power down to Earth.

Nobody in their right mind ever proposes anything as a permanent power solution. Nor have many of your alternate sources had much in the way of EPA review. A windmill has no environmental impact--great. What happens when we have acres upon acres upon acres of them, and we're taking enough energy from them to significantly disrupt prevailing wind patterns?

Tidal harnesses? Great: what happens when we've got so many of them that we're significantly impacting aqualife? Where are the large-scale, long-term studies?

Solar? Right now, solar is about the most toxic power supply there is. They take huge energy to make, oftentimes fail to generate that much energy over their lives, and the chemicals involved in the lithography are spectacularly toxic. I don't want to see large-scale solar operations, not with our current level of solar tech.

Nuclear? Nuclear has its problems, yes. On the other hand, we know what those problems are; we know how to mitigate those risks; and we know that nuclear scales extraordinarily well. It's a good solution that's available right now, and that's a hell of a lot better than a perfect solution which won't be available/debugged for another twenty years.

Re:More on sinks

[operagost]

Or when he's in Detroit and rattles off all the American-built cars and SUVs in his garage.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation (the same stuff that keeps your McDonald's greaseball burger warm). Eureka! How much more do you need to know?

Infrared is one of the active methods of detecting CO2 that we use. There are mutiple devices that use infrared in EVERY coal stack in the united states. Why the fuck sould they be there you ask?

Well, I guess that if you can shoot an infrared beam to a IR sensitive photosensor, and measure the voltage that produces, you can calculate how much CO2 there is. In an atmosphere with CO2, all other things being equal, a slight drop in voltage will register, compared to an otherwise identical atmosphere with none. Holy shit that makes too much sense!

You want evidence of what I said? Look it up for your lazy ass self, or do a fucking experiment.

Re:More on sinks

[Fred_A]

They don't have the means to do much because the country is ridden with corruption and goodwill shown at the top (if any) will have a hard time being translated into facts at the base.

And I'm not sure they have that much spare cash (i.e. not in private citizen's bank accounts).

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

There are also informed scientists who believe that Darwin was wrong and that humankind was created by God.

Nonetheless, we do not expect that creationists should get equal time with Darwinians.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

But the environmental-types want the dams gone too, because they "hurt fish". And they dont like wind farms because they are "dangerous" to birds.

So what then?

Re:More on sinks

[gadget junkie]

"There is a small cadre of pseudo-scientists (they are working outside their domain of knowledge in an area of science which is notoriously inaccessible) in the pay of the big polluters that are casting about for any indication it may not be caused by human activities."

.... Funny, I thought that truth was not dependent on the number of people supporting it, or the entity funding the research. It is called "indipendent verification". BTW, Columbus day, anyone?

Re:More on sinks

[mrseth]

"That's rich. I've seen more liberals act this way than conservatives."

Then they're not really Liberals, are they? I can say I am a tuna fish sandwich, but it does not make it true. And let me be very clear, I am not talking about true conservatives. They realize that the Earth is worth conserving. For example, who do you think created the EPA? Real conservatives are much more pragmatic then the modern version. What we call conservatives today are actually radicals. I can only guess that they think they can pollute all they want because Jesus will either come and invoke the rapture or otherwise "fix" the environment via some miracle (yes, I've actually been told this by supposed conservatives).

Re:More on sinks

[amorsen]

I highly doubt your figures. This page says that human emissions are 27 billion tons of CO2 per year. It also says the atmosphere contains 350ppm of CO2, and that it has a mass of 4.4 * 10^15 tons, which leads to a total CO2 content of 1500 billion tons. 100 billion tons of CO2 is just 4 years of emissions. Significant, but I certainly hope it is not enough to cause a mass extinction.

(All billions in this post are 10^9.)

Re:More on sinks

[BrokenHalo]

You make a numbe of valid points, but your final sentence is where it sticks:

hurtling headlong into something that may not have a point.

This is fair enough, but not when used as an excuse for inaction.

Re:More on sinks

[Glock27]

It keeps you from supporting Kyoto as a start, because that first step doesn't complete your agenda to produce more poisonous and risky radioactivity.

What about the poisonous and risky coal-fired plants we have now? They're killing people every day (as well as contributing CO2 to the atmosphere).

Nuclear is a clean, efficient energy source. We have plenty of nuclear fuel. We should be building new pebble bed reactors.

We should also be working on cheaper, more efficient solar, fusion, and renewable sources of energy. However, those sources won't be doing the heavy lifting for quite a while. You should try to lose your irrational fear of nuclear power...at least the icecaps won't melt if we switch to largely nuclear power generation...

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

Global warming is certainly real, but it's an enormous exaggeration to say that it's killing people in record numbers---it's not. It's also an enormous exaggeration to say that it threatens our species with extinction. It does not.

Global warming does pose a great threat to human society, but most of the damage won't be felt for another 100 years or more and even in a worst-case scenario, it's not plausible that it would extinguish the human race.

Re:More on sinks

[Wakko Warner]

Nuclear? Nuclear has its problems, yes. On the other hand, we know what those problems are; we know how to mitigate those risks; and we know that nuclear scales extraordinarily well. It's a good solution that's available right now, and that's a hell of a lot better than a perfect solution which won't be available/debugged for another twenty years.

Good. Maybe, once everyone who remembers Three Mile Island is finally dead, we can start using it more. (I volunteer to help expedite the process!) I'm sick and tired of people using it and Chernobyl as their sole, pathetic reason against making further use of nuclear power, stupidly neglecting three decades of technological advances in the field.

- A.P.

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

I repeat, so who do you believe? oil companies? Ford? politicians?

Seriously, think about this from the perspective of the sort of senior climatologist who gets roped in for something like the National Academy of Sciences Review. You're in your 30s or 40s, you have tenure and academic freedom, you're well enough known that you will have plenty of grant money whatever happens. Even if you and everyone else in the subject suddenly realises that you dropped a decimal point 15 years ago and the whole thing is a non-issue, the ensuing fuss, plus bread-and-butter work like understanding El Nino, will keep you in funds until you retire, even if the subject slowly shrinks. You haven't actually done global warming research before, but the NAS has asked you in for this big review. What do you possibly have to gain by being less than honest? You could distort things towards the Bush/oil companies viewpoint, that would make them love you, and might pay off in a cushy consultancy or two. Why would you distort things towards more warming? There is no plausible motive except honesty.

As for Mars and Pluto, I have no idea, but their atmosphere's are so much thinner than ours, and have so much less heat capacity as a consequence that relatively small effects could be warming them.

Re:More on sinks

[Thuktun]

The only time you see these folks change their mind about issues such as gay marriage or stem cells is when it touches them emotionally such as when Dick Cheny's daughter is gay or Nancy Reagan's husband develops Alzhiemer's.

One wonders what would have happened had Mr. Reagan needed some medicinal marijuana to relieve his symptoms. Would Mrs. "Just Say No" Reagan have said no?

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

There are direct temperature records of reasonable accuracy back to the 18th century. Before that, there are a number of sources for this information -- tree rings, isotopic ratios in ice cores, which back each other up pretty well and probably more. See

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/ cu rrent/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle_new .html

for lots of pretty charts.

Ice cores give pretty accurate information back about half-a-million years.

The pattern is one of random year-on-year fluctuations of perhaps 0.4 degrees, combined with slow shifts of degrees per millenium. Plus, in the last 200 years about a 1 degree rise which looks like nothing else in the charts.

There is really quite a lot of evidence if you just look at it.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

don't bother, without China and India on board it won't do you any good. a billion plus Chinese and a billion plus Indians driving cars. Does that scare you? It should. Oil consumption and CO2 generation are about to go on steroids.

Re:More on sinks

[ahodgson]

Are you trying to suggest the US doesn't?

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

I think his line is funny, too. And I think your giving your friend irradiated meat demonstrates your plutonium fetish. Thanks for the story.

Re:More on sinks

[d34thm0nk3y]

wow, anecdotal evidence and blatant misinformation gets modded insightful, nice...

Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.

I find that in particular hard to believe. I don't know what kind of thermometer you have, but the last few years where I live (Pennsylvania, USA) have been much colder than usual.

A couple links from a google of "average global temperature":
one
two
Both of which quite clearly show that temperatures are in fact increasing and proving, once again, that anecdotal evidence means shit.

Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.

IANAS, but doesn't less energy mean that the Earth will cool down?

um....no, seriously, why would you even think that? If you are taking in the same amount of energy, but are losing less energy, you will have a net gain, simple.

Re:More on sinks

[mrseth]

Fortunately, most of them never collect enough shiny things to begin collecting the neighbors. This is why you've probably never heard of this...

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming does pose a great threat to human society, but most of the damage won't be felt for another 100 years or more

Wow, not for a WHOLE hundred years, or maybe even more. That's SO long term. Good job nobody cares about their children or grandchildren anyway.

Did you even read what you wrote? Has it sunk in yet?

Re:More on sinks

[fopa]

> the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American

Only Americans deny the obvious truth of Global Warming. Only Americans are blind to the Utopia of socialism. Only American ignore the need to support farmers through subsidies. Only Americans question the efficientcy of nationalized healthcare. Only Americans refuse to join the International Criminal Court. Only Americans refuse to agree with the international community.

Only Americans put the right of the individual ahead of the rights of the group. Only Americans question dogma.

Re:More on sinks

[ahodgson]

Antarctica wasn't always located over the south pole.

But yeah, even just a few million years ago the Earth was much warmer than it is now.

Re:More on sinks

[salesgeek]

The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE.

That global warming exists? Or in disusing the cause? One of the biggest problems the more extreme environmentalits have is this kind of rhetoric. It speaks so loud that no one can hear what yon are trying to say.

That said, if yon want capitalists to get it, show the impact overtime on thier assets and customer's ability to buy. Everyone is going to starve does not sound very credible, though it may be true

Re:More on sinks

[Jerf]

(a). the planet operated fine before without us pumping out such ammounts of CO2 and

This is trivially false, for modern definition of "working fine". The planet has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is now. Evidently, to listen to the global warming fear mongers, this would not constitute "working fine", since exactly the same circumstances they are warning us against have happened, over and over again, in the past.

(Which brings up one of my really "kooky-because-I-dare-use-logic-that-bastard" positions: Why do we all assume global warming is so bad? The ice caps melt... drop your force-fed assumptions and think about that for a moment... so what? We have proof that the life continues to function in the past. So we lose a few feet of coastline... so what? Yeah, sucks for the people living there but they can move inland. Yeah, we lose large swathes of Florida, but ultimately, in all seriousness, so what? "Florida" is not necessary to life. So the weather may or may not get a little worse... so what? Frankly, the weather is already pretty dangerous and it's not like we're going to have tornados plating North America, with not a single square foot untouched, we're just going to maybe have more and bigger ones. It isn't the end of the world.

Now, I'm sure many posters will see fit to jump in below and re-iterate the various proposed disaster scenarios, but I ask you to ask yourself so what? We already live in a world just oozing with earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, and all kinds of other natural disasters. Are you really afraid of a "doubling" of tornados, or are you just afraid of change? It's worth thinking about. Frankly, of our choices between warming and cooling (since stasis is not an option), I prefer warming at the moment. The Ice Ages, now those are something to live in terror of.

I am far, far more worried about global cooling than global warming.)

Re:More on sinks

[Al Al Cool J]

Will you be happier knowing that you wasted all that money and effort that made for a lower quality of life for everyone, all for nothing?

I wouldn't call getting companies to reduce pollution "a big a waste of money". And it's not as if the money is going to go up in smoke, it will just be spent in different areas.

People talk about the dire economic impact of something like Kyoto, but the fact is that the global economy is a very complex system that we really don't understand well. Although we only have about a century's worth of meaningful data, it is clear that the global economy fluctuates on its own. It's risen and fallen in the past and will continue to do so, regardless of environmental spending. Is there any solid statistical evidence that Kyoto would have a significant impact on the global economy? I don't think so.

Re:More on sinks

[mefus]

Well if the minority view continues to maintain common features and those common features are those of a mover acting with an occult bias, feel no shame in thinking the perspective is specious.

And, that is not independent verification, that is gaming the system. See my other post regarding this.

Re:More on sinks

[Thomas Miconi]

Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.

Thank you for reminding us about the cycle of photosynthesis, which among other effects gobs up CO2 and water, and produces sugar (for the plant to eat) and dioxygen as a byproduct.

Now what do you think they do with all this sugar ?

Now please hit Google and learn about the other part of the energy cycle present in most plants and indeed in most modern living organisms, which is called "respiration" (you may have heard about it): an oxidation process using dioxygen to degrade aforementioned sugars into ATP (nearly universal form of energy storage in living cells) and BLOODY CARBON DIOXIDE !

This page summarises the main points in an intuitive way.

At any rate, the production of oxygen by trees is simply tiny. The massive release of oxygen in the atmosphere, arguably one of the most important events in the history of life, was caused by the first photosynthetisers, like cyanobacteria - bacteria that do use photosynthesis to produce sugar (and oxygen), but degrade this sugar through older, less efficient mechanisms such as fermentation. Of course they did not use respiration, because before they appeared there was no oxygen to breathe (duh !)

Besides causing havoc in the primitive fauna, the so-called "oxygen holocaust" led to the appearance of the much more efficient respiration mechanism. Which in turn allowed for the emergence of much more complex forms of life (Eukaryotes) in a Bacterial world.

Most experts agree that the average global temperature was higher in the middle-ages than it is now...

Yeah right.

Someone save us from the product of the US education system !

Thomas-

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, and those coal plants churn out all kinds of radioactivity. The real solutions start with bioreactors that convert coal to oil (incidentally precipitating the heavy metals into recoverable forms), making progress on all kinds of pollution. Diverting that nuke R&D money into more efficient catalysts, like fuelcells, will enable greater power generation with less pollution. And there are of course all kinds of efficiencies and clever alternatives waiting down the roads less travelled, laying fallow while those destructive power technologies hogged the limelight. Over time, nuclear risks are inevitable catastrophes, as our few decades of rolling the dice have already proven. We can get beyond all that, to plentiful and safe power, by leaving them behind.

Re:More on sinks

[Urkki]

• Most likely the same place it came from. it's not as if carbon were being created from thin air.

Are you trying to be funny on purpose or is that accidental? :-)

Because yes, oil and coal *were* created out of thin air... At least according to accepted theories. Plants and plancton take CO2 out of thin air and convert it into complex organic chemicals as they grow (such as wood material, different sugars etc). Then when some of this organic material gets buried underground (instead of decomposing the normal way), and stays under high pressure and temperature and no oxygen for millions of years, it slowly gets converted into coal, oil and/or natural gas.

Too bad it's kind of slow process, much much slower than the rate we're burning oil and coal.

So, most likely the CO2 we produce *stays* in the atmosphere, adding to any "natural" CO2 in there. If anybody claims that this is not the case, then they'd better have some kind of mechanism, preferably with observable evidence, how all the *extra* CO2 released by humanity gets taken out of the atmosphere *in addition* to the normal removal of CO2 in different ways.

We're putting *more* CO2 into the atmosphere that is "natural". Therefore, for the balance to remain, there'd have to some way to get more CO2 out of the atmosphere than is "natural". Nobody has come up with a believable explanation into how that would happen.

So, the simplest explanation remains. The CO2 we dump into the atmosphere adds CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 in the atmosphere undeniably affects heat balance of Earth. Therefore we're having an impact on that.

Re:More on sinks

[igny]

Trees breathe oxygen as well. They inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 to produce the energy they need to live. Now in the process of photosynthesis, which is quite different from "breathing", the trees capture CO2 and release O2, to store the energy of sun. Without UV light, trees as well as plankton produce more CO2 than O2.

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

Ask the people killed in this year's Florida hurricanes, or in the typhoons inundating Bangladesh and Mozambique, or in the droughts/fires across Indonesia. Too late, you can't. Do you want to wait until our species is barely surviving to do something about it?

Re:More on sinks

[Cat_Byte]

Yeah but thats my point. The CO2 is in more shallow water and would be stirred up quite a bit more than a hurricane sitting on water a mile+ deep.

Re:More on sinks

[It'sYerMam]

Historically, temperatures have risen before the start of another Ice Age. We're approximately at the right time for another Ice Age.
People who say that other people are not informed but "informed" often haven't even bothered looking at the facts themselves.

The crux of the problem is that the earth is such a complicated place, and we cannot know exactly what's going on in its climate.
There is no doubt, however, that there is too much pollution. Whether it is causing a rise in temperature is NOT certain. This I believe is where how informed you are comes in - there ARE two sides, but only in certain areas. If you're arguing that pollution doesn't matter, you're wrong. (To put it arrogantly.)

Re:More on sinks

[bigberk]

This is the unfortunate thing about the so-called neoconservative mindset. Modern conservatism is nothing more than the rationalization of greed, avarice, and self-interest . . . Global warming has not affected them adversely yet

It's probably not even on their radar of "cares", since the damage is really being done in the long-term and the awful effects are to be seen long after the money is made, and the corpse is rotting.

In my mind, these business people who try to get their way even at the detriment of the planet are among the worst humans ever. A cruel dictator or invader might result in thousands of peoples' deaths. In contrast, the individuals allowing large portions of the forests to be cut down; rare freshwater pollution; and overconsumption of resources to the brink are endangerous the lives of millions, even billions of people in the future.

I don't want to be part of the generation that is looked back on in history and blamed as the group of people Who Finally Fucked It All Up during a period of unprecedented development.

Re:More on sinks

[Jamesie]

Not doubting your word but could you name some of these pseudo-scientists that are working out of their domain and in the pay of big polluters?

Re:More on sinks

[Jerf]

His conclusion that the warming of the planet will greatly accelerate the release of carbon from the soil, which in turn, will warm the planet, which in turn will release more carbon from the soil. As you can see, he predicts a nasty spiral.

You have to watch out for people like this. People who predict unrestrained runaway processes have a very important and critical question to answer: "If the process is so easy to set off and runs in such an unrestrained fashion, answer one of two questions: a. Why hasn't it happened before, or b. What stopped it last time?"

Remember, the planet has been warmer and cooler, a lot in both directions. One of them should have set off this runaway effect that we're supposed to be so scared of. Why is it a problem this time and not last time?

I'm not saying there are no answers. I'm saying for any given threat, if there are no answers, then it probably isn't worth worrying about.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm - there was an Ice Age. There were glaciers over much of Northern North American. They melted. Global Warming? Yes. Do to industrialization? No. So why did the glaciers melt? What caused global warming in the past? Is that process still active today?

Re:More on sinks

[Thuktun]

Little trivia fact for the global warming pundits: There are more trees in North America now than there were in 1970. It's true.

I think this should have instead been modded -1, Unciteful.

Re:More on sinks

[untaken_name]

Still, if the upheval is caused or accelerated by human activity, then wouldn't it be even more clever to slow or stop it?

Yes, if your interest is in the continuation of the human species.

But, if I may ask, why in the world do you think it is a bad thing to be interested in the persistence of one's own ass?

Bad? I didn't say it was bad to think this way. I said it was dishonest to represent yourself as a protector of the Earth when you are interested instead in your own continuation upon it. Let's face it: the most realistic solution for the environment, if humans truly negatively impact it, would be the removal of humans. You're never going to get 6 billion plus people to agree on anything, much less act in accord.

In summary: if you are concerned with saving your own ass, say that. Just don't tell me you're trying to save the planet when it does not need saving. Yes, there are honest environmentalists who want to save humanity and do not claim to be saving the planet. Most environmentalists that I've met, however, cloak their true concern behind a bunch of hogwash about 'saving the planet'.

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, and of course a hundred hurricanes a year will be great for surfers. Recreate!

Re:More on sinks

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

"Come on guys, your liberalism is showing."
Not everything is political. There is a consistent record of increasing concentrations of CO2 over time. This increase corresponds to an increase in the production of CO2 by humans (coal, oil, etc.); the predicted increase is twice the observed increase, possibly because the oceans have acted as CO2 sinks. The record on CO2 concentrations goes back about 800,000 years (also interesting). I assume that any reasonable person can accept this information (i.e. this is not political).

The next question is what is the impact this increasing concentration of CO2 (and other "greenhouse" gasses) on the climate. No one has a completely correct answer. A variety of mathematical models have been used and the predictions of these models have been tested in various ways (e.g. comparison with existing recoreds). None of these models is perfect. However, the majority of scientists who study climate questions, using a variety of techniques, conclude that the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses has contributed and will contribute to a warming of the earth's atmosphere. No one knows exactly how great will be this increase and this is a subject of great interest.

Re:More on sinks

[d34thm0nk3y]

HYPOTHESIS: Increase in CO2 levels increases global surface temperature. FACT: C02 levels are rising as proven by monitoring data and polar ice core drillings. FACT: Average global surface temperature has been rising consistantly since about 1920. I realise causality and correlation are not one-to-one, but is there ANY actual data to disprove this hypothesis.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't get lots of hard evidence until it's too late to avoid massive costs, financial and humanitarian. Demanding hard eveidence when the experiment more or less puts your existence at stake is meaningless. Informed estimates and simulations are all we have to go on."

This sounds an aweful lot like my defense of the war in Iraq!

Re:More on sinks

[RealBorg]

As the laws of entropy mandate, earth's atmosphere was initially composed of water vapour, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. The worst ecocatastrophe ever happened when photosynthesis started and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. So I find it extremely doubtful and suspect it to be a trick of the oil industry that a few more ppm carbon dioxide should endanger life on this planet.

Re:More on sinks

[Thomas Miconi]

The argument is convincing, and I haven't heard a good counterargument.

Curve of temperatures over the last two millenia

CO2 levels over the last 500k years as measured from the arctic ice record (notice the huge spike at the end of the graph)

What you fail to see is that the "other side of the argument" is supported by kooks and / or people paid by the industry. Note that I am certainly not blaming you for this: to a layman (and we are all laymen in most domains, regardless of our expertise in any particular domain), this is not obvious. The kooks exploit this fact and present themselves as respectable scientists which 99% of the time they are not.

The consensus on global warming in the scientific community (read: people who do actual science and publish papers through peer-reviewing processes) is among the strongest you'll find in any scientific field.

I think the best possible parallel is with creationism. To many people in the US, it is not at all unreasonable to think that the earth is less than 10000 years old. After all, the crackpots who support these kinds of "theories" seem respectable and their arguments sound plausible. The general public cannot be expected to know that these "arguments", when they exist (most of the creationist babble runs along the lines of "I can't understand how something as complex as life could evolve, therefore it didn't"), are based on lies and falsehoods.

Thomas-

Re:More on sinks

[Mesozoic44]

Yep - I agree too. There is an interesting and somewhat chilling (pun intended) article on this by Bruno Latour: Has Critique Run out of Steam?

Latour writes: "What has become of critique, I wonder, when an editorial in the New York Times contains the following quote? Most scientists believe that [global] warming is caused largely by manmade pollutants that require strict regulation. Mr. Luntz [a Republican strategist] seems to acknowledge as much when he says that "the scientific debate is closing against us." His advice, however, is to emphasize that the evidence is not complete. "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled," he writes, "their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue." Fancy that? An artificially maintained scientific controversy to favor a "brownlash" as Paul and Anne Ehrlich would say.

I'm not sure I'd call this the neoconservative mindset - but I don't have a good label for it. Basically it's in some people's interest to make the science appear to be problematic - this isn't just a lazy media habit of having to report both sides.

The rest of the article is very interesting and deals with the issue of how to look at the social forces on scientists (which is often viewed as attacks on scientists) while promoting and persuing empirically based knowledge.

Re:More on sinks

[stwrtpj]

For the approximately 600 million years that we can reconstruct climatological data, approximately 80 million of those, or 16%, has been at a mean global temerature comparable to today's levels. Another 80 million, or 16%, has been spent at temperatures averaging 5 C higher than current levels, and about 330 million years, or 67%, have been spent a full 10 C higher than current levels.

I love it when people trot out this little factoid and conveniently ignore the fact that past climatological changes generally occurred over the course of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, as opposed to recent trends that occurred in only 100 years.

Re:More on sinks

[mark-t]

...temperatures, have naturally fluxuated since the beginning of time...

I would expect that any so-called "informed scientist" would know the correct spelling for the word "fluctuated".

Normally I'm not a grammar nazi, but if a person's going to toot their own horn like that, they better darn well make an effort to sound intelligent.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Doc Ruby is a well-known and quite effective troll. It's pretty impressive, really, because he SOUNDS sincere but you know he just can't be.

Re:More on sinks

[NinthOption]

"Informed" scientists tend not to need to boast about how informed they are. If this is true, why aren't more papers published anonymously?

Re:More on sinks

[Kehvarl]

I was intentionally being funny. ignore me fore I have no actual capacity for being humorous.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly suggest you read this speech before you start making accusatory remarks about those that disagree with you.

Re:More on sinks

[pete-classic]

That looks like good info. I'll check it out.

At first glance I am still suspicious of the scale of time. For example, there seems to be a cycle in the level of atmospheric carbon revealed in Figure 4, but it only extends one and a quarter (apparent) periods, about 160,000 years. For reference, we mammals have been scurrying around for about 200,000,000 years. That's three orders of magnitude longer. It is hard for me to accept as fact that this cycle is significantly abnormal based on that scope.

Figures 2 and 3 set off my bullshit buzzer, because their y scales don't run to zero. Sad that they have to distort those charts, since they do seem to show something.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out this resource.

Also, since you brought up volcanoes, remember what happened in 1980? I'm not saying that it is the cause of all the worlds problems. I just think that we look to scientists for answers, and they are largely willing to give us answers. Dumb looks don't generate funding.

I'm really just looking for the concession that it isn't all cut and dried.

-Peter

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, its the *rate* of increase that jumped. if this is sustained, it *is* alarming.

Re:More on sinks

[the_Bionic_lemming]

The distance from the sun has some play ofsetting the thinner atmosphere.

I've not seen one climatologist advance an opinion that warming trends "May" be influenced by either the region of space we are traveling thru, or the suns effect on the earth as a warming indicator. I've only seen one climatologist explain that warming is influenced mainly by water vapor in the air, with the gasses being a fraction of a tiny percentage.

And I don't rely on any one source for my info - rather - I read as much as I can and make my own decisions.

Global Warming is Happening, however, Man has nothing to do with it.

Now local effects - We are causing great damage, California especially - How could people think they could build all that into a vally and not get nailed with smog and pollution?

Re:More on sinks

[shawnseat]

I'm a creationist.

Sorry to hear that.

So your saying I'm stupid, that I don't believe in science?

Assuming these are apposite (i.e., that the comma should be there), I would say you are ignorant, which is a wholly different matter. If they are not apposite (so you meant, "Is it stupid not to believe the results of science?") then yes, you are stupid.

[W]ho do you think created earth[?]

Not who but what. Basically gravity (accretion), angular momentum (so most solar bodies rotate in the same sense) and a prior supernova explosion.

People don't want to admit there is a God so they bury their head in the sand and search for decades for evidence that doesn't exist.

Over the last four centuries, the things one might plausibly say a god is responsible for have steadily been reduced. At one time, weather was considered the sovereign acrion of the gods, while now we determine days in advance what the weather is likely to be using scientific methods. Although Darwin described descent with modification 145 years ago, gene sequencing is now allowing us to know much more detail about how it actually happened. The greatest triumph of science over religious philosophy in our time, though, has been the revolution of medicine. As late as World War I, medicine was a combination of folklore and religion (look up Dr. Kellogg if you want to see a local maximum of that weirdness). Life expectancy and survival of various maladies has improved breathtakingly during a century of science as compared with (at least) ten millenia of religion.

Albert Einstein belived that God created the earth, You think he's full of BS too?

Einstein referred to 'God' at times, but was emphatic that it was impersonal, and most of the time he used it as a synonym of 'the mechanism(s) of the universe.' Einstein was not full of BS (though he was occasionally wrong); you, however, might be.

Re:More on sinks

[Wally_Hntr]

I'm just miffed that the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American. The EU has already issued warnings and the UK in particular has been engaged on sorting the Co2 output for _ten years_.

Ten years, thats a long time? Shouldn't have the can do no wrong democrats fixed it in the first 6? Oh, wait, they were too busy screwing the help.

Re:More on sinks

[deman1985]

I find it appaling that what I thought to be a generally intelligent readership here on /. could be so damn ignorant and emotional over a bunch of hype. There is something that most of you here seem to be forgetting; useful atmospheric data has been collected now for only a very short period of time, in the grand scheme of things. 50 years is hardly an adequate window of time on which to construct any kind of accurate model, or even to make assumptions. Hell, we STILL can't predict the weather beyond a week with any kind of certainty, so how can we honestly expect to understand the climate on a global scale, over the course of tens or hundreds of years?

Those who think we're in a warm spell during an ice age and so it ought to be getting colder again, how do you know? Maybe this warm spell is just getting started. While we can't deny that it's a strange correlation between industrialization and these effects, we also can't deny that there were tons of catastrophic climate changes long before man had any influence. It's not unlikely that this same thing happened a couple hundred years ago, but we can't say one way or the other, as we weren't recording data at the time.

Now, don't take my point the wrong way. I'm not saying that industrialization has no effect on the environment; in fact, there is no doubt in my mind that man has influenced the climate to some extent. The more efficient we are, the better. All that I'm saying is that we need to sit down and think about what we are observing, in an intelligent manner, and stop running around and screaming that this is the end of the world. The fact is, if there really is a problem and we continue drawing random conclusions and pouring money into bogus solutions, it may be too late by the time we really figure out what's going on. Maybe there's some other kind of natural global change on the way which will have catastrophic long-term effects; if we just assume these changes to be a result of pollution, then we're doomed.

Let the researchers do their jobs and work towards a more conrete answer. In the mean time, relax and carry about your business; if you're that concerned, change fields and start doing your own research. Either way, stop bitching and predicting the end of the world as we know it.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Even its proponents agree that it would only delay global warming by a handful of months, at a cost of trillions of dollars. Kyoto opponents, such as myself, are generally not opposed to fighting global warming:

You don't get it, do you? It's not about dollars, it's about our future. There will not be any benefit to a good economy if we cannot live anymore on this earth. It is all to easy to say, "if doesn't provide a complete solution, then we will just continue as if nothing happened". The small bits do help. And if they don't, at least it is a begin. If it is really true that we are reaching a threshold, then this small change can be the difference between life and death. But ignoring any solutions and continuing the way we are used to, that's closing your eyes to the problem.

we're opposed to fighting it in silly non-cost-effective means which are more public relations than results.

What are you talking about? Kyoto isn't about public relations, it's about our environment. It is a sacrifice for all the countries that signed the Kyoto protocol, with the intention of making this world habitable for our prosterity (and ourselves). There is no miracle solution that will give us a clean environment, and would require no effort of us.

Re:More on sinks

[gonzonista]

The argument against CO2 production being damaging goes something like: CO2 production on this planet is huge by comparison to whatever we, as polluters, contribute. Therefore, anything we do is insignificant and likely to be pointless anyhow.

However, CO2 in the atmosphere is a measure of excess CO2, and not CO2 production. The earth is a balanced system, and increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are indicative of how the balance is being shifted.

This is somewhat similar to the ratio of males to females on this planet. If you measure the amount of couples in the given population, male bias at birth (like in India or China) does not significantly affect the number of couples. However, if you were to measure the amount of unpartnered males, shifting a male/female ratio from the 50/50 mix to 52/48 significantly increases this number. Many researchers are talking of a social catalysm waiting to happen in Asia because of this, even though the changes in birth rates look relatively small.

What I am getting at is that the earth is a buffered system, where there are large amounts of CO2 converted back and forth. A small change in the balance can significantly affect the amount of excess, which is what appears to be happening now. Whether this increase in CO2 will cause massive global changes is open to debate, but humanity is making an impact, and we should be trying to evaluate what the impact will be, and not be denying that it is not our fault.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

How on earth can you possibly presume to know that? Perhaps we're still on the upward slope aiming for a temperature peak before temperatures come down. On what science are you basing your assumption that temperatures should, on average, be coming down?"

Take a basic climatology/environment course...

They can sample ice cores and such to find climate trends over time.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be willingly ignoring the fact that every instance of causation is also going to show a correlation. While scientists can continue to explore other hidden factors (solar flares, space dust, cosmic rays, faulty thermostats in China, or what have you), real people going about their lives should probably consider the current evidence supporting causation to be the best explanation.

If it is true that humans are causing the CO2 increase and the CO2 increase is causing the warming (both seem fairly plausible), then our only remaining question is whether the warming is a problem. If it is, whether there is direct or sole causation on either count is irrelevant, we may just want to scale back CO2 production to make sure we aren't inviting disaster. Meanwhile, science can continue to explore the issue, perhaps even using that time of reduced emissions as something of a test case (it would show whether humans were responsible for the increase or, if the CO2 levels levelled off, it would help show whether CO2 levels really were related to surface temperature).

Re:More on sinks

[gewalker]

Radiation temperatures are not measuring the amount of heat escaping as radiation, it is a measure of the temperature of the heat source. Heat != Temperature.

Radiation temperature is a function of the temperature of the object and the emissivity curve of said object having nothing to do with net heat transfer.

A givent object will at a higer temperature emit more radiation (watts/metter^2) than when cooler. The radiation profile is also skewed toward higher frequency with increasing temperature. Google on "blackbody radiation" for futher explanation or try here

Re:More on sinks

[spitzak]

but us grizzled oldies remember the 70s when that same 95% of climate scientists, using the same data, assured us that a new Ice Age was just about to engulf us all

Rubbish. You are confusing "nuclear winter" with the pollution predictions.

I clearly remember the hype in the 70's being that pollution was going to turn the planet into Venus. Things were not very accurate then and the claim was the actual opaque visible pollution, as well as waste heat, would do it. It was often pointed out that if all the ice melted we would be under 30 feet of water. A Nova episode from the 70's about Fusion energy clearly stated this, saying that even perfectly clean Fusion might not stop the warming because it would still generate heat.

In fact one of the biggest problems with "nuclear winter" in the popular mind was the well known "fact" that all the smoke from the fires would actually keep heat down next to the ground and thus it should be hot, not cold. Several opponents of nuclear winter scenarios used exactly this argument.

Not saying anything was very accurate at all, but the prediction from pollution was clearly toward a hot scenario. I'm not sure how accurate "nuclear winter" was, I feel that some of it was a concerted effort to look "studied" by conflicting with popular perception of how the earth would be destroyed.

Re:More on sinks

[Parsec]

I believe you are correct in this... the scientific viewpoint tries to consider all possibilities, while the "other side" is biased. This pulls the "balanced" viewpoint toward bias.

In other words, giving equal time to two viewpoints when one is already a balanced viewpoint and the other is strongly biased creates bias.

This journalistic system of simply (lazy) presenting seems to have failed us by not being critical and researching each viewpoint.

Re:More on sinks

[Buelldozer]

"However, the majority of scientists who study climate questions, using a variety of techniques, conclude that the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses has contributed and will contribute to a warming of the earth's atmosphere."

LOL!

Majority acceptance is no proof, if it was the world would still be flat! I am wary of anything that uses popular acceptance as proof, especially when the details are covered up with handwaving.

I'm not flaming you, just adding my .025 (inflation). Your comment just happened to work well for what I had in mind.

Re:More on sinks

[zophim]

Help stop global warming, boycot Pepsi Co! [ Paid for by the coca-cola company ]

Re:More on sinks

[nysus]

The article in the Portland Tribune is written by a right-wing think tank. I want to know how otherwise intelligent people let themselves get blinded by a simplistic and single-minded ideology (i.e. government is evil) as to put the entire fucking planet at risk. "Global warming can't be real! That would require action by governments!"

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

The Sun's output has been accurately measured for the last 40 years or so, and can be inferred somewhat less accurately for the past. It hasn't changed.

I don't know what you mean by "the region of space".

There are a number of gasses absorbing IR radiation in the atmosphere and so helping the Earth stay 20 kelvin or so warmer than it would otherwise be. Only CO2 and methane have changed their contribution to this effect significantly as far as we can measure, and those two have increased dramatically since the industrial revolution, having been fairly constant over the preceding millenia.

Using multiple sources is sensible, but not all sources are equal. 100 anti-global warming websites copying each others information is not 100 times, or even one time, as useful as one peer-reviewed scientific study.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Anything that disagrees with my opinion has bias. Why? Because news should be DEVOID of opinion. FACTS may provide EVIDENCE against my opinion, but a news station should never speculate and imply and infer and, in short, opine. NPR does all of those things. Thus, NPR is biased.

Re:More on sinks

[ultranova]

I can only guess that they think they can pollute all they want because Jesus will either come and invoke the rapture or otherwise "fix" the environment via some miracle (yes, I've actually been told this by supposed conservatives).

You might want to suggest that they read the following passage (Revelation 11:18), and pay special attention to the last part:

"The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great-- and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

The finish translation of the last part says "turmelevat" (which means "who corrupt") in the place of "destroy", a word which is often used to describe enviromental pollution. Has anyone here read this passage in the original language ? Could this be taken to be referring to polluters ?

In any case, "It's okay to pollute because Jesus will fix it" is an idiotic argument - after all, according to the Bible, the dead will rise but a murderer is still going to be convicted as such. Besides, no one really knows when this will happen - there's been several times in history when people have believed the end to be coming, only to be proven wrong. And if the end is coming soon, then it's completely pointless to gather earthly riches.

Re:More on sinks

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Great - So why is pluto warming then?

I know you can give me hundreds of theories and discussions on how man is causing global warming on earth - I just want one explanation on how we're making pluto warm as well.

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

Someone else said: Yeah, well we've proven that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, and that our carbon sinks aren't soaking it up as fast as we pull it out of the earth and burn it.

I said: We have? I've seen that asserted. I've seen that theorized But I havent' seen that proof. Can you link to it please?

You said: C02 has physical properties such that it creates a heat retaining insulating blanket around the globe. And it is beyond dispute that both CO2 levels and temperature are rising.

1. It's not beyond dispute that temperature is rising. The satellite record indicates quite the opposite.

2. Neither you nor anyone else has provided a link showing that our carbon sinks aren't soaking up what we burn. While you can point to an increasing CO2 level and conclude that the carbon sinks aren't keeping up with CO2 production, you can't say that that is only humans' fault.

There is no proof that humans are increasing the temperature of the earth. There isn't even conclusive proof that temperatures are still rising. They haven't in the 2+ decades of the satellite record. Maybe they did at the beginning of the century but that doesn't seem to be an ongoing trend.

Re:More on sinks

[horos2c]

actually, our supply of fissile material is pretty close to infinite (given our current level of energy production), if you include U-238.

In the US alone, there is at least 10 times as much U-238 as there is coal, and if you count the seas as a source of uranium, there is millions' years of supply.

source:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohe n. html

horos

Re:More on sinks

[zaroastra]

Man! I hope all the "climate is not warming up" Zealots look at the graph with care...
Even if they were exagerated (as some CINWU zealot before me posted) They are spooky!
I'm afraid at this rate will reach armageddeon soon ...

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide proof that the daytime temperature on Pluto has changed significantly in the last 100 years.

Re:More on sinks

[EvilBudMan]

-Global warming deniers at this point are in the same class as creationists-

Not exactly, even if evolution from species to species can be proved which I'm not so sure that it can, cause and effect can be studied. For every effect there is a cause. So what is the first cause, or the cause without a cause? Where did matter and engery come from? Atheisim is just another religon that says man invented god instead of god invented man. So, for evolution, what was the first cause?

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

Me: How on earth can you possibly presume to know that? Perhaps we're still on the upward slope aiming for a temperature peak before temperatures come down. On what science are you basing your assumption that temperatures should, on average, be coming down?"

Anonymous Fool: Take a basic climatology/environment course... They can sample ice cores and such to find climate trends over time.

The question remains. How can you presume to know where we are on the cool/heat cycle? The idea that "our temperature should be going down" has not been proven. And your anonymous post has gotten us no closer to proving it.

[ Reply to This ]

Re:More on sinks

[the_Bionic_lemming]

http://www.charleston.net/stories/071103/wor_11plu to.shtml

Re:More on sinks

[charlesbakerharris]

No, that's incorrect. The satellites measure temperature, which is based strictly on the wavelengths of the emitted radiation from the surface. That doesn't change if you put a bunch of CO2 in the way - it just reduces the number of photons that get back to the satellite. They're not measuring the *amount* of "radiated energy", which is what you based your statement on. The lack of temperature change is still significant. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions - global warming may still very well be a problem - but it will take a good deal more to counter the argument about the temperature remaining flat than what you mentioned.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't necessarily liberals. It is not a requirement that we be liberals only to recognize that societal intervention in the common practices of a few be imposed.

Most conservatives would recognize that the changes being proposed to "solve" global warming are going to affect far more than the common practices of a "few." Since most conservatives would recognize that, those that don't have a larger chance of being liberals.

So stop calling people names.

Calling a liberal a liberal is name-calling? Ouch. Guess liberalism is a four letter word. I guess I'd be ashamed to be a liberal, too. :)

Re:More on sinks

[zaroastra]

Someone save us from the product of the US **SYSTEM**!
Or should that be:
Someone save us from the product of the **US**!!!?

Re:More on sinks

[jav1231]

"I'm just miffed that the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American." And you should be more proud of your country. Global Warming just might be a joke. There are a lot of scientists on record as saying such. That they happen to be American, as you are, should not only make you proud, but should make you question the other nations' motives.

Re:More on sinks

[evilpenguin]

I get you now. But I don't think those are "environmentalists." I, too, mistrust those who see "nature" as an idyll. Nature is harmonious, but it is a harmony "red in tooth and claw." Malthus had it right.

So I get what you are saying, but I don't think the people you describe have anything to do with climatological research.

Re:More on sinks

[Joe the Lesser]

I swear to God there's a post higher up that stated the Earth is in an unusual warm period, and sounded just as smart as yours does.

This is why I hate this whole argument.

Re:More on sinks

[Kavli]

Additionally, most "environmentalists" think that the human being is supposed to be outside the ecological system. Everything that lives and also what dies imposes changes to the system. Everyting that decomposes releases methane, which has a potential global warming index of 21. That's 21 times the index of CO2. I've never heard anyone even mention methane in this discussion.

Re:More on sinks

[TyrranzzX]

Ahh, the perfect example of the perfect excuse that people will buy, probably thought up by a think tank no less. To say such prooves what exactly? It certainly doesn't disprove these scientists and their research, that's for sure, it simply proposes the idea that it is "probably" something else. The scenario that one doesn't cover is, what if we're right? What if our CO2 contamination, among other things we're pumping into the atmosphere, is causing global warming to occur? If these guys have hard, tangable, properly collected evidence that this is occuring, we shouldn't brush it off with "well, it's probably just the natural way our earth has been working for thousands of years, these guys are morons".

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

Since you ask. One theory based on almost no knowledge -- some gas in condensing out as a liquid or solid at the bottom of Pluto's atmosphere as it moves away from the Sun, releasing latent heat. Some kind of atmospheric heat engine is pumping this heat up to the levels of the atmosphere that we can (very occasionally) observe and warming them.

Re:More on sinks

[stevelinton]

It's not cut and dried on the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" scale. On the "balance of probabilities", in my judgement it's been clear for a decade or more and it's now becoming pretty convincing at "beyond reasonable doubt". Many details, some pretty important, and still unclear, but the basic picture is standing up very well.

Re:More on sinks

[MrScience]

I can say, with the risk of losing my job...

In all seriousness, why could you loose your job if this statement is widely accepted? If you meant to say "with no risk," why post anonymously?

Re:More on sinks

[Brandybuck]

Wonderful unbiased news source you have there. Left-biased media interviewing anonymous person claiming unbiased coverage is wrong.

Next!

Re:More on sinks

[Psion]

Then why, as a recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out, did Senate Democrats propose a bill "exempting climate programs from having to pass scientific scrutiny? The legislative language excuses any "research and data collection, or information analysis conducted by or for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" (the agency charged with monitoring climate change) from the Data Quality Act, a new law that requires sound science in policymaking. This is the sole exemption in the bill. ...our sources say it was included at the request of Democrats on the Senate subcommittee that wrote the spending bill in question, but that now the exemption is getting the attention of Chairman Judd Gregg, who says he intends to remove it. Let's hope so. Surely those who claim to believe most in climate change aren't afraid to subject their theories to even basic tests of scientific accuracy. Or are they?"

Why is Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick", a central pillar of the GCMs around which so much support for the climate models has been built, increasingly under scrutiny for procedural flaws and sloppy statistics that damage the validity of the proposal. In an interview with German climate modeller Hans von Storch this week in Der Spiegal, von Storch says, "The Mann graph indicates that it was never warmer during the last thousand years than it is today. In a near perfect slope the curve declines from the Middle Ages up to 1800, only to shoot up sharply with the beginning of fossil-fuel burning. Mann's calculations rest, inter alia, on analyses of tree rings and corals. We were able to show in a publication in 'Science' that this graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish."

He also says, quite correctly, "...Mann rejects any reproach most forcefully. His defensiveness is understandable. Nobody likes to see his own child die. But we must respect our credibility as research scientists. Otherwise we play into the hands of those sceptics of global climate change who imagine a conspiracy between science and politics." There is a difference between science and ideology. Science always has room for new data, skepticism, and paradigm shifts. Ideology doesn't. So the science of anthropogenic global warming isn't settled.

Re:More on sinks

[syukton]

Well, I'd say that it's worse because we've been pumping hydrocarbons out of the earth for 50+ years now. Hydrocarbons are only hydrogen and carbon, and I imagine that's where all this extra carbon is coming from--it's been BURIED for millions of years, deeper than the first layer of soil, beneath a thick layer of rock, unable to escape due to mere heating. We've been introducing large amounts of carbon into our ecosystem which weren't ever there before all at once.

Why is it a problem this time and not last time?

Because humanity is the problem this time. Humanity's ignorance, arrogance, belief that they can do whatever they want come hell or high water. Humanity is the reason why this is a problem, and humanity will continue to be the reason as the problem begins its downward spiral.

We need to find a plant which grows rapidly and consumes large amounts of CO2. A plant like kudzu, or cannabis, or that variety of shrub that India is currently considering putting on its marginal scrublands. We need to find this plant, grow it, and then BURY it, deep within the earth. We need to do this and continue to do this until we've PUT BACK all the carbon we've TAKEN OUT. I like to think of the planet like a bank, you can take anything from it as long as you give it back. Take some water to drink, you'll return it later, etc. We're very overdrawn when it comes to carbon, and we need to get ourselves on a payment plan ASAP. Here's one way to look at it: If somebody drew a large amount of blood from you with the intent of giving it back, would you want them to pour it on your surface, or put it back exactly where it came from? We're doing the former to the planet right now, and we need to stop.

Re:More on sinks

[TheGavster]

Claiming that the other side does not exist is a pretty crummy way to begin a debate. Both sides believe that their position is the correct one, and that their evidence is irrefutable. Either side could be right, that is why these kinds of issues need to be exposed (both sides of them!) and investigated.

Do not mistake your personal beliefs for absolute truth.

Re:More on sinks

[asuffield]

If you claim that this does not affect CO2 levels of our atmosphere

Nope, I merely claim that you don't know that they *do*, and have no real evidence to support that theory.

Re:More on sinks

[Eric Damron]

So, you're a "informed scientist" that doesn't believe in global warming are ya?

Nice Sig by the way...

Do you have ESP? [whohasesp.com]

You don't believe in global warming but you do believe in ESP?? Guess there must be more supporting evidence for ESP than the global warming thing.... but then I'm just one of those "fruitcakes" you well informed scientists are talking about...

Re:More on sinks

[Bendebecker]

Even without "human" input, five of the seven climatic models that show global warming show increases in temperature. They have a run-away problem in that they don't eventually stop heating up. A equilibrium point should be reached sometime.

On Venus, the point where the planet stopped heating up was about 900 degrees farenheit. The equilibrium point does not necessarily have to occur within a temperature range suitable for life.

Re:More on sinks

[Brandybuck]

If he's only been doing this for five to eight years, then he doesn't have enough data to warrant a conclusion. That's because there hasn't been enough time to measure a general increase in temperature. While one summer may have a hotter peak the the summer before, the climate is too chaotic for this to happen every year. Also global warming will case the weather to shift, so that many locales will actually get cooler. So in this short of time span, he could *NOT* have have seen a general increase in warming in every one of his plots.

In short, his prediction has too few samples collected over too short of time.

Re:More on sinks

[asuffield]

The accuracy of techniques such as this is unknown and unverifiable. We only have known-accurate data for about 50 years.

That graph is based on a *hypothesis*. That isn't proof. Worse, it's the *same* hypothesis, so it's not even an implication.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm just miffed that the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American. The EU has already issued warnings and the UK in particular ... "

Yeah, and equally head-in-the-sand, you've banned genetically modified plants, too. Way to embrace technology.

Re:More on sinks

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Yes the climate does change.

Yes many changes are beyond our control and will be bad or good.

So why should we knowingly force a change that we know is bad, that will force global warming, that may make all those uncontrollable things worse when we have the power to do otherwise?

There's no way in hell you are any kind of informed scientist. At best, you watch Discovery now and then. At worst, your paycheck comes from the oil industry and you are paid to ignore global warming.

Too bad your kids will have to pay for your ignorance.

Re:More on sinks

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Great - Now - Why is mars warming?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98168& pa ge=1

Re:More on sinks

[Jerf]

Because humanity is the problem this time.

This is not an acceptable answer, because "humanity" is not a cause.

Everything we've done has been done by nature before. Gigantic eruptions changing the global climate with all manner of gasses, asteroid impacts, etc.

Why is this runaway process only going to strike this time? Why didn't it happen last time a mega-volcano spouted off? If it did happen, what reversed it?

Using "humanity" and what we've done as an explanation for more normal events is at least defensible, but runaway processes are a different story. By their nature, once they are "set off", there is supposed to be no stopping them. So why, in the half-a-billion years or so of life has nothing ever set off this process, or what stopped it, is still a very valid question. We may be straining the current biosphere, but we haven't yet hit any of the various limits Planet Earth has experienced over the eons. My point is very specific to "runaway processes".

Also, your simple additive arguments based on bank accounts show me you have no place discussing the climate, along with most people I see here on Slashdot. (Before you ask, I'm OK because I'm not discussing, I'm asking, something more people around here should be doing.) This is the land of differential equations and chaos and stuff; your bank account is as far away from the climate as is conceivably and is actively harmful as a metaphor.

Re:More on sinks

[zCyl]

Good. Maybe, once everyone who remembers Three Mile Island is finally dead, we can start using it more.

Actually, most of the people who remember TMI are doing quite fine, because the safety protocols that were in place there worked just fine, resulting in no harm to the surrounding population.

Safety protocols and reactor designs now are even better than this.

Re:More on sinks

[Illserve]

At the risk of losing your job for trumpeting the dominant scientific paradigm? right.

Also next time try not posting as an AC

Re:More on sinks

[pianophile]

Their stockholders don't pay them to care, and they personally have no real interest in it - protecting the environment doesn't make them any money - so why should they care?

We need a new mod: "+1 Scary Because It's True".

Re:More on sinks

[Short Circuit]

And that's only evidence gathered by scientists within those hundred years. There's geological samples (ice and otherwise) dating back much, much longer than that.

(opinion)

Besides, using the age of the Earth as a comparison is senseless, because the Earth hasn't had a biosphere like today's for most of it. As a species residing here, we're more interested in the Earth's behavior after the point where it began supporting life like us. (i.e. mammals.)

(/opinion)

Re:More on sinks

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

"Majority acceptance is no proof"
I agree completely. You have to look at their reasoning and see why they reached their conclusions. On the basis of the best models and physical evidence available, they conclude that global warming is real. If you object to their conclusions, it should be on a firm scientific basis rather than merely "I am wary of anything that uses popular acceptance as proof". No (ethical) scientist would use popularity as a basis of proof. (If I am not an expert in a particular area, I might rely on the opinion of experts but I will merely say "The opinion of experts is ..." rather than making any direct claims myself.)

Re:More on sinks

[schmaltz]

I do NOT think, however, that restrictive regulation how to go about it

How, then? How else do you incentify the protection of something for which there is no obvious short-term profit motive (short-term I'm talking less than a decade.)

in the United States, it is out of the purview of the Federal Government-- it's not an enumerated power.

Ding-ding-ding-ding! Congratulations, you just showed everyone your genetic marker for being an ultra right-winger! - If this were true, would the federal gov't have put a man on the moon? Few people imagined that in the 1700s. There are many things the gov't does that weren't written into the Constitution - you'll have to refine that argument a bit more to make it real. "State powers" or "states rights" has become a rallying cry for anything a conservative doesn't like the Fed'l gov't doing.

Yes, there's evedince that the environment is changing, but the causality has not been proven.

It's not likely we'll prove CO2 is the cause until it causes some real problems. The reality here is, we probably won't be able to do anything about it anyway - our lifestyles and systems of work are so entrenched with large expenditures of energy that it will probably be impossible to get people to change their habits until it's too late. Do you see China, South America, Africa going toward cleaner energy production in the next twenty years? I don't - I see them using the same old diesel, petrol and coal, with its resultant output of CO2 and other chemicals.

Hey, I'm in the same boat - there are a lot of things I'd rather the gov't not pay for, especially including the exhorbitantly expensive U.S. military, oh and also the idiotic tax rebate we'll all be paying back for the next couple of decades.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that global warming is a problem but your entire argument is based on one guy heard on NPR. And is the National Academy of Sciences really "for sale" in the way you claim? I thought their reputation was better than that.

While global warming is a problem it is far from universally agreed to as such. The only way we will convince the rest of the world that global warming is an issue is to prove it beyond a doubt scientifically while disproving (as much as possible) opposing claims.

That or wait 'till CO2 levels become so high that small oxygen breathers, old people and infants start to die in droves.

Re:More on sinks

[cluckshot]

Let me propose another very important thing or two

The assumption that the CO2 levels measured at the ML observatory are representative of the "Cleanest air" or most un affected by local emissions is flawed. Air travel and in particular air freight which was insignificant only a few years ago has become dominant and Hi is a definitely affected and decending planes going into the airports in the islands would affect the sensors significantly. This is a matter of distrobution. It makes the entire supposition questionable.

I have not been of any doubt that global warming was occuring. I have been severely in doubt of why. There is a lot of data to indicate that the issue is more "Asphault effect" and the location of sensors than acutual warming. link to info

There are a lot of things going on. We would be wise not to be so fast as to think that everything is mankind's fault. I do think that pollution is a serious problem. I sincerely suspect that we should look somewhere else besides the USA for most of those problems though. The KYOTO process was screwed up because it left India/China et al out of the restriction and was essentially an anti USA document. If you want to reduce pollution everyone should be subject to the rules.

Re:More on sinks

[tomcode]

"Little trivia fact for the global warming pundits: There are more trees in North America now than there were in 1970. It's true."

Yes it's true. Because in the 1970s we had this little thing called the environmental movement, which put a stop to the logging free-for-all of the previous 100 years. Compare the number of trees now to the year 1800 for a real picture.

I saw a commercial recently touting how air is cleaner now than it was in 1970. It was an ad for an energy company. Are we supposed to forget how that energy company fought tooth and nail against the environmental regulations they now claim credit for?

And the Bush administration works the same way. They take credit for an advance they fought against simply so they can co-opt it, own it, and de-tooth it. Just ask Carl Pope.

Re:More on sinks

[mink]

Natural Gas prices are also on the way up in the United States.

Re:More on sinks

[Ashen]

like the vulcanism that may (or may not, depending on who you listen to) have lead to a massive release of CO2, causing the Permian/Triassic mass extinction

That's illogical.

Re:More on sinks

[tehdaemon]

The fact that venus has an air pressure some 90 times earth's has nothing to do with it either, right?

More to the point, since life formed here, there has never been a time when the temperatures haven't been suitable for life, and I am not talking about extreamophiles here.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this need any more explanation?

Clearly, since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have risen (and almost at an exponential rate). If our carbon sinks weren't maxed out, we would probably be seeing a naerly linear increase. Oh and by the way you forgot an italic tag ender thingy.

Re:More on sinks

[pommiekiwifruit]

Well the Dutch have obvious reasons to take ocean levels seriously, and England also (in the east anyway).

OTOH, if Florida gets washed away, at least the spam ratio should go down!

Re:More on sinks

[GooberToo]

You have to watch out for people like this. People who predict unrestrained runaway processes

I already know where you're going with this, and I agree.

have a very important and critical question to answer: "If the process is so easy to set off and runs in such an unrestrained fashion, answer one of two questions: a. Why hasn't it happened before, or b. What stopped it last time?

Who says it hasn't already happened before? You're asking questions which are larger than you or I. And frankly, I think are completely out of scope. What he did is pure research. He then offered a warning, sustained by the results of his research. That's doesn't mean he's come to the right conclusion, however, it doesn't mean he's wrong either.

Why is it a problem this time and not last time?

Perhaps because we're around now. People tend to want to know if they should plan for the worst of times. Accordingly, they want to know if they can simply ignore the, "green house", screams. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not saying there are no answers. I'm saying for any given threat, if there are no answers, then it probably isn't worth worrying about.

Which means, science is out to prove you wrong. Basically, your position seems to be, if you don't have an answer today, then don't worry about finding an answer tomorrow. I'm sorry, but that's just plain silly.

Re:More on sinks

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

"The next question is what is the impact this increasing concentration of CO2 (and other "greenhouse" gasses) on the climate."
I did not mention methane in my post above but it is one of the greenhouse gasses. The concentration of methane is much lower than that of CO2 and so it is not mentioned as often. There was an interesting article in Scientific American about the impact of methane in the distant past; I am too lazy to look up a reference.

Re:More on sinks

[xenlab]

As a resident of Central Florida that was affected by THREE Hurricanes in once season, I can tell you that I am most definitley concerned. Warming oceans continue to give rise to conditions that are more than favorable for these types of storms.

Re:More on sinks

[Jerf]

What part of "If there are no answers, it is probably not worth worrying about." implies "Nobody should ever look for answers?" Sounds to me like you're reading in your own pre-conceived notions of what I "must" think in order to say what I say, and skipping the important step where you actually read what I say.

The burden of proof for people predicting runaway processes is firmly on the predictor. I refuse to panic. Deal with it.

Re:More on sinks

[CrimsonAvenger]

More CO2 == warmer planet == flooding. Why accelerate the process if you don't have to?

You are implying a casue and effect relationship that is questionable, to say the least.

It may be true that more CO2 causes a warmer planet. Or it may not. Certainly, the current trends seem to suggest such (CO2 levels are rising, average temperatures are rising), but the trends don't necessarily imply causation.

It is true that a warmer planet implies flooding. Well, up to the point that the ice has all melted. after that, getting warmer won't induce more flooding.

How do you know that reducing our CO2 emissions will slow, halt, or reverse the process? Until a clearer picture of cause and effect exist, we are as likely to do harm as to do good by changing our behaviour.

Mind you, I'm becoming more environmentalist than not as I get older. And Global Warming would be a wonderful excuse to switch from burning hydrocarbons to burning plutonium/Uranium. But a knee-jerk reaction isn't always the best answer, and "But something has to be done NOW, before it is too late!" doesn't make the knee-jerk reaction any more correct.

Re:More on sinks

[tehdaemon]

"You need independant, real scientists, and you won't find them."

Because for all practical purposes, they do not exist.

Re:More on sinks

[GooberToo]

If he's only been doing this for five to eight years, then he doesn't have enough data to warrant a conclusion.

He was able to draw a conclusion based on carbon loss, not temp. A temp increase is what atmosphereic models predict, which is based on our currently level of understanding. So, it seems not only was he able to draw a conclussion, but he was able to rationally support it. Meaning, he found A, and applied known area of study B, and came to conclusion C. This doesn't mean he has drawn the right conclusion, but his conclusion isn't exactly unsupported either.

I should also mention that he also uses old striations of earth, realative to each other, to measure historical deltas over time, which date back a long, long time (sorry, I don't recall the timeline). I guess this is pretty significant part of the story, but I'm only now recalling since you pushed on it. At any rate, his results indicate that carbon loss is much faster now than historical record indicates.

The difference is, all things being equal, it makes the case for a faster transition into warmer climates. The physics of what happens with carbon in the atmosphere is fairly well understood. Which brings us back to...is this part of a larger, normal cyclic trend or not? And if it is, what normalizes the carbon and brings it back down? If it's not, what can we do? Is it a bad as some say? Is it worse? If so, what corrective actions can we do now?

Long story short, I wish others would of piped in, providing more details than what my scretchy brain is allowing for.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you aren't blaming anybody of selfishness, you are blaming them of short-sightedness .

Selfishness is natural to us. What else is "unselfishness" but long-term, broad-view selfishness?

But short-sightedness will eventually kill our planet.

In short, you are totally correct and I applaud at your post.

Re:More on sinks

[winwar]

"It's a lot more than conjecture, if not a "proof beyond all doubt" and, I think, clearly worth giving up your SUVs and air conditioning for."

Well, it's not "proof beyond all doubt" but certainly a hypothesis. It probably isn't a scientific theory yet (humans causing global warming) due to a lot of missing data. But reasonable people could believe human released CO2 is a large problem.

But what to do about it? Is it worth giving up AC for? Considering that WILL cause the deaths of many (see heat wave deaths...) It will impact our economy NOW. Look, if the current levels of CO2 are "bad" then we need to reduce them, yes? The only way to reduce them is to go to technology that doesn't release CO2. There isn't much-hydro and nuclear-and these won't solve our energy needs. Because our population has grown immensely, we would have to throttle back our energy use immensely. Getting rid of SUV's and AC won't cut it. Try getting rid of ALL IC cars for a start. That won't happen short of a nuclear war.

The problem with reducing CO2 levels is that it has REAL COSTS NOW for hard to quantify benefits (what, we gave up our tech and it's STILL warming!?!). And a lot of countries (China, India) may not be too concerned about the consequences-after all when you are trying to feed/modernize a few billion people, CO2 effects can wait...

And if we have reached the tipping point, I don't think there is a lot we can do....

Here's a question for you. For those scientists and others who believe that CO2 is a problem what have they done to SIGNIFICANTLY lower their releases? I would say very little. If that is the case, is there really a large concern ? ....

Re:More on sinks

[GooberToo]

By their nature, once they are "set off", there is supposed to be no stopping them.

You're blowing smoke up everyone's tail pipe now. You making a poor conclusion and making even worse statements to support your poor logic.

Simple fact is, there is still a lot that we don't know and research like this is suppose to help increase our body knowledge.

Re:More on sinks

[Idarubicin]

The "other side" tends to be people like me - informed scientists...

Normally I leave alone the qualifications of individuals on Slashdot. I preserve a separation between my Slashdot and my meatspace identity; consequently I avoid as much as possible arguing from a position of authority even on areas where I am very knowledgeable (radiation physics, molecular biology, and physical chemistry) and back my remarks about science with citations (peer-reviewed wherever available in a quick PubMed search). If I refer to myself as a scientist, I make that claim only where my knowledge, training, and research are applicable to the question at hand.

It troubles me greatly to see someone claiming to be a 'scientist' and using that to support the credibility of an argument without indicating any sort of qualifications. From what I gather of the parent poster's qualifications, his area of expertise is computer science--a long step away from climatology.

Imagine you're at the scene of a car accident. A man lies bleeding on the ground. A strong, confident voice rises above the crowd, and a dignified gentleman steps forward.
"I am a doctor. How may I be of assistance?" Relief! Heavens be praised!
"Doctor, what should we do to help this man?"
"Damned if I know. I teach C# to whiny undergrads. I'm just a PhD."

Feel free to express a lay opinion on Slashdot. Don't pretend to be an expert and cloak yourself in the term 'scientist' unless you deserve it.

Re:More on sinks

[jcr]

I'm a creationist.

I guess we all have our crosses to bear, don't we?

-jcr

Re:More on sinks

[haruchai]

That article refers to the "thoughtful" book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". A better adjective would be controversial - I think that, in the scientific community, Bjorn Lomborg has done more to
provoke argument than the Kyoto Protocol. We'll see if this turns out to be a good thing.

As far as the opinion of John Charles, author of the Portland Tribune article, on CO2, I have some reservations. He claims that a rise in global temperatures "may" be beneficial due to increased agricultural output and biological diversity.
That is an extremely simplistic outlook, since the warming that has occurred to date has led to some intolerably hot summers in many parts of the world.
Have we already forgotten the tens of thousands who died in Europe in 2003 from the heat?

There are already huge areas of deserts and dry fields.
A sudden increase in warming will only exacerbate this already unmanageable problem - and most of these areas are in countries where the poorest of the world already reside - exactly the ones suffer most, according to Mr. Charles. As far as his "biological diversity" theory goes, the most likely outcome will be even greater swarms of insects. The city of Toronto, here in Canada, suffered a month-long plague of aphids or plant lice during a heat wave in 2000. Fortunately, those bugs are more of a nuisance than a problem, although walking through a swarm of them for several minutes trying not to breathe any in wasn't fun - in 33 degree heat, no less.

Unless I invent a miracle pesticide, I don't relish the advance of global warming one bit.

Re:More on sinks

[mink]

If you could pull your head out of your ass, you will see that the US government heavily subsidises farmers.

Re:More on sinks

[Some_Llama]

"the scientific debate is closing against us."

Sounds a lot like the tobacco lobby pre-admittance that tobacco causes cancer and is addictive...

Re:More on sinks

[uncadonna]

us grizzled oldies remember the 70s when that same 95% of climate scientists, using the same data, assured us that a new Ice Age was just about to engulf us all and we had to panic to deal with *that* threat. So when we hear that everything's flipped 180 and now there's a 95% consensus around the exact opposite position, although the data hasn't changed; well, fool me once, and all that

Are you grizzled enough that your memory is failing you? There was never such a 95% consensus about global cooling.

Also you may not recall that computers have advanced since 1975, and as a result, complex sciences like climate have advanced considerably since then.

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

Did you even read what you wrote?

Yes, I read what I wrote. I am saying that global warming poses a significant threat for the future, but that it's wrong to say, as the person I replied to did, that "the extremes that are killing people in record numbers" today.

About 14 years ago, a group of scientists investigating ozone depletion over the North Pole prematurely told the press that there might be a hole in the ozone layer over the North Pole that winter. The press exaggerated the statement and represented it as a definite prediction. When the stratosphere warmed up a few weeks later and no hole materialized, this gave people such as Rush Limbaugh an easy opportunity to ridicule the whole concept that halocarbons were destroying stratospheric ozone.

Claims that global warming is killing record numbers today will only give anti-environmentalists similar ammunition.

Re:More on sinks

[Melantha_Bacchae]

There is always one or more other sides, especially if the one and only right side is using too much caps lock and getting hysterical. ;)

Other Side #1: I dutifully went to the site the UN maintains on global warming. Quite frankly, I was not impressed. They were playing pretty loose with their data. If you guys want to quickly convince the rest of the planet, you are going to have to make better charts than that.

Other Side #2: The people who talk about our climate naturally fluctuating, and that our data set is too small, have a point. You might want to tune in. Back in the 1970's, for instance, the science of the time was indicating an approaching ice age!

Other Side #3: The folks worrying about Permian Extinction #2 coming in the next 100 years can relax. The crater for the asteroid that actually caused the Permian Extinction (the worst mass extinction event ever) has been found this year. Global warming is not going to, in and of itself, smash another asteroid on our heads.

Other Side #4: Most of what is cited as means of reducing global warming are worthwhile environmental endeavors in their own right. Reducing pollutants in the air (including greenhouse gasses), replanting forests, cleaning up the oceans, and ditching polluting fossil fuels that are going to run out soon anyway, are all noble environmental goals that don't need a cliquish tag or mass hysteria to get people to agree with. Corporations are another thing, but then they hardly seem very reasonable these days when it comes to what is best for their workers, their customers, or the environment.

Other Side #5: Be wary of stupid environmentalism. There are good, wise, effective ways to help our planet, and there are stupid ways. As an example of a stupid way: British animal rights people "liberated" the animals from a fur factory. Thousands of the poor things ran into the roads, got run over, starved, were killed by wild animals, etc. Always proceed wisely, not rashly, or you will do more harm than good.

Re:More on sinks

[barawn]

like the maunders minimum and the other variations of temperature in historical times in which the Impact of human activity was, by today's standards, negligible.

The Maunder Minimum describes sunspots - the Little Ice Age is what you're referring to. The times were close, but the two labels are not the same.

If the people of Europe, at the time of the Little Ice Age, had any reason to believe that their actions were causing the cooling of the planet, it would've been incredibly foolish for them not to have taken action. But they didn't have any reason to believe that.

Here are the facts:

• The planet is warming up. All data so far show that the average global temperature is rising.
• CO2 levels are rising. The predominant source of rising emissions is human activity.
• We do not know conclusively that the human activity is causing the warming, however, basic physics says that a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a higher temperature.

We do not know that we are the source of the warming. That's correct.

But as another poster put it before, suppose you are accelerating towards a brick wall. If someone tells you "the brick wall will go away before you get there", and someone else tells you "the brick wall will not go away before you get there", aren't you going to at least start slowing down??

Re:More on sinks

[avdp]

First of all, I don't think that NPR presents their opinions in the news. They may provide other people analysis, observations and opinions (like experts, UN, people on the ground, whatever) to complement the facts - something I would expect from any respectable news source (and every news source I ever heard/read/watch does that, some better than others) and they present all the sides of the argument (when there is more than one side to present). So, no, I stick to my statement, I don't think NPR has a bias.

Yes, they have commentaries in some of their programs like All Things Considered which are announced as such and frankly, are pretty even handed - whatever their bias is, I haven't found it, they're all over the map. For example in these elections times, I've heard commentaries pro and against both candidates with about the same proportion, often back to back. Again, no bias that I've found there.

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

The number of people killed in the US by this year's hurricanes is a small fraction of the number killed by hurricanes in 1900. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that we can't connect observed storm patterns to global warming with any certainty. In fact, under their predictions of future warming, the IPCC states that we can't predict with any certainty whether global warming will make hurricanes more frequent or more severe.

What's interesting to ask is why the number of hurricanes hitting Florida in the last 40 years is so much smaller than the number that hit in the previous 40 years. If there were a simple relation between hurricanes and temperature, we'd expect that there would have been a generally increasing trend of hurricanes, rather than almost half a century of relatively low hurricane activity.

Similarly, the problems Bangladesh and Mozambique have with typhoons has more to do with population issues (more people living near the coasts) than with changes in weather patterns. Can you point to any reliable data indicating that typhoon activity has been more severe in the last ten years than 50 years ago?

Take a look at the typhoon records for 1860-1890. In 1881, 300,000 people were killed by a single typhoon in Haifong. Between 1864 and 1876, typhoons killed over 280,000.

Re:More on sinks

[barawn]

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance

Curiously, wouldn't this imply that it's better to cut CO2 emissions, and not have had to, rather than to have needed to cut CO2 emissions, and not done it?

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

Actually, the satellites use microwave radiometers to measure the radiated power in a certain bandwidth. That's why they're called "Microwave Sounding Units."

What you miss with your argument about CO2 in the way is that the atmospheric gases are both absorbing radiation from the surface and emitting radiation of their own. What the satellite measures is the integral of all the radiation emitted at all layers minus the radiation absorbed by all layers. You don't get a clean black-body curve out, so you need to really understand what you're doing.

Re:More on sinks

[jcr]

The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE.

Of course there is.

The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies.

All of the research I have read suggests the link.

I notice that you said "suggests", not "proves".

Personally, I consider it quite likely that 1) Global warming is happening, that 2) CO2 has a lot to do with it and 3) human activity explains a lot of the C02 increase, but I'm quite certain that your assertion that all dissenting opinions on the subject are bought and paid for by oil companies is nothing but hyperbole.

-jcr

Re:More on sinks

[Martin Blank]

No, it's not, but it is a reason for careful analysis of what we're going to do. For example, in California, traffic is bad. Some people have suggested new freeways, which cost something in the range of a billion dollars per mile in the LA area. There have even been attempts to force such construction through various means. A good idea, since we can use more routes to get places, but a better idea might be to analyze the traffic flow and rebuild some of the interchanges to improve traffic flow.

I still have not seen anyone provide evidence that the current upward trend is actually caused by increases in various greenhouse gases. Correlations have been shown, and some effects have been linked to the temperature increases, but while many people, including some Slashdotters, have said that other ideas have all been debunked, I've still seen no evidence of it. Among the other things I've seen suggested are increased solar output and increased geothermal activity below Greenland. The trouble with those that have dismissed such things is that I've seen only very recent mention of them (in the last year), and yet they get dismissed out of hand, and never with reference. That bothers me, because it just seems that the people arguing against them don't want to deal with them as they might upset their worldview.

Re:More on sinks

[Doc Ruby]

You can single out typhoons, which have caused the largest casualties, in Pacific ports a hundred years ago, before transportation, shelter and communications protected them. I referred to the extremes of weather accompanying this climate change, which include droughts, floods, hurricanes, and the accompanying famines and plagues sown by their destruction. Africa and Bangladesh are strong examples of the toll. More people in Bangladesh and Mozambique live near the coasts because climate change has already destroyed the agricultural economies of their inland territory. So they're sitting ducks when the big waves come through their only economically viable option: coastal trading cities. As the climate becomes more extreme, our technology of the last century won't protect us any longer, partly because there will be no place to escape. Nature bats last.

Re:More on sinks

[mefus]

Most conservatives would recognize that the changes being proposed to "solve" global warming are going to affect far more than the common practices of a "few."

It's possible. But the lion's share of Usian pollutants are trivially minimized (we have the technology), and we don't do any real heavy manufacturing here anymore. So it's also possible not. I haven't seen much more'n histrionics and hand waving from the multinationals. Oh, and appeals to nationalistic necessity. Where were they when GATT, NAFTA, and the overseas outsourcing became issues?

Re:More on sinks

[charlesbakerharris]

Agreed, but the details of what we're talking about are minor: assuming the engineers who crafted these satellites don't have their heads crammed too far up their colons, they've accounted for all that, and the temperature readings are accurate nonetheless, which invalidates the original post's point.

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

Let me put it this way.

We went to war because Saddam had intentions of building weapons of mass destruction. So if he ever somehow got rid of the sanctions and the inspectors he could have built weapons and he might have given them to terrorists (which hated him BTW).

If you are willing to wage war on such flimsy cenjecture why aren't you willing to take the bus once in a while or ride your bike more?

Apparently you need 100% absolute proof before you are willing to lift a finger. Let's see how that works out for you.

Re:More on sinks

[mdfst13]

Yes, I saw that afterwards. Note that it bolsters my original point: that the advertised increase does not prove that the sky has started falling.

I had assumed that the argument that a 4PPM increase was unaturally high compared to 1-2PPM/year was based on real info. Instead, we see that the 4PPM increase is hardly higher than normal. My bad in assuming that they at least got the base data correct.

Why does this story exist again?

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

Lets see. YOu don't want to take the word of people who have been studying this all their lives because that's "appeal to authority" and when presented with evidence you throw it away if it triggers your "bullshit buzzer".

I guess you'd know more then a meteorologist or an oceanographer. All they have are decades of education, experience, experiments and observations. You don't need that fancy book learnin' you got a bullshit buzzer!.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that we should always be "balanced" when it comes to arguments of political import leads to a lot of bullshit getting consideration it doesn't deserve. Global warming deniers at this point are in the same class as creationists, Holocaust-deniers, and flat-earthers -- it's not that they're being dismissed out of hand, it's that their arguments have been proven wrong time and time again, to the point that there's really no point in continuing the argument, and yet they just keep going.

So, in other words, we shold ignore any and all scientific studies which may raise questions about the causes of global warming [1], simply because you know on the face of it that their conclusions must be wrong?

Please excuse me if I'm not convinced...

[1] Phys. Rev. Lett., 91(21), 211101, 2003.

Re:More on sinks

[jcr]

The very thesis of the Global Warming Theory is that less energy is radiated outward because of greenhouse gases.

Not exactly.

Ultimately, there are only two significant heat sources affecting the temperature of the earth: solar radiation, and nuclear decay in the core. (well, there's also the heat left over from the condensation of the planet in the first place, but that's been steadily falling since the planet formed.) Everything else is insignificant.

The main source of the heat we observe on the surface of the earth is solar energy. The amount of heating we see from the solar energy that hits us depends on the albedo of the surface it's illuminating, and the presence of heat-trapping gasses like water vapor, methane and CO2 in the atmosphere. So heat depends on: 1) how much energy the ground absorbs, and 2) how much of the light reflected from the ground makes it back out of the atmosphere.

The warmer the planet gets, the more radiation the satellites will see in the infrared spectrum. If a lot of energy is trapped in the atmosphere, you would see less visible light radiated from the daylight side of the earth.

The significant question here is, what are the satellites seeing in the IR band, and does that data support the conclusion of a global increase in temperature over the time for which measurements are available?

-jcr

Re:More on sinks

[Some_Llama]

"just as it isn't a leap of faith to go some place devoid of hills (like the ocean), and see that the horizon ends about 26 miles away no matter where you are"

I think it is more telling that they built the Acropolis (sp?) with columns that were slightly bent to compensate for the curvature of the earth, so when looking at the building from far away the columns looked straight.

which shows that even then they could tell the earth wasn't flat.

Re:More on sinks

[The Angry Mick]

Oh, I don't know. Some of the laborers working on cleaning those shiny things for sub-minimum wage might have a different opinion of this . . .

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

"The question is if stopping all of our CO2 emissions will have the desired effect. It's certainly not helping, but the question is, and always has been, exactly how much is it hurting?"

Geez I don't know, That's a really good question, I wish I knew the answer to that.

Only if there were people we could ask this to. Surely there must be people who have studied these things. People who have studied the theory of how climates change. People who know about the laws of physics and chemistry. People who have done experiments and observations and such.

Well what do you know!. I just did a google search and found out that there are people called "scientists" and amongst them are people called "meteorologists" and "climatologist" who do nothing but study the atmosphere.

So let's ask them what they think. Maybe they can come to some sort of a consensus.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a creationist. So your saying I'm stupid,

Let's not get our causes and effects mixed up here. You're not stupid because you're a creationist, you're a creationist because you're stupid.

For us - who do you think created earth.

I don't know, and neither do you.

People don't want to admit there is a God

There's nothing to admit. God is a flimsy conjecture, which I've never seen supported by anything more than vehement assertions from idiots like you.

Einstein belived that God created the earth, You think he's full of BS too?

Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but that doesn't give him the abililty to know what is unknowable.

Re:More on sinks

[GooberToo]

LOL.

Ya, sure...whatever...LOL

Re:More on sinks

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

By the time this process makes the world a substantially more dangerous place to live these people and their children will both be dead. Their stockholders don't pay them to care, and they personally have no real interest in it - protecting the environment doesn't make them any money - so why should they care? I mean, I understand why they should care, but from a purely selfish standpoint there's really no reason.

Actually, they STILL shouldn't care. What's the difference between the relatively clean sidewalk air outside my apartment and the really bad crap outside its mirror in __insert_third_world_country__? Money. If the environment's going to crap, only the rich will be able to afford not to care. If you really think that your descendants' best interests aught to be your own best interests, then get rich as quick as you can. Your great great great grand children might appreciate the results of corporate empire, but they won't care how nice you were.

And if that's not an argument for government regulation, I don't know what is :)

Re:More on sinks

[Some_Llama]

"while now we determine days in advance what the weather is likely to be using scientific methods."

Determine? Um yah we all can attest to how accurate weather reporting is....

"The greatest triumph of science over religious philosophy in our time, though, has been the revolution of medicine."

In genesis the serpant says that:(paraphrasing) "God doesn't want you to eat from the tree of knowledge because you will become like gods, you will surely not die"

Which is both a lie and the truth (which all great lies are) as we were punished and killed for eating the fruit but because of the gift of knowledge we are becoming like gods, able to predict the weather, cure disease, and control procreation.

If you were going to truely look at it from a scientific standpoint you would not be calling him stupid since there is no "proof" to most of your claims ("and a prior supernova explosion.") just as their is no proof that there isn't a God, so both "theories" are equally valid.

Re:More on sinks

[Grym]

Flamebait?

How was my post--a voice of reason amongst politically charged rhetoric--FLAMEBAIT?!?

Sorry for contributing my point of view, guys. I'll be sure to chant "Neo-cons are teh sux" with the rest of you from now on, seeing as how that's all you want to hear.

-Grym

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

Actually your premise is wrong. Although every city has a lots of thermometers everywhere the only ones that "count" are the ones from official weather stations. The vast majority of those are either on the airport or on a military base. In both of those circumstances the areas are away from the core of the city.

There are also temprature reading taken from ships at sea.

Finally the entire global warming thesis is not based on JUST air temprature readings. There are also ocean currents, ocean tempratures, CO2 levels, ice core data, rate of melting of glaciers and icebergs, geologic data, and of course tons of theoretical frameworks.

"I haven't been convinced that carbon dioxide is a problem."

That's probably because you haven't really studied the matter and probably don't really understand the studies that have been done. The vast majority of climatologist in the world do agree that CO2 is the problem.

But what the hell they are just idiots and you know so much more then them.

Re:More on sinks

[bigmammoth]

I'm not saying that we aren't causing climatic change. I am saying that I don't believe that anyone can make a definitive, much less a scientific, statement that we are.

That is what 'science' is. Their is no definitive in science ie: theory of relativity theory of evolution... math theory etc etc.

We have to decide how much of a regulatory burden is tolerable, when it is supported only by that conjecture.

To me we already pay the cost of a regulatory burden. For example we have many restrictions and regulations that reinforce corporate interest over that of individuals. I can't sue a corporation for my child's asthma Even if the child is on my propertie which value is being destroyed via the "unregulated" activity of my neighbor. Does that represent lack of regulation, no the regulation is simply shifted to those with less power. In that case the government/corporations have regulated our relation to air.
You may counter that your free to sue them but remember freedom is in relation to capital so the justice system will naturally favor them regardless of the argument. Which materializes in the high costs of litigation for an individual and the power that they possess with their legal "team"

Corporations put out this image that regulations are bad for business and bad for the worker bad for competitiveness etc. But really corporations adopt regulation and government intervention at all levels of operation whenever it suits them. These regulations occur at the expense of large sectors of the population in order to serve the capital interest of a few.

Naturally corporations only criticize regulations that do not favor their capital interest. They do this as they simultaneously peruse favorable government regulations on hugely disproportionate scale relative to the 'benefits' they provide the people they are taking money from (though taxes and regulated monopolies on commodities).
Its just basic power relations... I am confused when people are so egger to give away what little power they might have had by shifting regulations onto the general population that they are often a part of.

-mike

Re:More on sinks

[qbwiz]

Oooh, appeal to authority. Two can play that game: Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved - http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm.

I win.

Re:More on sinks

[void*]

"but is there ANY actual data to disprove this hypothesis."

That's not the way science works.

You can't expect to hypothesize, say 'does anyone right now have data to disprove this?', and have it fly as scientifically valid. It's not everyone else's responsibility to disprove.

You need to make a predictions based on your hypothesis, and test those predictions. Then confidence in the hypothesis can be increased.

For example, Einstein predicted light from a distant star would bend around the Sun - later, this was verified by direct observation. Other people actually did the observations, but Einstein didn't sit around saying 'does anyone have any actual data to disprove this?' - no, he made a bunch of TESTABLE predictions based on his theory.

Re:More on sinks

[outanowhere]

It is surprising that a major media outlet would mention soil as a natural source for CO2.

Perhaps that was accidental.

It is well known that the planet outgasses CO2 and not only from the oceans.

But the concerns about CO2 have long been politically driven to focus soley on human activity and ignore the natural sources which produce the largest quantities by far.

It has been theorized that CO2 levels related to geologic activity in the past. Perhaps it is still an indicator of geologic activity?

Increased CO2 should be of at least a little concern. Especially if vegetation is disappearing.

Perhaps there should be much more concern about disappearing vegetation and much less about human CO2?

Re:More on sinks

[letxa2000]

Does this need any more explanation?

Yes, it does need an explanation. You need to explain how your graph questions in any way what I wrote above. It doesn't prove that temperatures have risen in the last two decades and it doesn't prove that all the increase in CO2 is because of humans.

Clearly, since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have risen (and almost at an exponential rate). If our carbon sinks weren't maxed out, we would probably be seeing a naerly linear increase. Oh and by the way you forgot an italic tag ender thingy

So I noticed. And you forgot to close your A tag, unless you make it standard practive to create links that are three lines long.

Re:More on sinks

[CreatureComfort]

First off, for most of the major changes, there is no way to determine exactly how long the change took, other than the fact that geologically speaking they happened incredibly fast, faster than the geological record could keep up in most instances. The drop at the end of the Ordovician by 10 C and subsequent rise happened over a fairly short time. The rapid rise at the end of the Permian was also very quick.

And you conveniently decide to ignore the first link in my post. Here I will quote it for you so you don't strain your mouse finger:

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

Sorry, to get in the way of your own personal factiods.

Re:More on sinks

[shawnseat]

Weather reporting is remarkably accurate, actually. When something usually works, it's particularly noticable when it doesn't. All the days the forecast calls for rain and it happens, and when it calls for sunshine and it happens, there's no sense of "Wow! They were accurate today!"

[B]ut because of the gift of knowledge we are becoming like gods, able to predict the weather, cure disease, and control procreation.

Good grief what a crappy gift; it takes only six millenia for it to work! Do you believe that if Gutenburg never invented the printing press (which made science (and Protestantism) feasible) we actually wouldn't have received the benefits of this alleged "gift"? What a sadistic deity it is who, once you get eternally cursed for a "gift" won't even let you reap its benefits for sixty centuries!

If you were going to truely [sic] look at it from a scientific standpoint you would not be calling him stupid since there is no "proof" to most of your claims ("and a prior supernova explosion.") just as their is no proof that there isn't a God, so both "theories" are equally valid.

The only way I said he might be stupid is if he doesn't believe the results of science, not that he believed in a deity (being a creationist only means you are ignorant; everyone is ignorant in some matters, differing from person to person). As to the second part, we can observe the spectra of supernovae and they are a remarkably good match for the elemental composition of our solar system. This doesn't "prove" it, of course, but generally a natural explanation has predictive power, which really is the aim of science.

The final phrase is sort of weaselly since in English usage, "God" can be generic or specifically the Biblical chief deity. Even then, there is no way to rule out some interpretations of the Bible (as they admit figurative language wherever it is more plausible), but normally someone calling themselves "creationist" is identifying with the text-literalist version of the Christian (or, rarely, Jewish, Islamic or Hindu) deity. And the Fundie God is disprovable since a worldwide Noah-scale deluge never happened.

Re:More on sinks

[cft_128]

Examples are the deployment of AC, motor vehicles, various electronics.

I knew those Anonymous Cowards were to blame!

Re:More on sinks

[Bob Uhl]

Because humanity is the problem this time.

Humanity is not the problem; indeed, humanity is our only hope for a solution. That's because the noun 'humanity' refers to the state of being humane.

The word you were looking for is 'mankind.'

Re:More on sinks

[BollocksToThis]

God DAMN that's a good speech. This deserves modding up far more than most of the tripe in this thread. Sadly, if you had plagiarized it instead of posting a link that most people will never follow, you likely would have been.

It's fun to see how many of Crichtons points manifest themselves in the posts above, even down to comparing people to holocaust deniers.

Re:More on sinks

[HughsOnFirst]

Funny you should mention Carbon Sinks - In an article Greenhouse Gas Jump Spurs Global Warming Fears

"Tundra test stuns scientists - Carbon dioxide could be dumped into atmosphere - Dramatic results made public today from a unique 20-year American experiment are raising the spectre of runaway warming above the Arctic tundra that would accelerate global climate change. "
-snip-
"This double whammy arises because U.S. researchers discovered climate warming might trigger conditions where tundra decomposition will dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than it's soaked up by accelerated plant growth."

Re:More on sinks

[Snocone]

Rubbish. You are confusing "nuclear winter" with the pollution predictions.

Ah, no. See, for instance, this Newsweek article; which I very unconfusedly remember reading when it was on newsstands, kiddo.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

So, um, where is the confusion here, son?

And today, we have Kyoto and all; but back then, we had:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve...

And sorry, son, but telling us "oh, of course they were completely wrong back then ... but they're COMPLETELY RIGHT NOW!! I JUST KNOW IT!!" well that don't cut it.

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

Re:More on sinks

[Some_Llama]

"Weather reporting is remarkably accurate, actually. "

Day to day I would agree with you but you originally said 5 day forcasts which I would say are less than 50% accurate for any of them (4th and 5th day being accurate when given the next 5 days of weather) which is basically the same as guessing...

"What a sadistic deity it is who, once you get eternally cursed for a "gift" won't even let you reap its benefits for sixty centuries!"

Well he didn't want us to have it in the first place now did he, that was the price, you get unlimited ability to learn, but only a short life span. Adam didn't have to eat it...

I could see sadistic if he gave us the gift then punished us also.. it was a choice that was made.

"And the Fundie God is disprovable since a worldwide Noah-scale deluge never happened."

Well if anything it would only disprove that the deluge didn't happen as described in the book (or interpreted), not that there is no christian God...

I have seen some documentaries that try to prove a flood did occur but I don't remember enough of them to make any valid points :)

Re:More on sinks

[daft_one]

Ok... I've got maybe 60 years left, and I don't have any kids. I don't care. Have a nice day.

Re:More on sinks

[Obfuscant]

...if you wake up to find your bedroom 3 feet deep in seawater.

If you wake up to three feet of water in your bedroom due to global warming, then it is only because you decided you would ignore it when there was one foot, and then when it rose to two feet, and then two and a half...

Global warming isn't going to drown us all overnight. That's just more of the fear-mongering that tries to keep people in line and get funding for more research. Smart people will just move back from the coast, just like they already move back from the coast when the beaches erode in the normal course of nature.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

"..... That article is true when it says that the effects we will have on climate aren't fully known, but the connection is there in a strong way. All of the research I have read suggests the link. We NEED to be concerned."

Very Selfcentered view... Who cares if the human race dies due to our own stupidity... It will leave room for the next race of smart plants that will thrive untill the CO2 is exausted and then the primates raise up until the O2 is exausted, and then the next wave of Smart Plants...

In the end, if we exstinct ourselves, the only people that will miss us are... US... get over it.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at this chart. If there is no correlation between C02 and temperature, then what is the explanation?

Re:More on sinks

[RodgerDodger]

Yes, but that's normal volcanic activity. Eruptions, however, produce significantly more. Of course, they are less common.

Krakatoa, for example, put out enough CO2 and ash when it blew up to effectively prevent summer that year.

Re:More on sinks

[BeaverCleaver]

I didn't think anybody here is debating that climate change has fluctuated wildly over the history of the Earth, and with no human influence. But in these examples we are talking about _geological_ timescales - that many thousand of years. With human-induced global warming we are talking about significant climate change within the living memory of the population. I am talking about 50 years here. This _is_ a big change, it _is_ unprecendented, and it _is_ cause for concern.

Re:More on sinks

[RodgerDodger]

Volcanic emmissions aren't eruptions, AC... eruptions are the result of emissions which aren't released. For every active volcano that is letting its emissions out, there's a dozen or so "dormant" volcanoes that aren't. When they go, they tend to release about a couple of millenia worth of emissions in a few days.

Grow a brain and learn how to have a discussion without insulting people. Oh, and my eyes are green.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

fool me once, and all that...
It's "Fool me once... shame on... shame on you... fool me-can't get fooled again.

Re:More on sinks

[CaptainAvatar]

Well, yeah, and there's the chance that it's all a crock.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

A-FUCKING-MEN!!!!!

Whooooooo....... I need a beer after that..... *sigh*.....

Re:More on sinks

[spitzak]

I distinctly remember my left-wing teachers in elementary school saying that pollution will cause the planet to end up like Venus, very hot. I also remember VERY CLEARLY that when "Nuclear Winter" was announced it was attacked by saying "you've been claiming for years that pollution will raise the temperatures, now you are claiming the opposite".

Venus was a huge deal back then. It was only a few years since accurate measurements were made of the surface temperature and they were way, way higher than expected. It very much influenced popular science. I would like to see this Newsweek article, I would not be suprised if the article is more like a "scientist claims that actually the opposite of what we think will happen."

Besides if you want colder, why not just quote the Nuclear Winter people.

And I don't like how you claim that my disputing your "fact" means I think climitologists are right today. I pretty clearly stated my opinion that they were wrong then. Where did I say that means they are right now?

Re:More on sinks

[CaptainAvatar]

Hmm, sorry, I think you are being excessive here. I'm the first to scorn creationists and Holocaust deniers and flat earthers, and I think global warming is real, probably human caused or at least influenced, and am pro-Kyoto-ish. I've participated in more than a few arguments with those who think global warming is rubbish. But it's not quite the case that their objections are without merit. Climatology is very complex, and we cannot be sure that the warming trend is anthopogenic yet. I think we have to act despite our current uncertainty, waiting until we are sure might be too late. But I can see why some people are unconvinced, too, and are loath to risk damaging economies on uncertain science. There is still room for honest doubt.

On the other hand, if you have good evidence that someone is a corporate shill or political hack, then flame on :)

Re:More on sinks

[CaptainAvatar]

The big bang, obviously.

Sure, you can ask what caused that? But as you can also ask what caused God, this doesn't help your position.

Re:More on sinks

[CaptainAvatar]

Well if anything it would only disprove that the deluge didn't happen as described in the book (or interpreted), not that there is no christian God...

No, it does disprove the "Fundie God" (which is what the GP claimed) because the fundamentalist position is that the Bible is literally true. Therefore, if part of the Bible can be shown to be untrue, their particular version of God has been disproven.

Re:More on sinks

[CaptainAvatar]

Oh wow, I didn't even notice that. And what's worse, if you look at the bottom of the ESP webpage, you'll see it's actually his website.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming you are michael chaney, it says on your resume that you graduated with a degree in CS. I would hardly say that qualifies you as an "informed scientist" in the fields of atmospheric chemistry and geophysics. In fact, it's hard to think of a field that less related to those fields.

Re:More on sinks

[sholden]

Krakatoa was a once in a few hundred years event, but anyway lets assume it represents a "good size active volcano".

The post you replied to claims humans release 22 billion tonnes a year. So to do that in a week the volcano would need to release over 36,000 tonnes of CO2 per second. 36 million kg to keep the units nice.

So how much surface area does the volcano have to vent that gas. Usually they vent through a small number of vents, Krakatoa had about 15 vents going before sea water breached the the magmatic chambers and *very* large steam explosion resulted. But let's pretend it vented over most of the volcano - say a 5 square kilometer area. So 5 million square meters. Assuming the CO2 was evenly released we have 7.2 tonnes per square meter per second. of CO2 release. Or 163636 moles, which at STP would be 3665 cubic meters. Now of course, it won't be at STP (seeing as it is coming out of a volcano and all) but it will be at both increased pressure and increased temperature which work against each other volume wise, and our error is so bloody large already who cares?

So the CO2 would need to be venting at a velocity of 3665 meters per second or 13194 kilometers per hour or 11 times the speed of sound.

The photos, videos, and so on of eruptions I've seen don't seem to have such an amazing gas release. The plumes of ash, smoke, steam, and whatever don't seem to be inside such a hypersonic jet stream of CO2 for an entire week (I guess you could argue most of the CO2 is released in big explosions, but that would increase the required velocity to even more extreme levels). And all the animals in a rather large area don't suddenly asphyxiate.

So my back of the envelope (or slashdot textarea anyway) calculation makes the claim seem unlikely. Can you point out where I made an area (as I said it was a quick calculation without much checking)? Or provide a reference to back the claim?

Re:More on sinks

[ajs]

"The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE"

You understand that that's not actually a logical argument, right? The fact that you disagree with, and/or have questions about the motivations of the people producing contradictory results does not mean that they a) do not exist or b) are absolutely wrong. To claim that that must be the case is alien to the scientific method.

"The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day"

And at one time, the scientific evidence that preventing forest fires was the key to saving communities was clear as day. It also happens to have been wrong, mostly because it was an over-simplification of a complex problem.

I hear a lot of people speaking about the most complex system that we have ever been able to measure to even a tolerable degree of accuracy (the earth's climate) as if we understand it fully. That's simply not true.

In fact, just recently we discovered that forest fires make up for far, far more CO2 release than we had thought (because very hot fires can and do burn permafrost). In fact, just that one source of CO2 dwarfs the output of man. We litterally can't burn enough fossil fuels to make up the difference. We also can't touch the CO2 released by volcanos (which release so much pollutant material that they have a measurable impact on the climate immediately), but forest fires are a special case because, as I noted before, our fire prevention strategies actually worked against us for most of the 20th century and fires now burn hotter and cover more area on average than they used to. If we're looking for theories on why there's more CO2 in the air, why aren't we looking at the massive fires that we've been fighting over the last couple of decades? That's actually the most likely source of human impact on the environment.

The fact of the matter is that we don't yet know how to measure most of the phenomenon that make up our climate. We have computer models that over-simplify the environment enough to make our theories and predictions work on paper, but that's not good enough. We've only been measuring most of the environment (outside of gross measurements) for a few years, and beyond that we have ice and wood records (which actually tell a story that's pretty simillar to what we see today, repeated over and over through the centuries and millenia).

I'm not saying that human induced global warming is not real. I'm just saying that it's irresponsible to be saying that it's absolutely real, and there is no data to the contrary.

There are many scientists who believe that human induced global warming is over-emphasized or downright wrong, but I don't know of anyone who has been able to get a research grant from anywhere BUT a fossil fuel company on the basis of such a theory in the last 10 years, and since they know that that would taint their work's credibility, most choose another area to pursue.

Even scientists who release data without such a theory are ostracized these days if their data contradicts the popular view. I know one solar astrophysicist whose lab was turned down for several grants because they were considered an "enemy of the planet" for having produced data that suggested that the Sun was causing at least some of the global warming effects we see today. Now I see reports that solar activity has been determined to be insufficient to account for global warming and I wonder... would that be the accepted view if funding were available to people who got politically unacceptable results?

In the end, if we're looking for one cause of any climactic effect, I think we're going to be dissapointed. Man certainly has some impact (you light a match, you've caused global warming), but so have fires, so has the sun and so too may other forces that we do not yet fully understand.

Other resources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/in_depth/sci_tech/200

Re:More on sinks

[drawfour]

So because one person says there is no other side, and this is the way it is, we must believe him? Especially if he's on NPR? He *must* know what he's talking about.

I was watching an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine the other night and a Vorta and a Cardassian were discussing how the Bajorans thought the "wormhole aliens" were gods. Both laughed. The Cardassian turned to the Vorta and asked why he was laughing, when he believed the same thing about the Founders. The Vorta looked perplexed. "That's different. The Founders ARE gods!"

This may not seem to be an incredibly great analogy, but anytime someone says "My view is right and your view is not", ESPECIALLY when they also say something is "obvious" or "clear as day", the argument just goes away. It's called fanatacism. If you want to discuss the facts, the knowledge, the theories, then by all means have an intelligent conversation/debate about it. But to say "It's true, and those who say it isn't don't know what they're talking about or were bought" is an argument that lacks of any logical attributes.

There are two sides (or more) to EVERY issue. If there wasn't, there would be no issue, it would be fact accepted by everyone.

Re:More on sinks

[Pandion]

damn. now i wish i hadn't posted so i could have modded this up... but then if i had, would you have posted? :) ah well.

Re:More on sinks

[SumoRoach]

I think the dinosaurs said that too.

Re:More on sinks

[SumoRoach]

What are 'record numbers'? I think the people killed in the changing weather patterns (hurricanes, etc.) can be counted in that.

But, sure, I do agree it's hard make it concrete.

Re:More on sinks

[woodlander]

Thank you. You are doing such a good job telling me what I think and why I'm wrong that I sort of hate to intrude here. The point I was trying to make is simply that many times the truth is not evident in the numbers. You do a good job of pointing out many of the specifics. I would say you have considerable verbal skill. Hopefully you can direct your talents toward the illumination of the truth.

Re:More on sinks

[amper]

You might want to think about this...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/beyond/

Excerpted:

What about nuclear power?

Well, that, as you know, has been a very contentious issue in the United States and in other parts of the world. Since the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents, no nuclear power plants have been built, and there are many, many sets of issues having to do with the disposal of radioactive materials and the proliferation of weapons-grade material and so forth.

But leaving those safety issues aside for the moment, how does nuclear compare with renewables?

Well, in contrast to renewable energy, nuclear power is a very high-density source of energy. Biomass energy per unit area can produce a few watts per square meter. By contrast, the boiler of a nuclear power plant, where the nuclear energy is being converted into steam, produces tens or hundreds of thousands of watts per square meter.

But like renewables, it's a limited source of energy, too.

Yes, there is a limited amount of uranium around the world, at least that we've been able to find. There's actually a lot of uranium in the Earth's crust, but you have to find uranium ore that's very concentrated. (And there's only a very minute fraction of fissionable uranium in natural uranium -- only about 0.3 percent.) If we look at the estimates of the available uranium ore around the world, at cost effective prices, and we ask the question, if we were to burn it in light-water reactors (conventional nuclear reactors used in the United States and Western Europe), how long would the reserves of uranium last if we were to extract energy at the rate of ten terawatts? Well, it turns out that you only have about ten years of U-235 power from all of the cost-effective uranium reserves. (U-235 is the isotope of uranium that undergoes nuclear fission.)

What about breeder reactors?

Well, breeder reactors could extend the amount of natural uranium by a factor of 100. That is, if you took the rest of the uranium, the isotope U-238, and irradiated it with neutrons in a breeder reactor, you could convert it to a burnable nuclear fuel. But it takes a long time to do this. It takes about 20 years to create the same amount of energy in the U-238. The other bitter pill about this is that, with breeders, you're making weapons-grade plutonium, which presents a whole other problem: having enormous inventories of plutonium around the world.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. However, 100 years in 60 million is still trivial. I heard a news clip discussing sudden climate changes occurring in the past. If this is true, there is no reason to assume it won't happen again.

Re:More on sinks

[jd]

I don't know how shiny videotape is, but Pamela Anderson's home-help was happy enough to collect it...

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

If you read the reports from the National Academy of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or any of several papers that appeared in Science in the past several years, including those by lead scientists on the MSU satellites, you will see that this is not nearly so straightforward as you make it out to be.

Re:More on sinks

[jd]

You mean... Slashdot readers aren't tuna fish sandwiches??? How long has this been going on?

Re:More on sinks

[mi]

Not sure about Kansas, but a Pensilvanian wrote today about average temperatures around him/her going down rather than up for the last few years. This matches my observations in the New England/New York "seaboard".

Canadians, on the other hand, do notice their ice receding and are worried about having to patrol their northern shores, which used to be unpassable just a decade ago...

So, it looks to the ignorant me, that exactly the opposite is happening -- the cold places are getting warmer, while the warm ones stay about the same or get a little colder. At least -- some of them...

Re:More on sinks

[satans_advocate]

Well, yeah, and there's the chance that it's all a crock.

There also is (unfortunately) an equal chance that it isn't a crock, because both variables are unknown. And two unknowns are always equal. ergo...
Chance there is a God -> Unknown
Chance there is NO god -> Unkown
Therefore
Chance there is a God == Chance there IS NO GOD

Of course, the advantage that atheist scientists have is that most of the things that religious people believe are just plain silly.

Re:More on sinks

[gorean]

I can't believe what I am hearing. How can we all blame anyone other than ourselves for this. We could stop all this tomorrow. Of course it has to do with greed. Only the greed starts with the guy who wishes to drive to work or use a computer or watch TV. If we were all to throw our car keys in the drawer and make it known no more money would be spent until problem resolved it would be resolved imediatley.
This problem and all others like it starts and ends with the consumer. Not the provider of the service or product. After all one of the first things we learn in economics is that dollars are votes. Everytime we spend on something we tell the provider of it we are satisfied. The purchase price is the proof.
It is our fault that we are getting what we ask for.

Re:More on sinks

[satans_advocate]

people like me - informed scientists

and

I can imagine you fruitcakes at the end of the ice age: "The glaciers will be *gone* if we don't act now!!!!"

Well, they're gone.

Er ... I guess the people of Norway and New Zealand are in for a shock tomorrow then.

If you are what passes for an informed scientist these days, it's no wonder that people think that scientists are full of shit.

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

How would you determine that changing weather patterns are due to global warming as opposed to random fluctuations? How would you determine whether fatalities are due to more extreme weather versus changing land use patterns and population growth.

To the best of my knowledge, deaths associated with weather have been on the rise mostly because of land use and population issues and not because of changing weather patterns.

Re:More on sinks

[jd]

Unfortunately, there's evidence that the results were falsified to fit the theory. The equiptment, as it existed at the time, simply wasn't capable of making the observations as claimed. Now, Einstein's theories have been held up with other observations, but the solar eclipse one was bad science.

Actually, it's quite reasonable for someone to expect others to falsify a hypothesis. After all, you can never prove them, only disprove them. It's also expecting a little much for a scientist to shoot down their own ideas all the time. That's why peer review, testability and repeatability are so important in the physical sciences.

(It's also why a lot of the "soft sciences" get bad press - their theories are simply not precise enough, and there are way too many unknown variables, for a different person to be able to repeat the study and be sure of getting the same results.)

With global warming, we do have the problem that we only have one actual biosphere to play with. This makes repeating a study somewhat difficult. Computer modelling is only any good if the model is valid within the parameters required. Unfortunately, the planet is a chaotic system and therefore there is an extremely high uncertainty as to the validity of any model. Similarity in results over some finite timeframe offers absolutely zero assurances that the model will be even remotely similar to the real think the following day.

In consequence, you're left with crude statistical analysis of prior cases. We know the approximate atmospheric content and approximate climatic conditions at various times in the past. The best you can do is use statistics to determine which components of the atmosphere are the most related to climatic condition, and then interpolate/extrapolate the expected climatic condition for today, based on atmospheric content.

This is only a crude model, however. The level of heat reflected from the surface is a function of such variables as the amount of vegetation, the amount of icecap, etc. The amount of radiation that reaches the Earth depends on how the sun is behaving (eg: sunspot count, etc) and given the uncertainty over solar activity the past few years, it's a safe bet we don't really know enough about the physics of stars to be overly certain what was happening 200 million years ago.

It so happens, though, that the results you might expect, based on a knowledge of the physics of gas molecules and radiation, correlate reasonably well with observations of the past. The results, therefore, are "reasonable", in that there doesn't seem to be anything wildly abnormal in the data.

It's that consistency that gives scientists the confidence they have. Things "make sense". The theory is simple. There are no obvious paradoxes, infinities or other tell-tale signs of a Really Bad Idea.

Re:More on sinks

[toddestan]

Solar? Right now, solar is about the most toxic power supply there is. They take huge energy to make, oftentimes fail to generate that much energy over their lives, and the chemicals involved in the lithography are spectacularly toxic. I don't want to see large-scale solar operations, not with our current level of solar tech.

Depends on what kind of solar you are talking about. Most people think of the solar cells that are found on calculators - those are toxic and usually produce less energy than it takes to make them. The other kind of solar - using mirrors to focus sunlight to heat water - is very clean, cheap, and safe, though pretty unreliable.

Re:More on sinks

[loraksus]

Try to act less like a troll when flaming people.
He wasn't talking about "Nuclear winter", but "global cooling",
Google is your friend if you want to educate yourself. The first result (newsweek '75) is a perfect example of sensationalist media bullshit.
You'll find it on both sides of the this issue,

Re:More on sinks

[Firethorn]

My point was that for those models, if you run them for a few thousand years without the supposed "human" inputs still tend to render the equator unhabitable due to heat.

Sure, the models probably do reach equlibrium eventually, but a unreasonable temperatures, indicating that the model is somehow flawed.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't build large solar energy plants based on photovoltaic cells. They use mirrors to focus the energy onto a liquid such as an oil and then use the heated liquid to produce electricity. No heavy metals necessary.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/solar_concentratin g. html

Re:More on sinks

[Firethorn]

Actually your premise is wrong. Although every city has a lots of thermometers everywhere the only ones that "count" are the ones from official weather stations. The vast majority of those are either on the airport or on a military base. In both of those circumstances the areas are away from the core of the city.

And you don't think that the transition from propeller planes to jets, the drastic increase in both average size and amount of traffic might have an effect? I say that the "asphalt effect" still holds true. And military bases are effectivly towns of their own. And many bases have been almost "swallowed" by the cities they were originally 15-30 miles away from.

There are also temprature reading taken from ships at sea.

Which tends to be erratic and at different areas.

Finally the entire global warming thesis is not based on JUST air temprature readings. There are also ocean currents, ocean tempratures, CO2 levels, ice core data, rate of melting of glaciers and icebergs, geologic data, and of course tons of theoretical frameworks.

Which is not as accurate for short term trends than actual readings. And theories are just that.
You can look at history and see that England was once warm enough for extensive grape cultivation. There are theories that we were in a mini Ice Age, and that temperatures were going to warm no matter what.

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

"I say that the "asphalt effect" still holds true."

Brilliant!. I bet nobody has thought of that before. This just goes prove that you are the most insightful person who ever lived. Those fancy pants climatologist would have never thought of that.

"Which tends to be erratic and at different areas."

Stunning!. Two completely innovative ideas in one post. I bet nobody ever figured out that the tempratures are different at different areas of the world. I bet as ships move they probably record different temptratures too!. You my man are a genious!.

"And theories are just that."

I am awed by your brilliant destruction of the global warming hypothesis. By this one sentense you have completely negated all work done by all scientists everywhere. What a shocking turn of events your post will be in the annals of history. All theories can now be safely thrown out. Theory of gravity, evolution, relativity, atoms etc have all been proved false beyond any doubt by your devestating argument.

Congratulations my man. Your sheer genious has put to shame all those scientists. All that elite intellectualism is now dead. You have proved all of them to be frauds.

Say do you have a school or something where I too can learn to think like you?

Re:More on sinks

[CaptainAvatar]

OK, but the argument was that if God exists, he will save us from impending ecological doom, and we don't need to do anything to fix the problems ourselves. But if God doesn't exist, then nobody is going to save us. Therefore, prudence suggests that we assume God does not exist, and attempt to find our own solution.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw that--it was "Now" with Bill Moyers. The researcher had heaters on some of the sections of land, and these sections were releasing a lot more carbon than those without heaters. I think the experiment has been running longer than 8 years.
Unfortunately I can't remember the guy's name.

Re:More on sinks

[ErikZ]

So, let me get this straight, the current level of CO2 output is equal to 17 THOUSAND volcanoes every year.

If this were true, where are the effects? Come ON man, that's a HUGE amount of CO2 to be putting into the atmosphere and we've got no noticeable effects?

17 thousand volcanoes! How can you read that figure without any kind of skepticism?

Re:More on sinks

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Besides causing havoc in the primitive fauna, the so-called "oxygen holocaust" led to the appearance of the much more efficient respiration mechanism. Which in turn allowed for the emergence of much more complex forms of life (Eukaryotes) in a Bacterial world.

So, now mother nature (through us) is compensating with a CO2 holocaust. And when we are gone, a much more complex lifeform will take our place.

Am I joking? Only time (or God) will tell.

Re:More on sinks

[gnuman99]

Even its proponents agree that it would only delay global warming by a handful of months, at a cost of trillions of dollars. Kyoto opponents, such as myself, are generally not opposed to fighting global warming: we're opposed to fighting it in silly non-cost-effective means which are more public relations than results. For a trillion dollars, I'd far rather see Kyoto abandoned and a thousand coal plants converted to nuclear. Think about those carbon savings for a moment--uff da!

Sometimes I read this and shake my head. Do you actually read the stuff you write???

Kyoto is about reducing greenhouse emission in industrialized countries by whatever way you want, right? So why not ratify Kyoto and do exactly what you say (coal->nuclear) to you meet your target? *Most* of the emissions is caused by burning coal/gas/oil to heat homes and produce electricity! And then you can fund biodisel projects (ie. develop large scale technologies) and reduce CO2 to almost nil and be independent of mideast oil at the same time. WOW! Now don't tell me coutries like US could not do this over a period of 45 years with positive economic impact and *create* thousands of local jobs!

Kyoto purpose is NOT about immediate reduction of *world-wide* green house emissions, but by developing new technologies in countries like US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc... you pave the way for these technologies to be used in 3rd world countries that cannot support such research. Zambia is *not* going to fund a Fusion Reactor project! They can't! But if a fusion reactor is developed, it benefits all.

But I guess we'll see where CO2 levels will jump to in a decade or two, with its side-effects... and then people will start talking about how meeting Kyoto would/could/should/might have been a good thing. It will be then that global warming will cost millions of jobs and trillions of dolars.

Re:More on sinks

[Lord Kano]

The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE.

Why? Because you choose to only believe in one of the possible scenarios?

The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies.

That doesn't mean that their data is any less plausable.

It's a given that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 20k years ago. What's not a given is the source of that CO2. It could be caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It also could be getting released from glaciers(MUCH less likely, but possible).

That article is true when it says that the effects we will have on climate aren't fully known, but the connection is there in a strong way. All of the research I have read suggests the link. We NEED to be concerned.

Sure, we should be concerned but the Chicken Little act that the greenies are performing doesn't help the cause.

LK

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

My understanding is that the increasing population density along African and Asian coasts has been due mostly to population growth and mismanagement of inland fresh water and soil resources, not to demonstrable climate change.

The same seems to be true of Florida, which you held out as an example of climate-change-induced deaths.

I also have not seen any evidence that the frequency or magnitude of tropical storms, droughts, and other weather extremes have been significantly worse in the past decade than fifty or one hundred years ago.

Can you point me to a chapter of the IPCC reports or another peer-reviewed source that argues otherwise?

Re:More on sinks

[Urkki]

• Nope, I merely claim that you don't know that they *do*, and have no real evidence to support that theory.

So, you are saying that as long as it is not *proven* that some unknown mechanism to remove extra CO2 created by humanity does not exist, it's better to believe that such a mystery mechanism exists? That we'd need to prove non-existence of something? You know, usually it goes the other way, if you claim something exists, you'd need to prove *that*...

Because it's been pretty much proven that when you burn oil products or coal, you create CO2... (You know, basic chemistry). It must also go somewhere.

Re:More on sinks

[Lord Kano]

Global warming deniers at this point are in the same class as creationists, Holocaust-deniers, and flat-earthers -- it's not that they're being dismissed out of hand, it's that their arguments have been proven wrong time and time again, to the point that there's really no point in continuing the argument, and yet they just keep going.

Interesting examples. Let's take a look at them.

You can't prove creationists wrong. If you can't prove or disprove the existance of the supreme being you also can't prove or disprove that a process was controlled by that being.

But it's in a different catagory than the others because it's not possible to prove either way.

"Holocaust-deniers", or more accurately Holocaust revisionists have a couple of things on their side. First, the Nazis were so thorough in disposing of the bodies it's hard to find remains to get a truly accurate estimate of the number of victims. Another question that they raise but can't be answered is "Where did the Nazis get enough fuel to cremate 12 million people"? They were using nearly all of their resources to fuel the war machine. The conventional wisdom is that all questions of doubt regarding the holocaust have been resolved. They have not. It's just that people are afraid to publicly admit that some of the doubts haven't been resolved because the worst label you can get is "antisemite". That's the club used to beat people into silence.

I believe that the holocaust happened. Primarily because I have known survivors, widows and orphans of the holocaust. Once, I saw a woman in her 90s cry like a baby because she had a flashback and thought that "Hitler is coming for me!". Because I do believe it happened, I also believe that we should be trying to answer the unanswered questions instead of pretending that they don't exist or have no merit.

Global warming disbelievers have some interesting questions as well. I vividly remember a cartoon from Omni magazine from the early 1990s. It was a homeless man standing in snow up to his chest. He was holding a sign that said "Former global warming theorist." This was in the days before "The Day After Tomorrow", the brutal winters of 1993 and 1994 should have laid their panic mongering to rest; but fanatics don't need proof. They have belief! Now, they say that global warming will cause ice storms. The environmental Chicken Littles have been altering their beliefs for longer than I've been alive. Before I was born they were talking about "Global Cooling", when I was young the big disaster on the horizon was "Nuclear Winter", then I was a teenager it was "Global Warming" that was going to kill us, now CO2 buildup is going to heat up the atmosphere and cause an unspecified global catastrophe. I call bullshit. This planet has been here for roughly four billion years. It's awfully self-important to think that we have caused irreparable damage to it in the 150 or so odd years that we've been involved in heavy industry.

LK

Re:More on sinks

[10Ghz]

b) You mean to say that there was a mini ice-age as recently as the mid-1700s. Does this mean that we are still in one? I'd say we listen to the climatologists on this one, who say no.

And there was a warmer period of time in the 1000 - 1150 when temperatures were on average one centigrade above the levels we have now. Was that warming caused by humans as well? How do you explain it?

Glaciers on the Alps and in Africa are retreating.

Well, a study conducted in Innsbruck University shows that glaciers in the Alps have been retreating since 1850! Was there human-caused greenhouse-effect back in 1850? And most of the retreating took place before 1965! Again: how do you explain that?

as to satellite data.... this site clearly states that "Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward.". How do you explain that?

Your data is just wrong for b, d and e

Well, you failed to address my point D at all (apart from saying "your data is wrong"). Am I supposed to just say "yes, you are right, my mistake". And I countered your arguments regarding B, C and E. And you failed to even mention my other points.

Re:More on sinks

[famebait]

Except in that case it was not very informed, and the means that brought some real info and could have got even more were actively blocked and ignored by those who wanted the war.

The inspectors turned out right, remember?

Re:More on sinks

[R.Caley]

If you wake up to three feet of water in your bedroom due to global warming, then it is only because you decided you would ignore it when there was one foot, and then when it rose to two feet, and then two and a half...

That rather depends where you live. If you live below sea level the change is likely to be a step rather than a slow rise.

But, of course, I was just being silly.

Re:More on sinks

[syukton]

The first definition offered by dictionary.com for "humanity" is: Humans considered as a group; the human race., the second is: The condition or quality of being human., it isn't until the third definition that it mentions anyone being humane.

Re:More on sinks

[Evil Pete]

And to me the absolutely most convincing is direct measurements from boreholes into permafrost. The diffusion of heat into the permafrost is a well understood phenomenon ... so when it shows a pulse from our time propagating through the ice then it is pretty conclusive.

Never seen anyone refute this stuff. Of course using the obsolete information about the satellite data is ok (as long as you don't mention the refutation announced after it was discovered that it didn't take into account the degradation of the orbit). Total f*cking idiots. Where'd they learn their science on the back of a packet of cereal ?

Re:More on sinks

[Evil Pete]

Both the CO2 levels and average temperature are rising. That's a priori knowledge beyond dispute.

I truly do not understand this. A gas that is well known to trap heat in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically. At the SAME time the temperature is going up. Conclusion ? Uh .. .it must be the sun. I smell bullshit.

Re:More on sinks

[Evil Pete]

There are many things that could add CO2 to the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Of course if the oceans get warm they will stop acting as a CO2 sink and become a CO2 source ... CO2 solubility decreases with increasing temperature. But I don't think this would be a factor yet.

But the one thing that did pop into my head when I read this was all those methane hydrates on the ocean floor ... just waiting for a small temperature rise to be liberated. Though last I heard the temp would have to rise a another 4 degrees C or so for them to be released ... though if that happened then .. we're doomed .. with the release of the methane hydrates the Earth's temp would go up another 5C to a total of about 10C ... forget human civilisation under those conditions, we'd be lucky to survive as a species. Ah well, its really too late anyway, might as well get some large supplies of popcorn and watch this really long movie and see if the pesky humans survive.

Re:More on sinks

[Urkki]

• I was intentionally being funny. ignore me fore I have no actual capacity for being humorous.

Nah, it's just the topic of discussion. Impossible to tell if someone is trying to be funny or just a bit... how should I say... under-educated.

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

Implied they do claim that the climate is a constant. How else is it justifiable to show the 'hockey stick' chart that only extends a hundred years in the past? Presentation of this 'evidence' just screams: look, until here it's all steady then, bam, industrialization correlating with a warming trend'. It doesn't show that the climate has become steadiely warmer since the past ice age, with the exception of the roman climate optimum and the little ice age in the middle ages which where great variances from the trend. Not showing this general, actually more relevant, trend means either a) ignorance of the volatiale nature of the climate or b) willfull misleading of the puplic opinion by hiding vital context that would frame the question in a more accurate light. Now the rule 'never blame something on malicious intend when stupidity answers just as well' applies, thus the 'scientiest' must suffer from condition a).

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

i agree, CO2 is such a problem for the sterility of earth. It'd be so nice without *any* CO2! No pesky humans ruining it for anyone else. Just a blue pure diamont in the dark velvet of space. No living creature that could *gasph* change it. The earth would be conserved forever in the same state! We all agree that this is a worthwhile aim, right?

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"Yeah, and equally head-in-the-sand, you've banned genetically modified plants, too. Way to embrace technology."

Yoohoo. Over here. Yeah, the discussion about Global Warming. It's just that you appear to have wandered off into some kind of Luddite thing, and we'd hate to lose your attention.

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

man, talk about short term memory. Hurricans have always wasted the carribeans and by extension florida, since records are kept. Floods, droughts ands fires where with us right from the beginning of civilization. In the last hundred years, earth population has exploded, most of which live near rivers, for obvious practical reasons. Of course, with an increase in the density of settlements, there are going to be more people affected by floodings. I vividly remember the great 'millenium' flood in germany. Firstly, the high water marks from the middle ages where never exceeded in any town and yet, moron reporters claimed that this was a singular event. Secondly, in the preceeding years, the government was busy with modifying major water ways so that their depth in the middle and the velocity of the current increased to accomodate shipping better. Needless to say, this was in no way benificial to the economy since the project costs 2 for ever 1 earned by it. But those modification are quite conductive to making floodings worse and yet, as it happenned, everyone agreed that this must be caused by global warming.

Whatever trends you think you might detect, they are useless if you lack the historical perspective. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons those scares can always take hold I think. People just don't know anything about the past.

Re:More on sinks

[Urkki]

• Now here's where the trivia fact comes in. Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.

A common misconception. Trees inhale O2, use it to "burn" sugar to get energy to grow etc, and then exhale CO2, just like we do.

They *also* take CO2 (and water) from the atmosphere and with the power of sunlight (or artificial light as well, as sometimes used in green houses for example) make above mentioned energy-rich sugar out of it, and also make and release O2 in the process. Fortunately for us they release more O2 than they use, so there's some for us to breathe too...

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"There are a lot of scientists on record as saying such. That they happen to be American, as you are, should not only make you proud, but should make you question the other nations' motives."

So national paranoia is the answer? FWIW, there are scientists in every nation that argue the issue, but only America has nationally mandated a refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Treaty, mainly because as the highest consumer of oil and therefore one of the largest contributors to Co2 their representatives are too damned scared to tell their campaign contributors that they'll have to clean up their act.

"Global Warming just might be a joke."

Flip it round; what if it isn't?

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"That has much more to do with how American "environmentalists" go so far out to one side, and almost always refuse to compromise."

That's a worldwide problem. We recently had Greenpeace undertaking to disrupt the shipment of plutonium for reprocessing going to France because of 'the risk from terrorists'. Nothing scares the nuclear club more than Plutonium going missing, and it's a really big issue. Greenpeace has been going degenerate for years in terms of protesting perfectly reasonable measures.

"even though I'm not entirely sure that man-made global warming exists."

There was a report released during the RNC that shows that there is a corellation, but it's been fairly quiet on the subject; I suspect as a political exercise.

The thing is it's better to assume that there is a threat and take action to moderate than assume there isn't one and find out the hard way. Incidentally, this is pretty much the justification that waved through the PATRIOT act, although the indications that individual private Americans are undertaking terrorist planning is almost nil.

"But such should be approached carefully, evaluated, and planned well, instead of hurtling headlong into something that may not have a point."

See above. I'm with you on this, because if nothing the drive for efficiency will always help in the long run, both economically and socially, but the drive for better efficiency tends to involve a dollar cost that shows a return over a longer amount of time than the average governmental term; Someone has to have the bloody courage to tell campaign contributors the bad news, though.

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

1) correlation != causation. It could just as well be the other way around: higher temperature causes higher CO2 levels. Or it could be an unkown third factor that affects temperature and CO2 in the same way.

2) The diagram show important things though.
- the current temperature is not outside any bounds established by history
- increase in CO2 levels are not only/always caused by humans
- in history there has been a cycle of warm periods and ice ages

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"Correlations have been shown, and some effects have been linked to the temperature increases, but while many people, including some Slashdotters, have said that other ideas have all been debunked, I've still seen no evidence of it."

New Scientist

The New Scientist is the UK's preeminent scientific publication produced weekly.

Relevant Climate alteration page

The major point is that the Bush Administration backed away from other nation's reports. Another poster in the thread mentioned other nation's motives, but this is a misnomer because this isn't a national issue, but a global one. Given Governmental speed in dealing with such things, it would have been an idea to entertain the notion in 2002 rather than roll out think-tank advisors, which is actually what happened.

"That bothers me, because it just seems that the people arguing against them don't want to deal with them as they might upset their worldview."

Likewise some of us trying to get people to avoid dismissing the whole idea of Global Warming on the basis that it's not proven find that worldviews or personal paradigms are the hardest thing to change. I'm personally willing for the whole thing to be bunk; I've frequently argued against the 1970s idea that the population of the world would increase to the point where it cannot support itself. Starvation and disease are a feedback loop in themselves, the latter looking more interesting in the light of recent avian flu's crossing species lines with startling ease.

Likewise there are problems with the green movement in terms of a lack of real knowledge, but to dismiss everything based on the label 'tree hugger' is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:More on sinks

[instarx]

Don't forget one of the basic principles of the Religious Right: Man was given dominion over all the creatures of the Earth. Therefore by definition anything Man does is right (i.e. strip mining, rain forest denudation, air pollution, species extermination, etc). Just having people around who thought this way was scary enough, but now that they have become the government and their viewpoints hve become public policy it is really frightening.

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"Earth has survived mass extinctions and meteor strikes since the beginning."

I'm guessing that you wrote 'mass extinctions' before realising that you're a member of a species?

"Face it, humans have very little influence over the climate."

Everyone disagress with you. In fact you're so completely wrong it wouldn't surprise me if you'd married your sister.

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"The question we should be asking is whether it really matters if Florida drowns."

Not really to me, but I imagine people living down there might be a bit pissed.

"Its not as if the earth's oceans are going to go up 2 meter in one horrible night, it will take a few decades."

True enough, but go check out the mean temperatures of your farming belt and judge how long it will take to change over crop production from one type to another, in the meantime coping with producing enough food to feed people. Check out the amount of people in low-lying areas that will have to migrate to other areas. Check out the industrial and economic processes that would have to change very quickly. How far above sea-level is Manhatten?

Further to this, check out the stability of geological formations. You don't want large amounts of rock sliding into the ocean; water tables will rise and become salinated when aquifiers are directly exposed to seawater; forget the desalination plants, as they'll go pretty quickly.

Hey, I wonder how hurricanes are affected by moving over water compared with land, you think they could stay fairly powerful instead of blowing themselves out? What about the changing sea chemistry?

"Maybe we should look at things with a 15000 year timespan"

We're talking a century before the maps of the world change, bub. With that comes a significant change in albedo, and yes, it's a homocentric point of view, but that's the point. On geological scales we don't matter, but if you really thing of yourself as that insignificant, go drown yourself now and stop using resources.

Re:More on sinks

[pete-classic]

First, I said I would look at the information, so you must be using the phrase "throw it away" in some sense unfamiliar to me.

Second, I have no idea what "you'd know more then a meteorologist" means. You may have used an adverb when you meant to use a preposition. You seriously undermine your attempt to bash my (assumed) lack of education with your elementary diction blunder.

Third, meteorologists study weather. Climatologists study . . . that's right, climate.

Fourth and finally, using a y-scale that is not proportional is a classic technique for creating a false impression with genuine data. Anyone with any Scientific background knows this. Therefore, the person who made these charts presumably knows this, and made the decision to mislead. I won't apologize for not lapping up any crap set before me. I am sorry if my use of a colorful phrase confused or distracted you.

-Peter

Re:More on sinks

[Red Rocket]

I can only guess that they think they can pollute all they want because Jesus will either come and invoke the rapture or otherwise "fix" the environment via some miracle (yes, I've actually been told this by supposed conservatives).

Sorry for the late reply. Here's a couple of quotes from former Secretary of the Interior James Watt:

"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns"

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand"

Now, don't you feel silly for having made such an inflammatory statement? :) :) :)

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

Is that fun? Pretending somebody made an argument and then rebutting it? It sounds like fun. Maybe you can pretend I made other arguments and rebut them too!.

Re:More on sinks

[RealSalmon]

Funny how I got modded down as a troll in my previous post, but this parent is 'Insightful'.

Re:More on sinks

[rjh]

Kyoto is about reducing greenhouse emission in industrialized countries by whatever way you want, right?

No, in point of fact, it's not. If that's all Kyoto was, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat.

But you don't need thousands of pages of legalese and jargon and international diplomacy to say "we're going to cut our carbon emissions by a few percent". The sheer heftiness of the Kyoto plan is strong evidence that implementing Kyoto is nowhere near as simple as its proponents like to believe.

Zambia is *not* going to fund a Fusion Reactor project!

Of course not. On the other hand, the best thing Zambia could do for its environmental policy is--surprise, surprise--adopt a democratic government with a free market. History shows that environmentalism has only flourished in those nations which embrace both political and economic liberty. The Soviet Union committed environmental catastrophes never before seen in history. China's environmental legacy is the Three Gorges Dam--a real champ if ever I saw one. Eastern Europe is still scarred by fifty years of despotic rule. (My last trip to Germany, I could literally see the old border between East and West; not in terms of fences and border guards, but in terms of readily-apparent environmental damage.)

So no, I'm not expecting Zambia to fund fusion reactor research. If they want to be environmentally friendly, though, they'll have to adopt the rule of law; republican or democratic government; and free-market reforms. That, they can do.

You don't pave the way for the Third World to use fusion reactors by having the First World develop them. After all, the First World has developed reliable and easy-to-operate pebble bed fission reactors: how many of these do you see operating in Africa? You won't see nuclear technology of any kind in Africa until Africa develops the social and political infrastructure to use nuclear power safely.

So if you want environmentalism in Africa, start by advocating African political and social reforms.

Don't start by suggesting the US has an obligation to develop fusion technology, and that once it's developed Africa will end their emissions problem. That dog just won't hunt.

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

I was mocking your (and the worlds) obviously histerical reaction to CO2. In my own stupid little way I'm pointing out that CO2 is vital to life on earth, thus refering to it as 'the problem' when discussing the ecological 'disaster' that climate change is made out to be is just silly. I'm also painting a picture of what I believe is the ultimate (yet not concious) goal of most enviromental advocates: a static earth, frozen in time to preserve what they (you?) believe to be a perfect state, untainted by evil humans and their technology. I'm sorry if I put something in your mouth that would never be there. In that case, just take my post as generaly aimed at most people on the green side of this debate, not particularly directed at you. Also, I didn't rebutte anything. As Voltaire says: a witty saying prooves nothing.

Re:More on sinks

[rjh]

What PBS's expert fails to mention is U-235/U-238 are far from the only fissionable elements in nature. They're just the most common.

Prof. John McCarthyyes, that Prof. John McCarthyhas an excellent page which explains the counterarguments here. Take a gander at it sometime: it's good reading.

Between the two, I find McCarthy's arguments considerably more credible.

Re:More on sinks

[eglamkowski]

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

My how times change :-p

What I want to know is to what extent do the various climate models take into account variations in solar energy output?

Re:More on sinks

[Proaxiom]

But you don't need thousands of pages of legalese and jargon and international diplomacy to say "we're going to cut our carbon emissions by a few percent". The sheer heftiness of the Kyoto plan is strong evidence that implementing Kyoto is nowhere near as simple as its proponents like to believe.

So what you're saying is that you don't know what Kyoto says, but you object to the amount of verbiage?

Actually the parent post is correct. Kyoto just assigns targets and countries are free to meet those targets by whatever means they like. The thousands of pages you mention define a protocol framework (hence the name: 'Kyoto protocol') that allows countries certain amounts of leeway in how they help the environment.

For example:
- 'Carbon sinks' can be counted toward Kyoto goals, so if a country grows more forests, they can meet their target without reducing emissions as much
- Kyoto 'credits' can be traded; so if country X doesn't want to reduce emissions as the protocol requires, it can pay country Y to reduce emissions to a lower level than country Y's target, with the excess counted toward X's target

So rejecting Kyoto isn't a matter of saying 'we want to help the environment in our own way,' it is a matter of saying 'we don't want to help the environment as much as Kyoto would ask.' People who claim the former are either deceived or partisan.

A more realistic complaint against Kyoto is that it does not adequately constrain developing nations. Poor countries, who have low per-capita emissions, are not affected by Kyoto and are pretty much free to ramp up emissions as much as they want. Also, Russia isn't affected because their environmental record in 1990 was so abysmal, and the collapse of its economy meant a huge decrease in emissions for free.

Of course, that isn't an excuse not to ratify Kyoto. It just proves that Kyoto is not sufficient to fully address the problem, and more is needed.

Re:More on sinks

[jav1231]

Kyoto IS a joke. So I have no issue with not joining it. And you're right, GW might be for real. But we need more evidence. My point is, why should scientists become the high-priests of socio-economic and politcal policy when they can't even agree on this issue? The truth is, the political left is using GW to gain power. When the evidence supports it, I'll be on board. But show me some independent studies. Isn't this what were are supposed to be demanding?

Re:More on sinks

[rjh]

So rejecting Kyoto isn't a matter of saying 'we want to help the environment in our own way,' it is a matter of saying 'we don't want to help the environment as much as Kyoto would ask.' People who claim the former are either deceived or partisan.

And they say that Bush has a polarized view of the world.

So let me get this straight: it doesn't matter that people--myself included--are willing to say "sure, let's spend a trillion dollars converting coal plants into nuclear". All that matters is Kyoto; and if you're not in favor of Kyoto, you're "deceived or partisan"?

You need to start separating your goals from your ideology. If your goal is to reduce carbon output, and the price of getting people to sign on to mass conversion of coal to nuclear is you taking out an ad in the New York Times blaming the Kyoto plan for everything from body odor to the disaster that was Gigli, that you wouldn't? Because if you're not in favor of Kyoto, you're either "deluded or partisan"?

Re:More on sinks

[Proaxiom]

So let me get this straight: it doesn't matter that people--myself included--are willing to say "sure, let's spend a trillion dollars converting coal plants into nuclear". All that matters is Kyoto; and if you're not in favor of Kyoto, you're "deceived or partisan"?

No, that's a straw man fallacy. I didn't say that opposing the Kyoto protocol makes you deceived or partisan.

I said if you believe the protocol prescribes specific action, as opposed to general targets, then you are deceived or partisan.

I know this because we in Canada have devoted huge amounts of newspaper space to analyzing exactly what Kyoto says, given that we have already ratified it and are trying to figure out how to abide by it.

So let me get this straight: it doesn't matter that people--myself included--are willing to say "sure, let's spend a trillion dollars converting coal plants into nuclear".

If you don't ratify Kyoto, but reduce emissions by a huge amount by building nuclear power plants and shutting down coal plants, then you have probably fulfilled your Kyoto commitments anyway so you might as well ratify it just for the political optics.

Re:More on sinks

[spitzak]

The wikipedia entry also found by Google is interesting. It indicates that the Newsweek article was the main proponent of this. Not sure who wrote the wikipedia article but whoever it was claims the Newsweek article explicitly avoiding an environmentalist cause, however the writer may be biased.

I admit it is possible that my elementary school teachers (Massachusetts) were in the minority and it is quite possible that the perceptions and biases across the country varied. I certainly heard a million times that pollution would turn the planet into Venus. I also distinctly remember a Nova episode from that period claiming the same thing (Nova was a PBS science program). Nuclear Winter scenarios were the first time I heard that pollution would cool the planet.

Re:More on sinks

[charlesbakerharris]

Doubt it's straightforward. What I don't doubt is that they have it fairly well in hand.

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

Since nobody has any any kind of a hysterical reaction to CO2 then I guess you really were arguing against something you yourself made up.

Re:More on sinks

[amper]

Interesting link!

What concerns me though is that Prof. McCarthy makes the statements:

In 1993 there were 109 licensed power reactors in the U.S. and about 400 in the world. They generate about 20 percent of the U.S. electricity. (There are also a large number of naval power reactors.)

Note that 20% of US electrical generating capacity is approximately 0.75 trillion KWh. This, of course, would not include the naval reactors.

and:

For how long will nuclear power be available? Present reactors that use only the U-235 in natural uranium are very likely good for some hundreds of years.

While Prof. Hoffert is making the claim:

If we look at the estimates of the available uranium ore around the world, at cost effective prices, and we ask the question, if we were to burn it in light-water reactors (conventional nuclear reactors used in the United States and Western Europe), how long would the reserves of uranium last if we were to extract energy at the rate of ten terawatts? Well, it turns out that you only have about ten years of U-235 power from all of the cost-effective uranium reserves.

From this, it would appear the Prof. McCarthy is predicating only running the existing reactors, while the statement Prof. Hoffert is making concerns generating all of the current demand of 10 trillion KWh with nuclear reactors. This is about 13.5 times the amount of electricity that we currently generate with nuclear power in the US.

So, if these numbers are correct, if 10 TWh would burn up the U-235 in about ten years, then US usage would burn through the same amount of U-235 in about 135 years, which seems to be at least somewhat in line with what Prof. McCarthy is saying.

Of course, I'm sure the rest of the world would like to use some of the uranium, as well, so mileage may vary...

Keep in mind that Prof. Hoffert is only accounting for U-235 that is currently "easily accesible"/"cost-effective". New technologies and new proven reserves could change that figure.

But as for your comment about other fissonable materials...as far as I am aware, we only know how to use uranium and plutonium. If we could fission other elements, that would of course open up a whole new pile of stuff to burn. I noticed by following to link discussing Cohen's article that thorium is also usable in breeder reactors.

But then, there's that breeder reactor problem, again. We know we can breed uranium into plutonium, but what does thorium breed into? And do we really want to have large stocks of plutonium, etc. in circulation?
.

Re:More on sinks

[Retric]

If you're asking for proof as a mathematician scientist's deal in measurement's not proof. So replacing proof with evidence we get.

There is no evidence that humans are increasing the temperature of the earth.

Which is False.

The average air temperature over any major city is measurably higher than the surrounding countryside because plants reflect more solar energy than asphalt. Which is some easily verifiable evidence of human's causing an increase in the earth's temperature.

As to the satellite record there is some conflicting data but if you look at ground stations weather balloons and glacial melting the increase in average global temperatures becomes clear.

Re:More on sinks

[Derf the]

KYOTO Myth

"That India/China et al have been left out the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change"

There is a fundamental unfairness to the climate change problem that chafes at the already uneasy relations between the rich and poor nations of the world. Countries with high standards of living are mostly (if unwittingly) responsible for the rise in greenhouse gases. These early industrialisers -- Europe, North America, Japan, and a few others -- created their wealth in part by pumping into the atmosphere vast amounts of greenhouse gases long before the likely consequences were understood. Developing countries now fear being told that they should curtail their own fledgling industrial activities -- that the atmosphere's safety margin is all used up.
It starts slowly. It doesn't make too many demands (or requests) for the time being. But stay tuned. The Framework Convention on Climate Change is a general treaty with just a few specific requirements. More and bigger requirements will come later, in the form of amendments and protocols and the requests for additional signitories. This will happen as scientific understanding of climate change becomes clearer and as the countries of the world, already suffering from a case of "disaster fatigue", adjust to the idea that they have yet another crisis to face and pay for.

Remember that Kyoto is just the name of Round ONE of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and we are starting at the only place possible, THE START .

Re:More on sinks

[barawn]

Yah, oddly enough, people have made bad predictions before.

But note that they didn't suggest human action was the culprit then. There was nothing people could do except prepare for possible change to minimize any impact a changing climate could have upon the food production.

Things are different now - climatologists are saying that there is something we can do. And just as it would've been naive to ignore their concerns before, it's incredibly naive to ignore them now.

This isn't a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. A large percentage of climatologists would agree that restricting greenhouse gas emissions is extremely necessary and is vital to ensure the stability of the ecosystem.

What cracks me up is that so many people think that it's crazy that the humans could affect weather on a global scale. This is insane - we've affected the CO2 level on a global scale. We've raised the global CO2 levels almost 25%. We have changed this planet. The only question is how the atmosphere is going to respond to those changes.

What I want to know is to what extent do the various climate models take into account variations in solar energy output?

Variations in solar energy output matter less than eccentricity variations in the Earth's orbit. Those variations are most directly responsible for ice ages/heat waves. A large part of the temperature increase is likely due to eccentricity changing. However, if you look at ice core trends, you'll note that spikes in CO2 lead to spikes in temperature, so it's naive to think that all of the temperature increase is natural.

After all, global CO2, methane, etc. are all at their highest levels ever. It's silly to think that while we can change the atmosphere globally, that weather change doesn't follow.

Re:More on sinks

[Kehvarl]

Nah, it's just the topic of discussion. Impossible to tell if someone is trying to be funny or just a bit... how should I say... under-educated.

I usually assume the latter and tell people the former. This seems to work, even when applied to my own posts.

Re:More on sinks

[Bob Uhl]

Many people use it that way, but they're wrong. There are people who write 'womyn' or 'waitron,' and they're just as wrong.

Re:More on sinks

[satans_advocate]

OK, but the argument was that if God exists, he will save us from impending ecological doom, and we don't need to do anything to fix the problems ourselves. But if God doesn't exist, then nobody is going to save us. Therefore, prudence suggests that we assume God does not exist, and attempt to find our own solution.

The problem is that as long as there are some that have the silly notion that Jesus will come down and save us, then those who work on finding a solution will be working in futility.

That is, the believers will just keep having more children to absorb any advance in technology that we make. There is NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE WITHOUT POPULATION CONTROL. Unfortunately, the silly believers have DNA on their side. DNA just keeps replicating regardless of the long term consequences.

The quickest solution to climate change is for all scientists to stop working on technologies that benefit society. That is, improvements to agriculture, housing and clothing. As these technologies slowly disintegrate, the population will decrease naturally on it's own. And THEN we will see if Jesus comes down to save those fools.

Re:More on sinks

[Tau Zero]

But as for your comment about other fissonable materials...as far as I am aware, we only know how to use uranium and plutonium.

We also know how to use thorium; Th-232 can be bred to U-233 (a fissionable isotope) in a light-water reactor. The breeding ratio (the amount of fuel generated per unit burned) is about 1.02 according to what I've read, but that's enough to make one reactor self-fuelling as long as you have thorium to feed it.

I consider that a solved problem; what interests me right now are the prospects for bootstrapping a thorium breeder with some other fuel.

Re:More on sinks

[Phronesis]

Doubt it's straightforward. What I don't doubt is that they have it fairly well in hand.

That's not what the experts say.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it when people invoke "the experts."

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the wavelength of light, not the quantity of energy coming out. Same way they calculate the temperature of distant stars.

So I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong.

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

of course they are. Just look at how many posts in this thread make reference to CO2 as 'pollution' for example.

Re:More on sinks

[Rotund Prickpull]

If you're asking for proof as a mathematician scientist's deal in measurement's not proof. So replacing proof with evidence we get.

Are you a scientist? If so the evidence implies that they don't deal in apostrophes, that's for sure.

Re:More on sinks

[storrence]

Study the planets and how they have increased in brightness and how the sun has increased in activity and you will see that the warming up of the planet would be happening even if there were 0 humans here. We are polluting the environment but we are but a small cause of global warming. All the planets are warming up and getting brighter.

A 410-percent increase in the overall number of natural catastrophes on Earth between 1963 and 1993 (Dmitriev 1997)

A 400-percent increase in the number of quakes on Earth (over 2.5 on the Richter scale) since 1973 (Mandeville 1998)

A ~500-percent increase in Earth's volcanic activity between 1875 and 1993 (Mandeville 2000)

9 out of the 21 most severe earthquakes from 856-1999 AD occurred in the 20th century (Russian National Earthquake Information Center, 1999)

A 230-percent increase in the strength of the Sun's magnetic field since 1901 (Lockwood, 1998)

A 300-percent increase in the amount of "severe" solar activity than what was formally predicted for the year 1997 alone (NASA 1998)

400-percent or higher increases in the speed that solar particle emissions are capable of traveling through the energy of interplanetary space (NASA 1997-2001)

Recent magnetic pole shifts of Uranus and Neptune, as Voyager 2 observed their magnetic axes being significantly offset from their rotational axes (Dmitriev 1997)

Visible brightness increases now being detected on Saturn (Dmitriev 1997)

200-percent increase in the intensity of Jupiter's magnetic field from 1992-97 (Dmitriev 1997)

200-percent increase in the known density of Mars' atmosphere encountered by the Mars Surveyor satellite in 1997 (NASA 1997)

Significant melting of Martian polar icecaps in just one year, clearly seen in satellite photography (NASA 2001)

Significant physical, chemical and optical changes on Venus, including a sharp decrease in sulfur-containing gases in its atmosphere and increasing brightness (Dmitriev 1997)

Re:More on sinks

[Firethorn]

Degenerated a bit, huh?

Brilliant!. I bet nobody has thought of that before. This just goes prove that you are the most insightful person who ever lived. Those fancy pants climatologist would have never thought of that.

Actually, I'm using a term that a climatologist who disagrees about the extent of global warming used. Another poster reminded me of it. As I've lived in less developed area, and commute, I've actually noticed that it suddenly gets colder outside of town.

Stunning!. Two completely innovative ideas in one post. I bet nobody ever figured out that the tempratures are different at different areas of the world. I bet as ships move they probably record different temptratures too!. You my man are a genious!.

And you my man must be an idiot!

A theory is called a theory because it hasn't been subjected to the rigorous testing that it takes to make it to law. The theories about global warming are re-written and adjusted all the time. The theory of evolution will remain a theory, and has actually been "adjusted" much like the law of gravity has had to be adjusted with the theory of relativity. The statement "The fittest tend to survive to pass on their genes/traits" still holds true, but there are more complexities to it than straight inheritance. Climatologists don't get money for saying "everythings fine!" but scream the sky is falling or the earth is heating up and the icecaps are going to melt will get them additional funding.

Re:More on sinks

[Thuktun]

Roll of the moderation dice. Moderators are just like you and I--and at various times may *be* you or I--and as such aren't omniscient or even necessarily agree with one another.

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

Wha? That's all the argument you have?

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

In the concerned post, I wasn't arguing, I was mocking. If you want an argument, there you go: The 'atmospheric' CO2 levels where meassured at a site right next to a vulcano. It's incredible how not a single slahdotter caught on to the fact that volcanos emit CO2 constantly, even if they aren't active. An increase in CO2 levels at this site says everything about the state of the volcano and absolutly nothing about the state of the athmosphere.

Re:More on sinks

[void*]

Unfortunately, there's evidence that the results were falsified to fit the theory. The equiptment, as it existed at the time, simply wasn't capable of making the observations as claimed. Now, Einstein's theories have been held up with other observations, but the solar eclipse one was bad science.

Hmm. I wasn't aware of that. My point still stands, however, as there are countless other examples of predictions made by the theory, that were later verified. E.G., the atomic clock test, etc.

Actually, it's quite reasonable for someone to expect others to falsify a hypothesis. After all, you can never prove them, only disprove them. It's also expecting a little much for a scientist to shoot down their own ideas all the time. That's why peer review, testability and repeatability are so important in the physical sciences.

Saying 'Hey, no one has data that proves me wrong at this moment in time' isn't support of the hypothesis, and I'm not expecting a scientist to shoot down his own ideas. I simply expect that they will make testable predictions based on the theory, so that they, or others, may test them.

My issue isn't about expecting others to falsify, or expecting a scientist to shoot down his own theories. My issue is that saying 'You have no data to prove it wrong at this time' isn't support of a hypothesis all by itself, as the original poster seemed to imply. If it were, we'd still believe in spontaneous generation.

Re:More on sinks

[killjoe]

Brilliant!. Amazing!. I bet no climatalogist every thought of that!. You my man are a genious. You have caught what every single egghead PHD has missed. While their heads are full of useless knowledge like physics, chemistry and math you have amazing powers of obrservation.

This proves once and for all tha the CO2 levels are not rising. Anybody who says so is fooled by artificially high readings next to a volcano.

Thanks to your amazing insight we can safely dismiss what all those scientists are saying. Clearly they don't have the brains you do.

Re:More on sinks

[Oddly_Drac]

"Kyoto IS a joke."

That smells like an opinion rather than something with carefully considered arguments. What are your objections to it?

"And you're right, GW might be for real. But we need more evidence."

What evidence do you need? Bear in mind that the cry 'we need more evidence' is generally pushed out by parties with a given opposition, and the _vast majority_ of evidence so far gathered points in the direction of the vast outpouring of byproducts having an effect on environment.

"why should scientists become the high-priests of socio-economic and politcal policy when they can't even agree on this issue?"

Explain to me exactly why the high priests of socio-economic and political policy should be lawyers and accountants; nobody is talking about scientists making those decisions, but actually having a say in them.

It might also come as a bit of a surprise, but the scientific method is geared towards debate. People mistake the disagreements for 'being unsure', but that's the very basis of it. Now it's come down to a majority that say that there's a human component to temperature increases, including the US Government eventually, but there's still this dumb ignorance applied to the data that has been collected.

You won't be convinced by an argument on Slashdot, though, so go look for the information yourself.

"The truth is, the political left is using GW to gain power."

Horseshit. The political left is going to have to deal with the problem once they're actually in power, so keep your political leanings out of the scientific argument.

"But show me some independent studies."

Who would you like?

Re:More on sinks

[DerWulf]

the most funny thing about your post is that you probably think of yourself as possesing a scientific mindset. Well, lets review the scientific method and the achievements of the age of enlightement:

- accept no dogmas
- convince through argument
- name calling prooves nothing
- a theory must always rest on itself and not the credentials of its creator
- Skeptisims is key to refining our understanding of nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Enlightenm ent

Can you see where you went wrong, yet? Instead of arguing in a fashion proper to scientific subjects, you are reminiscent of an Inquisitor of the middle ages:
'The church is always right, therefore, when the church says the earth is the center of the universe this must be true. What do you think you are galileo? Do you think you are smarter than the pope, the right hand of god?'.

A proper refusal would have included either explaining why this volcano is so special that it doesn't emit CO2 or what meassures where taken to compensate, in addition to an explanation why such meassurements where taken at a site that obviously biases the results.

You, on the other hand, additionally to providing the weakest of all arguments ('someone surely thought of that'), ridicule me for not being smart enough to anticipate it and yielding to it's superior logic. Really, that was pathetic.

This concludes our tour of the virtue of critical thinking, one of the main achievements in human history. This'll be 5$ please.

Re:More on sinks

[gadget junkie]

not to this extent in percentage of the public spending, while it does on an absolute monetary level.

Re:More on sinks

[gadget junkie]

" Yah, oddly enough, people have made bad predictions before. But note that they didn't suggest human action was the culprit then. There was nothing people could do except prepare for possible change to minimize any impact a changing climate could have upon the food production."

That's what we know NOW. I fully expect that this was the same point of view of migrant preachers hollerin', in the years going to 1000: "The end is near! repent ye sinners!", and remember: they were in good faith.
unless these climatologists present a viable climate model by which changes in human activity determine the climate, they have the same credibility, I'm afraid.

Re:More on sinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, you know, the other side is just wrong, or lying...

Sometimes, your side is the one that's wrong or lying...

Re:More on sinks

[barawn]

"The end is near! repent ye sinners!", and remember: they were in good faith.

No, it wasn't in good faith. They had no reasonable belief to assert such a statement. If they said that, it was self-serving fearmongering (or paranoia).

unless these climatologists present a viable climate model by which changes in human activity determine the climate, they have the same credibility, I'm afraid.

What's a "viable climate model"? One which explains all changes to the climate and predicts all weather perfectly? That's never going to happen - ever. And it's not needed, either.

For the same reason that biology can't produce a viable model based on fundamental theory for the way that organisms act, meteorology can't do it either. Biology can (and do) formulate hypotheses and theories based upon phenomenology, and use those to predict. They are more correct than they are wrong.

In exactly the same way, climatologists can use formulate hypotheses and theories based upon empirical data - that is, historical data about the climate record - and use it to predict current data.

Saying that they have to have a perfect climate model is ludicrous. And comparing them to fearmongers is also ludicrous.

This is simple, freshman physics we're talking about here.

There's also no doubt they're right that CO2 warms the atmosphere, as well. If you triple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's going to warm up. We also know this from observations of other planets' atmospheres. Anyone who runs a greenhouse knows this. We've now increased the CO2 level by 25% - higher than ever seen in ice core data. Our CO2 output is still increasing, which means that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are still increasing. At some point, the increased CO2 will increase the global temperature. It's not a question of "if". It's a question of "when".

No reasonable scientist could possibly believe that we can continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere indefinitely. So it's obvious that at some point we *do* have to curtail atmospheric CO2 emissions. Why put it off?

Re:More on sinks

[gadget junkie]

"No, it wasn't in good faith. They had no reasonable belief to assert such a statement. If they said that, it was self-serving fearmongering (or paranoia)."

..It seems to me that you are implicitly defining "reason" in contemporary terms. Remember, we had to go through the french revolution to have a non religious view of "reason" or "truth". So, I have to reiterate that, for a preacher in AD 998, there were all kinds of reasons to believe that the End was near. Heck, as far as I know there are flat earthers even now, and while I concede that they are wrong, I don't have elements to assert their bad faith.

"[...]What's a "viable climate model"? One which explains all changes to the climate and predicts all weather perfectly? That's never going to happen - ever. And it's not needed, either."

I am sorry if I haven't been clear enough. in another post, I asserted that since it's not possible to have a "lab mice"(i.e. another Earth without human beings), I would have liked any model to appropriately "explain" temp changes in the past: for example, average temps here in Italy have had significant swings in historical times when human activity, espacially CO2 related, can be assessed as varying between "negligible" to "nonexistent". As you see, no predictive content is required, only a "best fit".
Coming back to your post, no "fundamental theory" ever entered my thoughts: as you can see from my bio, I work in Finance, which didn't earn the moniker "dismal science" for nothing. the point is that I think that something that does not adequately model the past, that is known, is a doubtful guide into an unknown future. You are perfecly right in saying that CO2 is a earth warmer, and reducing that could impact; but what if it is later proven that it's all in the sunspots cycle, or other things? We're talking serious money here, and people have to be satisfied that a reasonable amount of thought has been used before asking them to cough up or to change their lifestyles forever.

Re:More on sinks

[barawn]

..It seems to me that you are implicitly defining "reason" in contemporary terms.

Um. Yes?

Half the point of developing tools like the scientific method and analytical reasoning is so we can use them. As the methods become more refined, our trust in them should increase.

Thus, I should have more trust in scientists' results than a person in the year 1000 had in a fearmonger spouting off.

I would have liked any model to appropriately "explain" temp changes in the past: for example, average temps here in Italy have had significant swings in historical times when human activity, espacially CO2 related, can be assessed as varying between "negligible" to "nonexistent". As you see, no predictive content is required, only a "best fit".

Er... yes, of course, temperature variations have swung significantly in historical times. Temperature variations do happen over time - quite significantly. A large part of the warming over the past 1000 years is due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit decreasing (as it periodically does). We're definitely in a warming trend right now, just from natural causes.

But the CO2 levels are not from natural causes, and they're massively above what they've ever been in several hundred thousand years of data. See here to see what I mean: note the graphs showing the trends over time. Yes, we're in a natural warming period right now. But also note the scale of the CO2 graph - 175 to 300 parts per million, total variation.

Now look down at the graph at the bottom - that's the current trends on CO2 levels. Note the scale again - 280 to 340, and sharply rising currently. We're now about 10-15% above the highest levels of CO2 ever seen in the atmosphere, and it starts climbing almost exactly at the Industrial Revolution.

No one's trying to suggest they understand the atmosphere perfectly. Trying to explain the temperature rise, in my opinion, is also quite arrogant. But they certainly understand it enough to claim that a massive rise in CO2 will likely cause climactic effects, and they are certainly correct that we cannot simply continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the present rate.

You are perfecly right in saying that CO2 is a earth warmer, and reducing that could impact; but what if it is later proven that it's all in the sunspots cycle, or other things?

Well, that's science - then the models were apparently wrong. But you're not asking what happens scientifically. You're asking how does that impact socially. And I'm presuming you mean to say "what if it is later proven that it's all in the sunspot cycle, and we reduced CO2 emissions for nothing?"

The answer to that is simple - no matter what, we have to reduce CO2 emissions eventually, because we can't keep burning oil/natural gas/coal forever . Since fossil fuels are the main cause of CO2 emission, reducing fossil fuel usage and reducing CO2 emission are the same thing. The cost will be the same (in inflation-adjusted dollars) at any point in time. We know how to do it now - we replace oil burning cars with hydrogen fuel cells, we replace oil/coal/natural gas power plants with nuclear/solar/wind. We can actually make it cheaper if we start now, and amortize the cost over 50 years, rather than doing it in 10 when the need is more obvious. As a bonus, the world will still have a large supply of cheap fossil fuels for many centuries to come after that. Fossil fuels, after all, have a good power density.

I'm not suggesting stopping fossil fuels now. I don't think anyone is. I think everyone is suggesting we start to stop using them, and by that, I mean regulations. I really find it insane that the US walked out on the Kyoto treaty. It's obvious to anyone that the world eventually has to stop emitting more CO2 than the world can handle. The only question is "how fast", and the US simply walked

Re:More on sinks

[gadget junkie]

...As it always happen, the points of agreement overwhelm differences. Let's see.....

"We know how to do it now - we replace oil burning cars with hydrogen fuel cells, we replace oil/coal/natural gas power plants with nuclear/solar/wind. "

I couldn't agree more, but that's a "rational"answer; then over a beer we would start talking about the total energy balance of the various alternatives, scale, size, PIUS reactors , and how mad some politician are when they forgo the true in their quest for the obvious.


A small real life example: here in Italy, both for conservation and environmental purposes, heating hours in wintertime are limited, and the temperatures in house should not exceed 20C(that's 68F).
Now, what does it mean practically?
Every building has a heater that's overly big, because it must overcome every day thermal inertia, and it must heat the circulating water quickly, and that means more consumption. Moreover, everybody and his uncle sets the max temp at over the limit, because otherwise when there's an extended period in which the heater is off (night) temps fall off too much for comfort.
The individual dwellers do not install regulators on the individual warmers, because there's no point in doing so, and they would run the risk of not getting enough heating to bridge the periods if they throttled their own heaters. Peak usage happens at the same time for everybody, increasing exposure to pollutants. You and I would NOT build it that way, for reasons that should be self evident. Evidently, they're not.

Luckily, at least where I live, most of the city is converting to "Teleheating":a couple of electricity generating plants feed their own cooling water as heating water for residential purposes, and the energy balance is waaaay better.Interestingly enough, the most vocal "green" advocates are the fathers of the FORMER idea, and the new solution has been pushed through by the local utility, for their own "greedy" purposes.


You know what scares me about all this? the more I see the grass roots of the "global warming " movement, the more I think that in the middle age cold period they would have told us all to slash and burn all the forests.

There's another thing you said that I find interesting:"As for people changing their lifestyles, that has to happen anyway. "
That happens all the time, but the average joe doesn't want to know it. Entertainers rightly poke fun at that from time to time, our collective inability to have a memory of what things were in the past is a hindrance. try seeing a 1975 Film with friends, it seems another era.Coming back to the topic, the average reaction looking at cars would be:" did they REALLY buy those smoking POS?"

Re:More on sinks

[barawn]

A small real life example: here in Italy,

See, I think this might be the reason for why I might appear so adamant - I was born, raised, and live in the US. Gas prices, in dollars per gallon in Italy, in February 2004, were $5.04. In the US they were $1.64. That's about 1/3 to 1/4.

Economics does in fact work (as I'm sure you know) - higher prices means less demand, and cars with better gas mileage are far more common in Europe. Heck, diesel is far more common in Europe than in the US, and even pushing for an increased diesel adoption in the US would be better, because diesel engines on average have 20% higher gas mileage than gasoline burning engines. Diesel adoption in the US should go up in the next few years, but given the spike in oil prices, I really would've expected federal laws to start being enacted to push diesel adoption faster. It's a great stopgap.

But the US is pushing the world faster towards mass chaos, and so for me, I look at my country's laws and trends, and I say "what the hell are you doing??" I look at other countries, like Europe, and I say "hey, if the US had the same policies the rest of the world did, we'd be fine." Really - the US is pushing for OPEC to accelerate oil production rates (in other words, pushing us *faster* towards the Hubbert peak) so they can have cheaper gas.

I mean, I drive a car from 1993. It gets 25 mpg city/35 mpg highway. This is advertised as very good gas mileage in the US nowadays on new cars! (In fact, if my car was sold today, it would be one the top 10 best gas mileage cars) This is insane - we've known how to build that kind of an engine for years. That's not 'good' gas mileage. It's average. In fact, it should be the minimum gas mileage sold for new cars nowadays.

The main problem I have with people dismissing global warming is the fact that CO2 emissions (hell, emitting anything into the atmosphere) isn't a long term strategy. Even if you don't think global warming is real, it's still smart to reduce CO2 emissions. Every other country in the world seems to recognize this except the US.

A large portion of the problem is the fact that in the US, we have politicians that can't seem to grasp the fact that just because someone says "oh, and this will help cut down on CO2 emissions, which aids global warming" doesn't mean that you can say "I don't agree with global warming, therefore I don't think what you're saying is reasonable."

If people don't believe that CO2 can cause global warming, they're idiots - and they've never gone inside a greenhouse. But seriously, I think that's what many politicians in the US think!

If you think "OK, I don't agree with this model", that's fine. That's logical, in fact. We can debate what the warming rate as a function of CO2 in the atmosphere is. Sure, no problem. But all that should do is mean that we're arguing about how fast we should be reducing CO2 emissions, not whether or not we should. And again, you look at the US - and it seems as if the current politicians do want to believe that we don't need to reduce CO2 emissions at all! There are very few policies in place to really start lifting the gas mileage of cars in the US - hence the reason that the average gas mileage of all vehicles in the US went *down* for about a decade. Down!

Sigh. So that's why I might seem so adamant - it seems like in other countries, if you say "well, I don't believe the global warming models" you're simply saying that we don't need to cut CO2 emissions amazingly fast. In the US, if you say the same thing, you're saying that we don't need to cut CO2 emissions at all. And that's just crazy.

Re:More on sinks

[gadget junkie]

It gets worse than that.

"Economics does in fact work (as I'm sure you know) - higher prices means less demand, and cars with better gas mileage are far more common in Europe. Heck, diesel is far more common in Europe than in the US, and even pushing for an increased diesel adoption in the US would be better, because diesel engines on average have 20% higher gas mileage than gasoline burning engines."

Now, you'd think that diesel burning cars here in Europe had been incentivized somewhat. Nothing further from the truth. Actually the pundits are all puzzled, because given the average use in miles, the equivalent gasoline models are cheaper in total cost of ownership, all else being equal.

Since the oil price fluctuates, and gas price at the pump fluctuates as a result, the pundits are wrong, and all the average joes here think; " gas is 1,20 Euros a liter now, but who knows haw high it will be in the future; diesel fuel is 1,00 Euros a liter, and I squeeze more mileage out of that." It is like buying insurance.
So, what are the politicians up to? why, they are busily making sure that diesel cars, especially small ones, get less economical to buy and use, all in the name of the environment, of course: stringent pollutant laws, obligatory filters etc.But, as you surmised, economics work: the pump price is so high that people buy diesel cars anyway. Do they understand? No, obviously.

Another example: a couple of years back, an Italian politician , a highly placed member of the green party and member of the european parliament, said that to reduce pollution crude oil should have been paid one hundred bucks per barrel by european consumers (at the well it was below 30 at the time).

Lo and behold, the equivalent price I paid at the pump was at the time OVER 100$.Go figure.

As for the US, you have the CAFE act. the point is that light trucks are exempt, so the car producers push for those. Ironically, they have grown popular even here, where this kind of loophole is neither existent nor necessary. BUT, over 70% of the Ford mondeos sold here are diesel cars.

Re:More on sinks

[DigitalRaptor]

Yes, climates naturally change. But they do so slowly, not over the course of a measley 30 years that just happens to coincide with the massive growth in vehicle use and power plants.

To think that we aren't having an adverse affect on the climate is ludicrous.

Yes, there probably have been times when sea level has naturally risen by 50 feet. But do we really want to cause that right now? I'd rather it happen in 10,000 years naturally, then in 30 years with us to blame for it.

I don't own beach front property right now, but at the rate we're going, the land I own now will be beach front property before I retire.

Re:More on sinks

[DigitalRaptor]

Screw the thermometer. Use a better instrument: your eyes.

Ice shelves at least 10,000 years old are melting at an alarming rate, over the entire planet.

Ground that has always been frozen throughout recorded history (permafrost) is now thawed and muddy (unfortunately the frozen ground also covers huge stores of methane in the soil, that is now being released and will only increase the warming trend).

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist (or any other kind of scientist) to see the trends. All it takes is open minded observation.

Re:More on sinks

[barawn]

As for the US, you have the CAFE act. the point is that light trucks are exempt, so the car producers push for those. Ironically, they have grown popular even here, where this kind of loophole is neither existent nor necessary. BUT, over 70% of the Ford mondeos sold here are diesel cars.

Thankfully, the light truck (SUVs, basically) exemption was lifted in 2001: in 2005-2007, the minimum goes from 20.7 to 22.2. Not wonderful, but nice.

The funny thing is that people in the US treat government regulating mileage as if it's never happened before, completely forgetting CAFE and the rise from an average of 14 mpg to 28 mpg. The amazing thing to me is the fact that Congress hasn't pushed it up since 1990, especially nowadays with the price of gas going upwards, exactly as it did in 1974.

But, then again, the current administration in the US has no intention of lowering the US consumption of oil - just the price. Oh, it's not like they care about the price consumers pay - but the price that companies pay, now, that's different.

Re:More on sinks

[barawn]

Thankfully, the light truck (SUVs, basically) exemption was lifted in 2001: in 2005-2007, the minimum goes from 20.7 to 22.2. Not wonderful, but nice.

Blah, missed the fact that this only applies to vehicles under 8500 pounds. This includes *some* SUVs, but not all. Apparently the "over 8500" category is only ~10% of the total number, though. So many SUVs will be improving in fuel economy.

The cause is obvious...

[aborchers]

We're in the run up to an election in the US. It's all the candidates hot air...

Re:The cause is obvious...

[aNonMooseCowherd]

I tried to patent patent barratry as a business model, but there was too much prior art.

How about parrotry? You could license it to journalists, who largely parrot what other journalists say.

Re:The cause is obvious...

[aborchers]

That would have the same prior art problem, then, no? :-)

Re:The cause is obvious...

[kabocox]

We're in the run up to an election in the US. It's all the candidates hot air...

Does that mean if we join that Kyoto thingy, we'd have to have our elections once a decade to meet emissions requirements?

Re:The cause is obvious...

[fafaforza]

Nah. Being as rich a superpower as the US is, it can buy enough emissions allowances to have an election every 6 months.

Re:The cause is obvious...

[BetterThanCaesar]

You'd think that'd have convinced both Clinton and Bush to sign it.

I'm doin' it for the environment! (w00t, six more years!)

Re:The cause is obvious...

[cylcyl]

In other news, Bush signs Kyoto Accord and cancels 2004 elections to "abide by international treaties"

Re:The cause is obvious...

[watsondk]

not only the US

we (australians) have just lived through an election, now thats real hot air, then comes all the methane from all the BS

Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone stop breathing to save the planet

What about..

[59Bassman]

It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all our global warming predictions for the next hundred years or so will have to be redone.

Or just maybe it implies that the model of global warming is flawed? Perhaps the ecosystem is a bit more complex than any of us realize, and perhaps this is a natural phenomenon?

Re:What about..

[moonbender]

It's most certainly flawed, and I'm sure the people working on those models are very aware of that. Perhaps it's a natural phenomenon, perhaps not, probably it's a combination, but what do I know. You get a better idea as to what is the case by working with and improving on the existing models. And at any point in time, the respective existing model is all you've got to base a sound argument on.

Re:What about..

[Ga_101]

Or perhaps this is worse than we first tought...

Re:What about..

[metlin]

How very bright and cheerful a thought on a Monday morning :-p

Re:What about..

[wongn]

and perhaps this is a natural phenomenon?

Quite possibly. Its hardly as if humans are a necessary presence for a change in climate. If there was an intelligent life form during the ice age, would they have said that it was due to their existance and fumes etc. that the polar caps were recedeing and the atmosphere was warming? Continual changes in the environment are completely natural, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that human's are the cause. Mind you, that wasn't implyed. Perhaps the Amazon has released a portion of its huge CO2 reserves? That's been in the news for years...

Re:What about..

[StrawberryFrog]

Or just maybe it implies that the model of global warming is flawed?

Of course it implies that the model of global warming is flawed. And it indicates that things are probably worse than the doomsayers thought.

Perhaps the ecosystem is a bit more complex than any of us realize,

Some of us realise that it's very complex indeed.

and perhaps this is a natural phenomenon?

That's not what the evidence indicates. So there's no absolute prof yet, but hey, maybe that gun isn't loaded. Why not point it at your head, pull the trigger and see. But please, don't you take that risk with my future.

Re:What about..

[Ardanwen]

Well, chances are that the model is flawed. I'm a theoretical biologist, so modelling biological processes is what I do (HIV evolution for me at the moment), and as the co2 level is in part a biological problem, I can spew some incoherent thoughts about it, claiming it's the opinion of an expert. ;)

Just because there's no way for us to give a good estimate of the impact of our actions on the earth, doesn't mean that we need to consider those actions more carefully then we are now. We're only just emerging from a few centuries in which we just exploited everything, assuming that we wouldn't run out of resources.

If we slipped past a threshold and we're in a runaway heating, then life as you know it ends soon. It might be because of human actions, or it might not be, but that's not important. We don't want the earth to end up as either Mars or Venus, and we'll have to take what actions seem neccesary (and that doesn't include saving the economy :P).

Too bad it isn't my turn to rule the earth.

Re:What about..

[zeugma-amp]

Or just maybe it implies that the model of global warming is flawed? Perhaps the ecosystem is a bit more complex than any of us realize, and perhaps this is a natural phenomenon?

Ya. I think it is funny that a bunch of folks who can't give me a local weather forcast for more than 3 days into the future that is in any way accurate can tell me about weather predictions for the next 100 years.

The earth is a much more complex model than we can yet simulate with computers. In order to make it feasable to run simulations, you have to simplify your assumptions right out of reality.

Re:What about..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's likely that the model as such isn't that far off, but some of the parameters are not as well known as we would like, particularly the capacity of natural CO2 buffers.

Re:What about..

[Ardanwen]

Ya. I think it is funny that a bunch of folks who can't give me a local weather forcast for more than 3 days into the future that is in any way accurate can tell me about weather predictions for the next 100 years.

Those guys aren't giving you local weather predictions for 2104. "Sunny in the morning, but a bit of rain later in the day". It's a whole different scale on which that is modeled.

Similar example. People can't predict earthquakes, but I'm betting that a continental-drift picture for the next 10.0000 years will be very accurate.

If you let your continents drift, you can be sure that earthquakes occur. Exactly when or where is rather irrelevant for the drift-model.


There's a butterfly that causes storms, but it isn't the same species as the one that causes iceages ;)

Re:What about..

[goynang]

And at any point in time, the respective existing model is all you've got to base a sound argument on.

Doesn't that make your "sound" argument no better than just a best guess?

Mind you, nothing wrong with best guesses. Be better all round if more people admitted that was all they had rather than the de facto answer all the time.

Re:What about..

[moonbender]

Let's not get all philosophical here, but really the best guess is all you can do in nearly all situations. And that's really the purpose of natural science; it's a process to improve the best guess of how our surroundings work.

Re:What about..

[Illserve]

And at any point in time, the respective existing model is all you've got to base a sound argument on

Absolutely not true. You've also got historical data, which in this case indicate that the earth has repeatedly been through cycles of variation far more extreme than this one that mankind had no role in.

Re:What about..

[SnapShot]

I realize you're a scientist, but here in the U.S.A. we believe in democracy so let's put this to a vote.

All you scientists that believe global warming is a problem raise your hands: okay 123,231 votes

All you slashdot posters and talk show listeners that believe global warming is not a problem raise your hands: looks like 4,423,321 votes.

The nays carry the day. Global warming is NOT a problem. Thank you. Next problem please...

Re:What about..

[moonbender]

Yeah, you can argue that way. The way I meant it, that's just another model, basing your predictions on the evidence available from the past. There certainly can be more than one model (I guess I did let that one slip) and which one of those models is the most accurate is up for scientific discussion. That said, I'm neither qualified to participate in a scientific discussion on that topic, nor would I want to have one on Slashdot. :)

Re:What about..

[roman_mir]

Humans are a natural phenomenon too and so what we do could be called natural. In this line of thinking everything that is happenning is natural, and at the end what is so unnatural about homo sapiens destroying themselves and everything in progress? I mean I believe that any civilization (on any planet) would go through the same thing. I don't believe intelligence and integrity are strong points of any organism and to solve our problem we need a lot of both.

Re:What about..

[dajak]

So there's no absolute prof yet, but hey, maybe that gun isn't loaded. Why not point it at your head, pull the trigger and see. But please, don't you take that risk with my future.

In support of this point of view: the KNMI (Royal Netherlands Institute of Meteorology) recently issued a warning that the weather of the last few years has now become 'statistically impossible' and that some climate change must be happening. Up till now they kept maintaining that the weather of the last few years could still be chance.

In the summer of 2003 drought caused the collapse of two dikes, and the water control boards had to reverse the direction of flow of the Amstel river to prevent other dikes from collapsing. Fortunately we still have the excess pump capacity to make that happen, but the system has been stretched to the limit in the last few years. In one case even the steam driven water pumps of a museum were used.

We have also seen a number of local floodings in the last decade caused by statistically unlikely amounts of rain. Dutch government started a massive national construction program for reinforcing the dikes and increasing their height by 2 meters a few years ago. In addition, less densely populated parts of the country are designated as flooding areas to relieve pressure on the dikes in case of emergency.

There is something seriously wrong with this concept of 'proof' if a country largely below sea level is already spending massive amounts of taxpayer money to cope with the consequences of global warming while another country that is the primary cause of it does not even acknowledge it is happening. In the US people can relocate if a cataclysmic climate change happens. The Netherlands will disappear in the sea.

Is this a valid reason to hate Americans for not signing the Kyoto protocol and their criminally irresponsible energy policy?

Re:What about..

[khallow]

If we slipped past a threshold and we're in a runaway heating, then life as you know it ends soon. It might be because of human actions, or it might not be, but that's not important. We don't want the earth to end up as either Mars or Venus, and we'll have to take what actions seem neccesary (and that doesn't include saving the economy :P).

Ironically, saving the economy probably will be a necessary condition. Otherwise you don't the infrastructure in place to control carbon emissions nor attempt emergency engineering solutions. We can shift the current economy. Won't be pleasant but it's doable.

Re:What about..

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't, because even if American signed the damned treaty, China and India would still be churning tons of gasses into atmosphere.

Here's a thought: the earth has been warming for almost 500 years.

Which is more criminally irresponsible: America for not signing a treaty that would have been largely ignored by some of the biggest offenders, or an entire country that chooses to live below sea level? :P

Re:What about..

[Bilestoad]

Here's a thought: America is a naughty boy who got caught doing something bad and won't stop because the others are still doing it.

Shame the idea of leadership and guidance over the rest of the world disappears when stimulating the arms industry and gaining domestic popularity isn't involved.

Re:What about..

[Anonymous Coward]

But please, don't you take that risk with my future.

But please, everyone else just freeze (no pun intended) and don't move, breathe, reproduce, or in any other way interact with our shared environment because there could be a bad outcome that none of us could possibly predict that could disasterously affect us all on a global catastrophic scale!

Re:What about..

[shadowlordseth]

Wrong, there were 5 lights. I saw that episode, and Picard was lying.

The Day after Tomorrow

[freedom_india]

why do i get an uneasy feeling that the movie The Day After Tomorrow is coming alive...?

Re:The Day after Tomorrow

[Chexum]

No, the normal procedure is to come up with "scientific" research *before* the release of a movie.

Re:The Day after Tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're an idiot.

last two years...

[Daniel Ellard]

Any chance this has something to do with burning oil wells? (I guess if so then there would have been another spike about ten years ago...)

Re:last two years...

[node 3]

Isn't the effect of consuming the oil as fuel the same (on a global scale) as lighting the well itself? I realize some oil goes into plastic and fertilizer, etc., so there's that as a plus. Also, fumes from a car are nowhere near as horrible as the plume from a burning well (but the exhaust from a car really should add all of the pollution from the intermediate steps from oil well to the gas tank). In that vein, a lot of energy goes into processing the oil, and not all of it comes from oil. Additionally, I'd assume that not all of the oil gushing from a flaming well is consumed by the fires.

A sobering thought that simply lighting every oil well on fire might be less polluting than consuming the oil the way we do.

Wow, not blaming fossil fuels.

[goneutt]

I think this is the first level headed article on the subject I've come across in a while. By looking at the globe in a widespread fashion they've seen logical causes to CO2 rise.

The article does wrap up with "Based on those two years alone I would say it was too soon to say that a new trend has been established, but it warrants close scrutiny."

I've come to belive in a closed carbon cycle, but the easy "pump and use" nature of fossil fuels make biofuels a hard prospect.

Re:Wow, not blaming fossil fuels.

[Anonymous Coward]

"'ve come to belive in a closed carbon cycle, but the easy "pump and use" nature of fossil fuels make biofuels a hard prospect."

You think it's easier to find oil, negotiate treaties, pump it up from hundreds of feet down, ship it, refine it, distribute it nationally, than it is to plant corn/soybeans/whatever, harvest it, squeeze out the oil, filter it and distribute it locally?

*sigh*

[GR1NCH]

Every time there is some big post about a comet hitting earth in the next 20 years, or global warming, or any other earth ending disaster it stays in the news for about 1 day. Just long enough for every other scientist in the world to say the guy that came up with it is a crank and the whole thing doesn't matter. I give this one maybe 2 days.

Re:*sigh*

[BarryNorton]

If only we would just hurry up and die then it would stop...

Re:*sigh*

[YouHaveSnail]

Then it should tell you something that global warming has been in the news for twenty years or more, and that it's a theory that's been widely accepted by scientists.

The only people you hear saying that it doesn't matter these days are politicians with links to the oil and gas industries.

This particular article may be out of the headlines in a few days, but the issue will be with us for the rest of our lives.

Re:*sigh*

[*weasel]

'widely accepted' != science

Stop Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

David J Hofmann of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration centre, which also studies CO2, was more cautious.

"I don't think an increase of 2 ppm for two years in a row is highly significant - there are climatic perturbations that can make this occur," he said. "But the absence of a known climatic event does make these years unusual.

"Based on those two years alone I would say it was too soon to say that a new trend has been established, but it warrants close scrutiny."

--

Nothing to see here, run along.

Re:Stop Reading

[perrin5]

WHAT!?!?!

you take a quote indicating that this MAY NOT be a cataclysmic event and say "Oh, this shows that there's nothing to worry about"?

So, if all the potatos are dying, and some guy says, "there are climatic effects that can cause this", are you just going to assume he's right, and wait for the climate to change?

Re:Stop Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

So "it warrants close scrutiny" is the same thing, to you, as "Nothing to see here." That's Insightful!

Earth wants to get rid of us

[Harmfulfreeradical]

I think this 'runaway' global warming effect isn't run away at all. If 30,000 died in last summer's heatwave, why can't we assume that earth is just getting rid of 'excess' baggage? I think earth has a few tricks up its sleeve, and everytime we push her to her limits, she'll fart back and wipe a few of us off until we reach the correct mass again.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Anonymous Coward]

In virtually all chemical reactions that take place naturally on Earth, mass is conserved.

Moron.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Harmfulfreeradical]

True, true. Mass will be transferred to something else then. Bigot :)

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Ardanwen]

I think earth has a few tricks up its sleeve

Ponies have tricks. The earth just functions.

Besides, the only (main) way for the earth to lose mass is to radiate more energy than it receives from the sun :)

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Harmfulfreeradical]

You guys are way to serious. I said 'we' lose mass, which means 'we the humans' not earth. When we die, mass is transferred back to earth. This thing was supposed to be a parody. Maybe I'm just bad at it, and this isn't a tech forum, but a scientific community?

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[grasshoppa]

Ponies have tricks. The earth just functions

For my geekiness, can we call them "Member Methods"?

Besides, the only (main) way for the earth to lose mass is to radiate more energy than it receives from the sun :

Ahem...let us not forget what happens when a large body of mass impacts another at a high rate of speed.

*shuuder*

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Lehk228]

For my geekiness, can we call them "Member Methods"?

We really don't want to hear about the methods you use on your member.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Ponies have tricks. The earth just functions
For my geekiness, can we call them "Member Methods"?

Which makes them a class, right? Thus subject to class action lawsuits? When the Earth gets a lawyer, we're screwed.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Feanturi]

I realize you're joking, but, unless we shoot the bodies into space, the Earth's mass has not changed in any significant way, and would not even if a billion died in a heat wave.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Harmfulfreeradical]

The mass of humans on earth would if a billion die.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Feanturi]

The mass of humans on earth would if a billion die.

The mass of the planet remains the same, the mass of humans remains the same. Which has more mass, a live human or a freshly dead human? Exactly. Then we stick that dead human in a sealed box so the stuff of his body does not rejoin with the earth. That mass will be tied up in a human body (or pile of debris in a box) for all time, it just won't be walking around anymore.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[Harmfulfreeradical]

Ah, now I'm going to be pedantic. A lot of religions do not bury in boxes. Bodies decompose, and mass transfers from human to earth. So: it depends on who those 1 billion are.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[bheerssen]

Please don't anthropomorphize Mother Earth. She doesn't like it.

Re:Earth wants to get rid of us

[trongey]

If the Earth had half a brain it would get rid of us altogether.
Can you even comprehend what a truly awesome planet this would be without people?

Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Viol8]

Someone will be along soon to tell us that this is all part of a natural progression and we have nothing to worry about and to all go back to driving 5.0 SUVs as we can't hope to understand the climate and so figures are irrelevant and its not are fault etc etc etc. I wonder how many of these people STILL have their heads in the sand after this?

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[erick99]

You have to take these alarmist predictions with a grain of salt. Remember in the 1978 when we were told that we had less than 10 years worth of oil still in the ground? Since then we have learned quite the opposite. I am not saying we shouldn't address the issues of so-called "greenhouse gases," but we don't have to go at it in a panic-stricken manner. We should do what we can to maintain a clean and stable atmosphere.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[dan dan the dna man]

I have to say I wanted to insert a "denial" here, as I think it's quite well known that C02 levels DO fluctuate with time - a fact I knew, but not the paramaters of the fluctuation.

Having spent a few minutes looking for some evidence of this I came across this page which clearly shows the CO2 increases over time from ice core data - something I'd not seen before. Modern CO2 concentrations are way above anything seen before even with the natural fluctuations.

Quite what this implies for the environment however, I do believe is currently anyones "educated guess"...

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Asha2004]

True we shouldnt panic, and we should always carefully look at the evidence. But the issue has been on and off the political agenda for the last 20 years and we are still all producing more co2 each year. So we can assume that since 78 nobody believes or acts upon warnings with any seriousness anymore, "because in 78 it turned out to be nonsense....".
"We should do what we can to maintain a clean and stable atmosphere." I agree, but must also note that we are not doing that at the moment.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[DrSkwid]

Your head must be in the sand too then, as you are using a computer. Not the most eco-friendly device around.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Pyromage]

And how, exactly, is this evidence that it's our fault? We've seen the effect, but we *don't* know what the cause is. Is it things we're releasing? Maybe. It could also be other things, and a good case has been made for it.

This article alludes to human usage, but presents no evidence. In fact, one of the researches points to forest fires as a cause.

Of course humans are contributing, this is known. But how much we're doing is not, repeant *not*, established at all.

It's warm in the sand, down here, thank you.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[julesh]

The readings on this page only go back 1000 - 2000 years. They are probably based on statistics gathered for a report by Michael Mann. There are systematic statistical errors in this report, as was detailed last year in a paper that examined his methodology and alternative sources of data. Correction of these errors shows a gradual decline starting from substantially higher figures at the start of the period, then a sudden upturn to about 50% of the difference between top and bottom (unfortunately I can't find the study in question ATM).

Also, samples from much earlier periods are frequently a _lot_ higher than present day figures. I recall hearing about a period where scientists had trouble explaining how the CO2 levels got so high.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[julesh]

I ought to correct a mistake I made in my previous post. It seems that CO2 levels are actually higher now than they have been for at least 400,000 years, although still not as bad as it seems if you compare with only more recent figures. reference here.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[asuffield]

I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of car can affect anything so massive as a planet. Really, you are not that important.

Despite a great deal of outlandish claims from many people, there's no particular evidence to suggest that humanity is having a significant impact on the planet. Claiming that we have the capability to make any kind of significant impression on something so huge and ancient is self-delusion in extremes. At most, we could wipe *ourselves* out, but the planet wouldn't care; extinction of a species is quite normal for it.

At present, only really careful archaeology would be able to find any trace of us in a few million years time; that's barely noticable on geological timescales. The dinosaurs were more obvious.

The assumption in the past few years that humanity is responsible for any changes it doesn't understand is quite pathetic.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Viol8]

"forest fires as a cause."

And a lot of those fires recently around the world were started by arsonists or farmers clearing the land!

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I am of the opinion that you cannot really convince anyone in this regard- we shall have to wait until we are all under pressure domes.

We really need to get into space.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Viol8]

"assuming that their choice of car can affect anything so massive as a planet."

Don't act dumb. Plain logic dictates that while 1 persons choice of car affects very little , the choice of 6 BILLION people does! Ok , say only 500 million actually own a car , thats still a LOT of cars. So put the one-person-can't-make-a-difference argument to bed , its so old and decrepit I almost feel sorry for it.

"At most, we could wipe *ourselves* out,"

That may be thse case , but thats hardly something to sit back and relax about.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[garcia]

am not saying we shouldn't address the issues of so-called "greenhouse gases," but we don't have to go at it in a panic-stricken manner.

If you haven't noticed no one pays news like this any attention unless it worded as an immediate threat or detrimental to the health/future of their children. Words sell.

Just ask a certain political party why they insist on reusing harsh rhetoric to scare the American public.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Anonymous Coward]

Jaaa, vee, ze gleubal konspiracy seekret members are vorking hard to keep ze peasants dovn and vill make ze rest agree vith uns. Ve haff metteds to mahke you tahlk!

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[node 3]

Your head must be in the sand too then, as you are using a computer. Not the most eco-friendly device around.

Maybe (s)he's using RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers?

(would make for an interesting twist on the slashdot effect :-))

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Mr.Sharpy]

Surely this is a troll, but I'll go anyway.

I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of car can affect anything so massive as a planet. Really, you are not that important.

Let's change that statement a bit to say "I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of candidate can affect anything so massive as a country. Really, you are not that important." That sounds pretty retarded, doesn't it.

Perhaps singly, you or I may not make much of a difference to the world. Between 1996 and 2001, there were an average of ~8.5 million new cars sold each year. And that is just in the US and only includes passenger cars! That means people made that inconsequential decision on low emission car or high consumption SUV about 42.5 million times over those five years, and once again that's just the US.

Assuming that because *I* am a single person I have no responsibility to the environment whatsoever because my choices couldn't possibly make a difference is selfish, delusional and part of the reason we have the problem we have now. Would you tell someone that their vote doesn't matter (carping about parties and electoral colleges aside), and therefore they might as well just skip it all together? It's about more than you, it's about everybody making responsible choices.

Despite a great deal of outlandish claims from many people, there's no particular evidence to suggest that humanity is having a significant impact on the planet. Claiming that we have the capability to make any kind of significant impression on something so huge and ancient is self-delusion in extremes. At most, we could wipe *ourselves* out, but the planet wouldn't care; extinction of a species is quite normal for it.

Well, to that I might remind you that homo sapiens are the only species that sets things on fire, on purpose. That fact alone should demonstrate that people have a slightly different impact in their environment than most other animals. If you don't want to listen to the "outlandish claims" of the majority of environmental scientists that the environment is changing due to our actions, let's reflect on some of the things we know we do. The fact is that we DO have signifigant impressions on the world. When it is a positive certainty that our SO2 and NOx emissions cause acid rain locally and regionally that can disrupt ecosystems and destroy forests, how much of a stretch is it to be concerned with the effects of other human sourced gas emissions.

Changing the environment, that's what we do, it's how we live. Since 1600, there have been 584 species presummed extinct just in the US, suggesting a 7,000 fold increasein the rate of extinctions since the industrial revolution. It's pretty hard to deny a connection to human activity with numbers like that, and I'd say that's a pretty signifigant impression on the world. I, for one, don't particularly care to join the other animals we have already pushed out of existence.

At present, only really careful archaeology would be able to find any trace of us in a few million years time; that's barely noticable on geological timescales. The dinosaurs were more obvious. The assumption in the past few years that humanity is responsible for any changes it doesn't understand is quite pathetic.

I'm not really concerned with a few million years down the road right now. I'm more concerned with the immediate (next 100-1000 years) well being of our species. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, at some point you have to begin to wonder. I think it's pretty irresponsbile to write off our activity here on the planet as benign when we already have evidence that we

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not the only place were CO2 levels are shown to rapidly increase. Just do a literature search or check the links others have given here for CO2 trapped in ice-layers. Pretty reliable data. I've been measuring background CO2 concentration now and then last 4 years, and I know from recorded data from people who worked here before me that 20 years ago, the levels around here were at least 20 ppm lower.

Ofcourse, in the past levels have been high as well (according to the ice records). But the rapid increase of today is unprecedented. in addition, I do not care so much that the dinosaurs had a very hot climate and lots of CO2 around. They were well adapted to live in such an environment...I do care about the climate in which my childeren have to grow up in.

Also don't forget that it is not the warmth per se that you have to be afraid of. It is the whole environment that is affected by CO2 and temperature.
Some plants will not grow anymore where they used to do, cause of different temperature/humidity levels. And the yield of plants doesn't always increase under high CO2. This could have very bad effects on our food industry.

Many pathogens thrive at hotter temperatures. Malaria and other nasty things could become common in north america and europe. But then, maybe we finally are concerned enough to find a suitable cure for those things if it starts borthering the rich.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[humina]

The problem in 1978 was not that we did not have any more oil in the ground, it was because the US oil production could not match the demand. The US became dependent on foreign oil at that point. That point is called Hubbert's Peak(the point where oil demand surpasses production). The amount of oil that we pump out of the ground is about the same amount of oil that we discover only delayed. The amount of oil discovered in the US reached it's peak in the 30's or so according to that graph.

According to this graph Saudi Arabian oil discovery hit it's peak in the 50's. That means that the Saudis will be reaching their oil production peak pretty soon.

All of this is summed up in a great book by a Caltech professor called Out of Gas. I highly recommend the book.

With all of this said, my next car will be a biodiesel.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[asuffield]

That's a straw man. Nowhere did I use the singular, or the number '1'; that sentence was in the plural (note 'people'), as in:

"the assumption of a group of people that their individual choices of cars matter".

The net result of all the cars in the world isn't hugely more remarkable than the net result of all the farting in the world. It's just not that *big*. A planet *is* that big. People are nowhere near as important as they like to think they are.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Brandybuck]

One person's car can make a difference. Like my Earth First friend who used to drive an aging Toyota that burned oil faster than a two-stroke. I would yell at him to fix his car but he would just ignore me. "It's a Japanese car, man, it's envirnonmentally friendly," he would say staring at me with his stoned pupils, "not like your ameriKan gas guzzler!" (my "gas guzzler" got 32 mpg).

He would park right next to the storm drain that had the sign "no dumping, flows to the bay", and then when he left there would be this oil slick dripping down into the drain and out to the bay...

That single Toyota did more damage to the environment than a dozen SUVs combined. Thankfully it completely broke down and he had to abandon it.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[asuffield]

Surely this is a troll, but I'll go anyway.

Let's change that statement a bit to say "I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of candidate can affect anything so massive as a country. Really, you are not that important." That sounds pretty retarded, doesn't it.

No. That sounds pretty accurate to me. You're deluded if you think that your choice of candidate has a significant effect on the country; once elected, all candidates act in more or less the same manner (a few details vary, but never many or anything of significance).

If you don't think so, then I invite you to elect candidates who will stop the MPAA and all similar organisations.

the reason we have the problem we have now

Given that you haven't even demonstrated the existence of the "problem", it's rather silly to claim you know what the causes are.

Would you tell someone that their vote doesn't matter (carping about parties and electoral colleges aside), and therefore they might as well just skip it all together?

Yes, always. To do otherwise is to buy into the myth of 'representative democracy', which is really just a form of low-grade tranquiliser for the masses.

Well, to that I might remind you that homo sapiens are the only species that sets things on fire, on purpose. That fact alone should demonstrate that people have a slightly different impact in their environment than most other animals.

Every species is unique in some respects and different in some respects. That isn't evidence of superiority.

A well placed group of locusts can ravage an ecology at least as effectively as any human.

how much of a stretch is it to be concerned with the effects of other human sourced gas emissions.

Pretty big stretch to go from "we can cause immediate localised effects" to "we are irreversibly altering the climate of the planet".

Since 1600, there have been 584 species presummed extinct just in the US, suggesting a 7,000 fold increasein the rate of extinctions since the industrial revolution. It's pretty hard to deny a connection to human activity with numbers like that, and I'd say that's a pretty signifigant impression on the world.

Rate of extinction isn't particularly interesting; it's drawing an arbitrary boundary that does not ordinarily exist - specifically between "present but relegated to much smaller numbers and a different ecological niche" and "failed to find a niche to survive in". Besides, most things of this nature reflect not increases in the event, but increases in the detection of the event.

I think it's pretty irresponsbile to write off our activity here on the planet as benign when we already have evidence that we do and are capable of changing environment at least regionally

Who said anything about writing it off? Straw man.

I don't think questioning whether or not our actions and accelerating development might jeapordize that balance is pathetic.

Another straw man. Who said that?

Prove it if you can. Don't claim it must be true just because you can't and you want it to be.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[shis-ka-bob]

This is ironic. Today, I was listening to NPR and they stated that last year, 8 billion Dollars US were spend searching for oil. However, only an estimated $4 billion in oil reserves were located. We may not run out, but at this rate, we will have to do something like a doubling the price of oil to make oil exploration profitable. This is not a 'green' arguement, this is raw capitalism.
Here is a prediction that I do recall..."I believe the Great Creator has put ores and oil on this earth to give us a breathing spell.....As we exhaust them, we must be prepared to fall back on our farms, which are God's true storehouse and can never be exhausted. For we can learn to synthesize materials for every human need from the things that grow."
--George Washington Carver

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Mr.Sharpy]

Well, to that I might remind you that homo sapiens are the only species that sets things on fire, on purpose. That fact alone should demonstrate that people have a slightly different impact in their environment than most other animals.

Every species is unique in some respects and different in some respects. That isn't evidence of superiority.

A well placed group of locusts can ravage an ecology at least as effectively as any human.


I never said that it was evidence of superiority. Straw man. What I said was that humans are seemingly different from other animals in their capacity to impact their environment. Humans are apparently the only animals able to liberate sequestered chemicals into the environment WITHOUT eating them first. While locusts may ravage an area, what they do is a natural part of the ecology, and it will recover. When humans enter a forest and slash and burn it to the ground, they not only destory that local ecology but the act of burning dumps all of the carbon sunk their over the last several centuries back into the environment almost instantly. Not to mention what we do with what has been in the ground for millions of years.

how much of a stretch is it to be concerned with the effects of other human sourced gas emissions.

Pretty big stretch to go from "we can cause immediate localised effects" to "we are irreversibly altering the climate of the planet".

I never said that we are causing irreversable alterations to the climate. Straw man. If we are able to observe localized and transient (because we know that reducing emissions in a local area reduces regional instances of acid deposition) environmental changes within a period of decades, do you still maintain that possibility that over a period of centuries we might have at least a transient effect on a global scale?

I think it's pretty irresponsbile to write off our activity here on the planet as benign when we already have evidence that we do and are capable of changing environment at least regionally

Who said anything about writing it off? Straw man.


It was your argument. "Claiming that we have the capability to make any kind of significant impression on something so huge and ancient is self-delusion in extremes." That sounds like you're writing our activity off as benign to me.

I don't think questioning whether or not our actions and accelerating development might jeapordize that balance is pathetic.

Another straw man. Who said that?

Once again, that was your own argument. You said "The assumption in the past few years that humanity is responsible for any changes it doesn't understand is quite pathetic." It's not an assumption, it's a hypothesis supported by observational evidence. And exploring that is not pathetic, it's just responsible behavior. If we find that climate change is unrelated to our activity, well that's tough for us. But if it is, we still have time to modify our behavior before we do damage that is irreversable in the near term in the geological sense of time. I think we should air on the side of caution, it's only money after all.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming denier

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link to info about the study: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=709 . The actual artice can be found here: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm

Cue standard issue global warming lamenter

[Harmfulfreeradical]

Most of the people here look like they drive 5.0 SUVs, but I doubt they do. Not accepting treehugger mentality does not mean we work for oil companies.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming lamenter

[Asha2004]

True but there is a difference between not being a treehugger and being complete naive. The article calls for close monitoring the next couple of years before drawing ANY conclusions. Thats probably what we should do.

Re:Cue standard issue global warming lamenter

[Harmfulfreeradical]

I never suggested we do otherwise. That's why I made it clear most people on here don't infact drive 5.0 SUVs. I do my part, and I expect most people do to. But being overly cautious and paranoid doesn't help anyone either.

Convergence

[DrWho520]

Thirteen hurricanes by the first week of October, and a very active Typhoon season in the Pacific.

Mt. St. Helens rumbling.

Earthquakes in California.

And now, a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere!

So when are the Tsunamis and land slides do? When will the Mississippi start to flood? The Yellowstone caldera even reaching its theoretical 640 thousand (million ?) year cycling point! Game over, man! GAME OVER!

Re:Convergence

[gspr]

Most of those things seem to be hitting the US only, so the rest of us should be fine. See ya ;-)

Re:Convergence

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we take off and nuke the whole planet from orbit........It's the only way to be sure!

Re:Convergence

[Anonymous Coward]

An the great agent of the incipient Rapture, the Antichrist himself, George W. Bush is on the verge of reelection. He will rain terror and destruction upon the Earth with bunker busting Nukes that punch holes straight to Hell.

Remember: the Antichrist is one who is at first perceived to be an agent of God, not Satan. Tell me, what about Bush, Cheney, or the Republican party is even remotely consistent with the teachings of Christ?

I better go make a donation to Robert Tilton, get my prayer cloth, and cower in the basement...

Re:Convergence

[maxwell demon]

Game over, man! GAME OVER!

No problem. We just have to find the cheat codes ...

Re:Convergence

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I don't understand why all you scientific types don't just repent and believe.

These doomsday evidences are the same things religions have used as God's displeasure for centuries. And they stand in disbelief of non-believers not buying into what is so obvious to them.

Introduce the new god, science, or maybe an old one, like mother nature, and you get the same warnings.

I just want the truth. I don't like playing the odds on the earth's health or eternal life.

Re:Convergence

[arivanov]

You missed Cumbre Viejo. If it slides as its northern brother did 1.2 million years ago there will be nothing left on the entire US coast. Remember the end of the Deep Impact movie? The same.

In btw, interestingly enough it is all hitting mostly the US :-)

Re:Convergence

[HeridFel]

Sounds fine to me, but then I couldn't give a rat's ass about localised US Acts of God. Maybe he's a little peeved at all the unchristian christians...

But then these "Acts of Devilry" might just be enough for George W to claim 'Crisis of the Faith' and force the removal of the 22nd amendment - to create Bushland turning republic into empire, under God of course.

Re:Convergence

[Feanturi]

So, I wasn't tripping, that really was Cthulhu in my toilet last night? Unholy shit..

Re:Convergence

[node 3]

One mega-tsunami, as requested.

Re:Convergence

[pclminion]

So you're saying, all I have to do is set off a suitcase nuke at a strategic location to produce a landslide, and the resulting tsunami will devastate the US coast, killing nearly a hundred million people?

And I bet this island doesn't even have a huge contingent of US troops protecting it, either...

Re:Convergence

[c0bw3b]

I figured we need a big meteor impact before the end of the year for the Full House of natural disasters. Maybe I Tsunami would do as well...

Re:Convergence

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the Mississippi start to flood?

Nono -- the song goes "Well, the preacher-man says it's the end of time/and the Mississippi river, she's a goin' dry" (apologies to Hank Jr. :D)

Re:Convergence

[superyooser]

Plague of locusts in Africa

Re:Convergence

[arivanov]

1. You will most likely slide only a section if you nuke it. In fact blowing off sections of it may be a way to deal with it. The difference between an explosion and an eruption is that the eruption can make the entire 35km log 2km high (above water, 50+ long 5+ high at sea floor level) of western section unstable and make it slide at once. In order to achieve the same effect with an explosion you will have to drill up to the lava which is not technologically feasible.
Also, there is no need to mess with it. If US Geological survey models are correct (verified by several UK and US universities) the nature will take its course within the next century (it erupts every 20 years or so, last eruption was in 1970 and it has been suspiciously quiet ever since). 800m at start and 15m at Washington DC is the worst case scenario. But even a 2-4 m tsunami hitting the east coast and Florida can cause billions of damage and hundreds of thousands of lives.

2. The island has all in all a small garrizon (several platoons) of Spanish troops on it which sit at Puerto de la Cruz and do not pay any attention to the western slope. That is besides the stellar state of US/Spain relations. The only US installation on it is an unmanned automated network of GPS sites run by US Geological Survey which uses follows any moves in the island surface and reports them back by satellite.

Enjoy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1513342.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3553368.stm

In btw, it is a lovely island. One of the most beautiful places on earth with possibly one of the best wines on earth (compared to it French, Australian, California, etc are horsepiss). Worth to visit while it is still there.

Re:it's getting hot in here...

[geeveees]

so take off all your clothes! Woohoo, girls in bikinis everywhere!

For the love of Linus! NERDS in speedos everywhere! The goggles! They do nothing!!

Better put out those peat bogs

[cluge]

Peat Bogs outburn Western Europe New Scientist 18 Oct 1997

PEAT bogs in Indonesia that have been set alight by the country's raging forest fires could release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the next six months than all the power stations and car engines of Western Europe emit in a year. The finding backs up claims that the fires could have a significant impact on global warming.


Sometimes there is very little that we can do to stop the production of CO2 into our atmosphere. Natural causes, like breathing put tonnes of CO2 into the air. Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2? It's viability was proved years ago?. Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[mr_null]

I really think the only thing that recent experiments in HNLC ocean waters has proved is that Fe2+ is the limiting nutrient in phytoplankton production.

There really doesn't seem to be a solid link between increased production and Carbon sequestering. It's definatly worth further study, but as for proven?

Do you have well regarded source you could list that states some hard numbers for Carbon sequestering rates? I wouldn't mind seeing it, as I certainly havn't read every article out there on the subject.

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?

because 9 out of 10 environmentalists are wacked out nut jobs that are only minutes away from the looney bin.

environmentalist = lunatic. it has fit that definition for decades and is only getting worse.

Until the "earth first" groups of the world are disbanded and/or start acting like adults instead of college kegger parties the definition will stand.

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[Overzeetop]

Before you claim victory with your "scientific solutions," I recommend you remember one of your nursery rhymes..."she swollowed a spider to catch a fly..."

Not all childrens things are void of adult insight.

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[Lars T.]

Note how those two sources combined come close to what the US produces.

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[datastalker]

And don't forget China's coal fires!

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[Anonymous Coward]

The last thing I want to see to take care of how humans affect the environment is to have humans start dumping more junk into the environment. By all means, reduce CO2 ommissions. Do not go adding more chemicals to try and "correct" a problem that we do not understand. I swear, we're not going to be killed by pollution, we're going to be killed by a "cure" that messed up a system that turned out to be working just fine...

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[Linux_ho]

Yup. I think the average car puts out about six tons of carbon dioxide in a year. At more than five dollars per gallon of gas, people in Europe don't drive as much as we do here.

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[node 3]

Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2? It's viability was proved years ago?. Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?

Two reasons that come to mind regarding your "scientific" solution:

1. Trapping CO2 in the ocean means eventually it will fill to capacity, unable to absorb any more CO2 (which itself could prove disastrous, as fish tend to prefer oxygen rich water). When that happens, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise, and the trapped CO2 will naturally leak as well.

2. You end up with a rust-covered ocean.

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[mcbevin]

Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?

Is that a question or a statement? What makes you assume that environmentalists are opposed to scientific solutions per se?

Do you not think that developing greener cars or greener ways of creating energy are 'scientific' solutions? Or using technology to reduce the CO2 emissions from existing power plants / factories? Or using more efficient light bulbs etc etc? Environmentalists seem to generally support these things, in addition to other methods. If they're against any 'scientific' solution (i.e. say nuclear energy or this idea of yours) its not due to it being scientific, rather (possibly overblown) concerns about side-effects it may have (i.e. nuclear waste).

Also, the fact that there are unavoidable causes of CO2 doesn't mean we shouldn't avoid the avoidable - the earth exists in a balance (i.e. of CO2 sinks and sources), and its the very avoidable increases over the past few hundred years in our increase in CO2 that appear to be tipping the balance, not the occasional forest fire etc which have always occasionally happened.

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[pclminion]

Sometimes there is very little that we can do to stop the production of CO2 into our atmosphere. Natural causes, like breathing put tonnes of CO2 into the air.

Wrong.

1. CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by leaves of a corn plant.
2. Corn is harvested.
3. You eat the corn.
4. You metabolize the nutrients in the corn.
5. You breath out the waste product of that metabolism: CO2 gas.
6. Go to step 1.

It takes less than a year for this cycle to complete. So no, human breathing has no net effect on CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, because the world population is increasing, there is actually a net loss of CO2 (there's lots of carbon in a human body) due to the mere fact of human presence.

Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2?

Suppose it's too effective and absorbs too much. Now we're in an ice age. Apparently, though, you feel comfortable ignoring that possibility.

Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?

A "scientific solution" which involves dumping massive amounts of chemicals into open ocean water, and hoping that experimental results in a lab actually scale up by billions of times, and have no unforseen negative impacts?

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this will be unpopular here, but as for reducing energy consumption, we better boycott Intels newest CPUs, maybe AMD also. Though I predict that fusion power for the home will someday be a reality, and I suspect that Intel is the company to make the break through.

Re:Better put out those peat bogs

[superyooser]

What makes you assume that environmentalists are opposed to scientific solutions per se?

• Their religion would die.
• They would have to find real jobs.
• They would lose an issue with which to demonize capitalism/corporations/the rich/Republicans.
• They would be bitter and jealous that the capitalist/corporate world had done more to "save the environment" (which is already true) than they had with all their useless whining and tree hugging.

Of course, not all environmentalists would be opposed.

More Evidence

[squoozer]

How much more evidence do we need before we start to do something about this problem? The problem, IMHO, is that even if we are at the point of seeing the start of run away global warming there is little incentive for our governments to do anything about it as it won't affect the current generation significantly.

If any of the governments of the world were thinking ahead though they would start investing very heavily in alternative power generation technology. In global terms it's not all that long before we run out of fossil fuels or damage the climate to the point where fossil fuels cost more than they are worth. The country that owns the technology to generate clean power will be in a very strong position. Imagine if your country didn't have to rely on the middle east for transport - suddenly your country becomes very powerful.

At the end of the day though while the American sheeple continue to vote idiots into power nothing is going to be done about the problem.

Re:More Evidence

[0123456]

"If any of the governments of the world were thinking ahead though they would start investing very heavily in alternative power generation technology."

The Chinese are apparently investing heavily in building cheap, safe nuclear reactors. Hopefully they'll sell them to us, since the whacko lefties won't let us build our own to eliminate their 'global warming' bogeyman.

Re:More Evidence

[Oddly_Drac]

"Hopefully they'll sell them to us, since the whacko lefties won't let us build our own to eliminate their 'global warming' bogeyman."

I think the 'whacko lefties' on the whole aren't that concerned, as it's not really a political issue when your ecosystem starts to go all hostile on you. I mean, you could try voting another way, but it really makes you sound...Golgafrinchan...about it.

As for building PWRs, you don't actually know why people oppose them, do you? Go on, admit it, this was a troll and you don't have anything other than a cheap political shot to make.

Re:More Evidence

[DrSkwid]

if *you* want to do something about it, switch off the computer and stop using the other electric devices.

Re:More Evidence

[squoozer]

I have recently been investigating using a small wind turbine to run my main server with mains back up when needed. It may be only a small thing but if we all made a small change it would add up to a big change.

Remember one important point though. Don't use solar cells (photovoltaics) and pat yourself on the back claiming to be doing your bit for the environment. They are energy sinks not sources meaning generally you are making the problem worse! Use wind and water power as over their life time turbines normally produce more energy than was required to buld them.

Re:More Evidence

[n54]

And can you inform us of exactly why people oppose pebble reactors? Other than the exaggerated fear factor?

Also you might find this journal entry enlightening :)

Re:More Evidence

[asuffield]

How much more evidence do we need before we start to do something about this problem?

Any evidence would be a good start. Currently we only have suppositions and outlandish claims.

Do not believe a tree-hugger when he tells you he has evidence. Insist on seeing it for yourself. Then get an independent analysis of it. It will invariably turn out to be either fake, or not evidence of anything.

Re:More Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd settle for one shred of evidence. All I've seen so far is data with no proof of causation and people whining that we're destroying the planet.

Our sun is variable (and in fact they have proven that during the last minor ice age our sun was colder than it is today), we're coming out of a minor ice age, and so far nothing has shown humans are destroying the ozone.

Another poster had this:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CO2Temp.gif

Look at it. Tell me you see evidence of causation there.

Re:More Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

>> How much more evidence do we need before we start to do something about this problem?

A little more. I have been reading on the subject for a while now and I am still a little confused. First, wait for more scientists to way in on this current finding before you go off on global warming. As for the current "evidence", I would like it if someone could answer the next few questions:

What effect does solar activity have on our climate? I have seen reports saying that solar activity accounts for between 4% and 70% of the global climate changes. I can't really believe the 4% (seems to low considering my understanding of the solar system), but has anyone come up with a definitive answer to this question? My guess is no.

What about the difference between the atmospheric temperature and the surface temperature? I'm sure this has been answered, but I haven't found the study. A link would be appreciated.

What role does cloud cover have to play? I have seen one paper on that subject, but I was a little confused by it;)

Now, the social questions:

Why do people insist on viewing the Earth as a stable planet? If you look at the climatic and geological history of the planet, you would see that, if anything, chaos is the norm. These warming trends that people study? Not significant when viewed in the context of the history of the planet. (And this could also be related to increased solar activity during the same period of time...)

Why do the proponents of the global warming theory always call scientists that disagree with global warming greedy? Do all scientists that support global warming do so out of the kindness of their hearts? Or could their research also be bought by special interests?

Now, I'm not saying that we should go and forget about the global warming thory altogether. What I am saying is that rather than moan about the stupidity of the population and how wasteful people are, start learning about alternative sources of energy (both pros and cons) and try to contribute. Not to an environmental outfit(who seem to enjoy angry rhetoric rather than advancing arguments) , but to scientific research groups that are actually working on solutions that YOU think are viable.

Re:More Evidence

[cascadingstylesheet]

> How much more evidence do we need before
>we start to do something about this problem?

What exactly do you propose to do?

>If any of the governments of the world were
>thinking ahead though they would start investing
>very heavily in alternative power generation
>technology.

It's spelled "nuclear". You guys made it too
expensive (then, disgustingly, said "look how
expensive it is! We can't use this!").

>The country that owns the technology to
>generate clean power will be in a very strong
>position.

Ironically, this could France ;)

Re:More Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear power had its reaison d'etre with nuclear subs: spend a lot of effort on-shore to enable long term voyages at sea. So for that scenario it payed off.

I have heard the claim (but not found the figures) that if you accumulate the energy used to

• mine the ore
• transport it to refinery
• extract and enrich the uranium
• turn it into pelles usable for civilian reactors
• transport (safely!) to reactor
• transport spent fuel (safety again!) to reprocessing plant (Japan sends to the UK for reprocessing)
• do reprocessing/sealing in waste
• transport to a (safe!) storage for a long, long time

... you actually spend more than you get out in useful energy from that reactor.

Re:More Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, a local manufacturer of solar cells claim this is a myth. It does seem persisten though. Sorry, their web pages are not in English.

Anyway, what are your sources?

Re:More Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully they'll sell them to us

If by "us" you mean USA, you should take a good look at economic trends. By the time the Chinese are ready to sell those plants, the Americans won't have the money to buy many. My advice: start learning Mandarin.

Re:More Evidence

[shawnseat]

Do not believe a tree-hugger when he tells you he has evidence. Insist on seeing it for yourself. Then get an independent analysis of it. It will invariably turn out to be either fake, or not evidence of anything.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Association of Subcontracted Scientistics Harassing Overwrought Liberal Enviro-Socialists is an excellent resource in these matters. Operators are standing by! You need someone to give a "different perspective" on sewage disposal policies? We'll send over a PhD in astronomy -- he'll be a scientist with a PhD and he'll tell you anything you want to hear! People getting annoyed by that big oil spill? We'll send a PhD mathematician, renowned in his field! For the last 90 years, ASSHOLES have distorted reality for profit. Yours and ours!

Re:More Evidence

[shawnseat]

Why do people insist on viewing the Earth as a stable planet? If you look at the climatic and geological history of the planet, you would see that, if anything, chaos is the norm. These warming trends that people study? Not significant when viewed in the context of the history of the planet.

Bloody-minded, isn't it? We should welcome the rainforests in Montreal (or the beautiful, though deadly, glacier covering what once was St Louis). Crazy people wanting to keep the environmental conditions conducive to, of all the damnable things, human civilization! Environmentalist wackos, all.

Re:More Evidence

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

As long as the dumbass americans keep an oil man in power as president, nothing will happen.

nothing will happen to jeopardize Bush's oil profits.

Re:More Evidence

[FleaPlus]

> If any of the governments of the world were thinking ahead though they would start investing very heavily in alternative power generation technology.

Like France, which gets 76% of its electricity from nuclear power?

Re:More Evidence

[CaptainAvatar]

Why do the proponents of the global warming theory always call scientists that disagree with global warming greedy? Do all scientists that support global warming do so out of the kindness of their hearts? Or could their research also be bought by special interests?

Maybe it's because those that disagree often seem to have links to companies that profit by inaction on global warming, see eg here. It's harder to see who would benefit from taking a pro- position. Environmental technology companies, or something like that, but if you think they have a thousandth of the financial or political clout of the big greenhouse emitting industries (oil, coal, etc) then you're dreaming. Most of the scientists who think greenhouse is real seem to have government funding, ie at universities or other independent research organisations. (I work with some; it's all government funded here.) It's hard to see why governments would want there to be a greenhouse problem, so as far as money is concerned, the bias is surely against greenhouse. Now if you are talking ideology or group pressure to conform, arguments could be made there about the pro-greenhousers (though I don't buy them myself), but it's not about money. It's not about kindness either - it's about the evidence.

Re:More Evidence

[Oddly_Drac]

"And can you inform us of exactly why people oppose pebble reactors? Other than the exaggerated fear factor?"

Yeah, but that's the level of ignorance that I'm fighting here. Personally I love pebble reactors as a replacement for PWRs because of the failure mode being a proper failsafe.

I spent an entertaining couple of weeks trying to stop people making prats of themselves when NASA was launching satellites containing SNAP-9 radiothermal reactors. They contain plutonium, which is horrendously poisonous, but the SNAP-9 reactor can pretty much survive a hard reentry.

Look, they had to change the name of NMR scanners because of the problem with the 'nuclear' word, likewise for RI tracing, but there is a valid reason for this fear in terms of the things that people have been taught over the years.

"Also you might find this journal entry enlightening :)"

Not particularly. This information has been bandied around for the past three years in the UK, because we were under the fallout path, but bear in mind that a large number of people were relocated that are moving back into the region to farm. This means that radionuclides will be entering the food chain and the interesting information will come from the next few decades. One of the main problems with the reports of deaths in the Ukraine region was down to psychosomosis and fear, but the area is _heavily_ polluted from industrial processes.

But...there is a thyroid cancer cluster in the region; Even Jaworowski admits this. Similar to luekemia clusters, it's not really enough to state that a 7,900% increase is a 'blip' and ignore the problem because it fails to actually get into the causes.

However, Pressurised Water Reactors are bad because their design involves complexity to ensure safety. If any of the complex systems required to moderate the reactions are compromised (and I include the human component in this), then catastrophic things can happen. Rarely does a gas power plant failing require the evacuation of a 30 mile radius, or fairly large amounts of acute medical treatment, let alone the economic costs of dumping contaminated produce.

Re:More Evidence

[n54]

Sorry my apologies, I either misread you or posted to the wrong parent (probably the first).

I agree with you and it's good to see the story getting at least some circulation out there (I live in Norway and we got our share of fallout as well). As far as I am concerned this story is just yet another example of how clueless general media is (and how easy it is to become clueless because of them). Btw Zbigniew's paper and pebble reactors has made me change from being anti to pro nuclear.

runaway warming trend?

[Cat_Byte]

tipping point has been reached and a runaway warming scenario is in progress

I don't know about everywhere else, but this is the mildest summer we have ever had in my entire life in TX. I think it broke 100 degrees 3 times all summer. Personally I'm predicting a harsh winter if it follows the same trend.

Re:runaway warming trend?

[herrison]

General global warming need not mean that all places get warmer. Here in northern Europe, global warming could lead to a disruption of the north Atlantic drift/Gulf stream - which could lead to a much colder local environment.

Re:runaway warming trend?

[mcharlet]

It's not about individual summers being nice/stormy, or winters being mild/harsh: it might take years to be able to decipher the impact of climate change on an area. There's widespread theory that this bout of climate change will produce more variable weather, which means that taking any single summer or winter as supportin or contrary evidence isn't very valuable. (Note that the increased variability theory doesn't have enough data yet to be clearly demonstrated, at least according to http://www.ec.gc.ca/TKEI/cc_weather/cc_weather_e.c fm this.)

Re:runaway warming trend?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here on the mideast coast. Very mild. It barely got into the 90's all summer. Usually there are a few weeks of middle/upper 90 degree temps.

The winters already have been pretty harsh for the last 2 or 3 years. Last year wasn't too bad in this area though. Who knows about this year.

I believe it's all part of one huge cycle. The earth changes over time (duh). Have humans effected it? Maybe, but I don't think we've had quite the effect that the hippies would have you believe.

Re:runaway warming trend?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about everywhere else, but this is the mildest summer we have ever had in my entire life in TX.

I think a you and lot of people are distracted by the "warming" part of global warming. Is not as simple as that.

Some places may actually cool down while others get hotter, as the climate changes. The net temperature is still higher than it was before though.

In my mind reports of unusual weather patterns is a sign that something is happening to the climate. Texas is not the only place to have had the hottest / coolest or rainiest / driest summer that one can remember personally. It's happening all over the world.

Re:runaway warming trend?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about everywhere else, but this is the mildest summer we have ever had in my entire life in TX

I don't see how this is relevant to the article. What you describe is a random variation in weather in a single location; the article presents the results of measurements in hundreds of locations over a two year period.

I think it broke 100 degrees 3 times all summer.

Scientists favor precision.

Re:runaway warming trend?

[mik]

Let's be clear on this point: "global warming", if happening, does not say anything at all about the temperature at any given point on the globe. It says that there is an increase in the global average temperature. This sort of change would imply an increase (perhaps dramatic) in the chaos of the weather system: e.g. more and larger hurricanes and tornados, larger swings in temperature from historical data, chaotic deviation from trend lines, etc. Global rise in temperature might also be expected to increase ice cap melting rates, leading to higher water levels and proportionally lower salt content.

The typical example is that you've got a water wheel where each bucket has a hole that leaks water at a fixed rate. Now you allow water to flow into the system - the more water, the faster the wheel goes... up to a point. when the "tipping point" is reached, the system goes haywire, speeding up, slowing down, even reversing direction. Here's a little demo

I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, just that "but we had a mild summer this year" is missing the point.

Re:runaway warming trend?

[Uncle Gropey]

I'm in Texas and I agree that this was the mildest summer I can remember. I don't agree however that it means a harsh winter to follow the trend, what if what we are seeing is some kind of buffering effect from extreme heat as well as extreme cold?

Re:runaway warming trend?

[Darby]

I think it broke 100 degrees 3 times all summer. Personally

In Chicago, summer was pretty disappointing. It was a lot colder than normal. September and October have been unseasonably warm which is nice though. Not that one year's data is indicative of anything, just giving the weather report ;-)

I'm predicting a harsh winter if it follows the same trend.

Why, just colder=>colder, or is there some known connection?

So would now be a good time to...

[advocate_one]

invest in companies that produce Umbrellas, Raincoats and Wellington Boots (galoshes for you USAnians)???

The sky is falling

[Kohath]

Everyone run for the hills.

Here's a graph of temperature vs. Carbon-dioxide levels. See a relationship? Neither do I.

It's from this article.

Re:The sky is falling

[PrionPryon]

Of course, then you see graphs like this and you wonder, do people pick data sets that conform to their bias?

Re:The sky is falling

[Graham Clark]

Some atmospheric measurements don't show warming, or even show cooling.

However (see this Nasa page) Earth-surface and near-surface measurements do show warming. As we live on or very near the earth's surface, this is the imporant point to notice.

The graphs you point at is somewhat selective in its choice of data.

Re:The sky is falling

[Oddly_Drac]

"Here's a graph of temperature vs. Carbon-dioxide levels. See a relationship? Neither do I."

Not surprisingly because they're measuring temperature in the Troposphere and Stratosphere without really exposing methodology, or using slightly more effective temperature methods such as mean continental shelf sea temperature, or factoring in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth.

But no, instead they use a set of temperature readings that are extremely liable to tiny changes in pressure...

Incidentally, go check out what the Government is saying; they don't think it's 'junk science', but the people behind that site may not have caught the message yet.

Re:The sky is falling

[Kohath]

go check out what the Government is saying

Because governments always tell the truth and never make mistakes.

Re:The sky is falling

[Graham Clark]

Sorry. Two Ts in important, and graph should be singular. Obviously.

Re:The sky is falling

[Anonymous Coward]

haha you linked junk science
go look at who the author works for
how he earns his money, puts food on his plate

yeah plenty of junk science on that site

Re:The sky is falling

[Red Rocket]

Because governments always tell the truth and never make mistakes.

And corporate-funded public relations "think tanks" have nothing to gain from manipulating public opinion to promote their employer's business interests?
I'd take a government scientist's word over a corporate scientist's any day.

Re:The sky is falling

[Lars T.]

Well, at least that graph shows that there is global warming.

Re:The sky is falling

[julesh]

This data seems to disagree with yours.

Which do you believe?

Re:The sky is falling

[asuffield]

That graph says the exact same thing as the one it was replying to. The axes aren't quite drawn to the same scale but all the numbers are identical.

Re:The sky is falling

[asuffield]

The page you cite says:

"Thermometers on the ground, measuring the near-surface air temperature, demonstrate a marked increase in globally-averaged temperature over the past two decades. Computer models of global warming predict that the temperature trend in the Earth's thick lower atmosphere, called the lower troposphere, should be experiencing an even more pronounced warming that increases smoothly with altitude. And yet, satellite observations of the temperature of the Earth's lower troposphere do not reveal any overall warming trend."

And then goes on to show a graph that matches the one you were replying to, so I don't know what the claim regarding selective data was about.

This page clearly supports the point: CO2 is rising for some unknown reason, and the sky is still not falling.

Re:The sky is falling

[CrimsonAvenger]

That graph is a graph of CO2 levels, not CO2 and temperature anomaly, as the first graph was. Both show pretty much the same change in CO2 levels.

Re:The sky is falling

[Graham Clark]

The graph shows temperature in the main body of the atmosphere, and is probably going to be taken as showing that there's no warming going on. We know that there's warming, though, in the areas that matter - the surface, where we live. Both land and sea.

If you want to argue with the temperature trends, those are the ones to take issue with. Free-air measurements are interesting but far less relevant. Putting them forward like that is setting yourself up a straw man to attack.

Re:The sky is falling

[matrem]

The temperature mentioned in your source is from satellite-measurements. These are complex measurements that need corrections to find the meaning of the data. In general these measurements do not compare well to surface-temperature measurements.

You can compare with the surface measurements here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

You can see there is no evidence for global warming until about 1975. After that, the increase in temperature has been quite significant.

Re:The sky is falling

[Moschaef]

I couldn't find the article, but about a year ago, I read that many measures of ground or near ground temperatures are increasing due to the proliferation of roads, parking lots, and roof tops. There is little way to isolate this effect from orbiting sensors and there is no incentive for environmentalists to point out this fact. Think about it though, what effect on ground temperatures does a parking lot the size of NYC have on these measurments; or how about the roof tops of the 200 million buildings in the US?

Re:The sky is falling

[Derling Whirvish]

That's a very interesting chart. It clearly shows each rise in global temperature levels *precedes* the rise in CO2 levels. It also shows wild swings in CO2 and temperature levels over the eons -- clearly not human-related -- prior to the latest levels. It also shows all human progess in civilization occurred during the latest very high temperature levels.

Re:The sky is falling

[julesh]

Yes. I have heard a theory that high temperatures cause the Earth to release large amounts of CO2; I believe the primary culprit is believed to be the oceans, whose capacity for holding CO2 decreases with rising temperature (? not certain about that one).

Re:The sky is falling

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, temperature will accelerate release CO2 from soil and oceans. But, before you, many ppl have tried to explain these datasets. And the best model explaining this graph is currently a model using both the temperature effect on CO2 release and the "greenhouse" effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. And it is exactly this what makes the data from the article a bit disturbing: a sudden faster rate of CO2 evolution, could mean that the sinks (oceans) are saturated at the current temperature. And that each increase in temperature or CO2 content now directly increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere, leading to a much faster increase of both (ie: making one of those big spikes in the graph). Little is known what determines the size of such a spike, so we don't really know when it stops.

Oh..and that bit about human civ. is a bit silly...as far as we know we only reached civilization once...so it could be pure coincidence. Give me a dataset with a suitable number of replicates and I will do some statistics on it.

Re:The sky is falling

[Anonymous Coward]

It this the temp graph that is affected by the massive closing of temp recording stations in remote locations due to cuts in science funding the world over?

Even if we assume that this graph is good data. What is the explaination for the lower than normal temps pre 75? How do you know that 30 years from now, that graph won't cycle around again? That is the nature of the earths natuaral variablility.

How is it that ONLY NOW the earths temp has risen so much when CO2 levels are now MUCH LOWER than they were between 100 and 400 years ago?

See, that's just a graph of data. No one knows what it means and no one is sure if it's even possible to combine temp measurements from all over the globe and even get a meaningful single value graph!

But go ahead and cut your own head off because someone shows you a bad picture and tells you what to think. Don't bother doing any meta-research on your own or anything!

Re:The sky is falling

[djmurdoch]

It clearly shows each rise in global temperature levels *precedes* the rise in CO2 levels.

Huh? I don't see that, and the authors of that web page didn't either: "... because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously."

It also shows wild swings in CO2 and temperature levels over the eons -- clearly not human-related -- prior to the latest levels.

But notice the CO2 levels at the very right of the plot (closest to the present time): there was never an increase that high or that fast in the previous record.

Re:The sky is falling

[Kohath]

I'd take a government scientist's word over a corporate scientist's any day.

When the science is real, you don't have to take anyone's word. Real science stands on it's own.

Re:The sky is falling

[Red Rocket]

When the science is real, you don't have to take anyone's word. Real science stands on it's own.

That's a pretty ignorant statement. No one on earth, not even the most versatile scientists, can understand every scientific discipline well enough to draw valid conclusions from scientific publications. Hell, most people reading a scientific paper wouldn't even recognize the words in the paper let alone their meaning. If "real science" stood on its own there would never be any scientific dissent. Even Einstein had his detractors within the scientific community, yet here are all these nuclear power plants and weapons scattered around the world. Apparently that real science didn't stand on its own. It had to be tested and retested and retested again.
Once again, you extract your facts from your lowest orifice.

Re:The sky is falling

[Kohath]

Even Einstein had his detractors within the scientific community, yet here are all these nuclear power plants and weapons scattered around the world.

They work because they work. Not because "we trust Einstein, he's our kind of guy".

Re:The sky is falling

[Red Rocket]

They work because they work. Not because "we trust Einstein, he's our kind of guy".

You're either being stubborn or deliberately obtuse. You're still not getting my point and you're twisting the meaning of my words.
My point was that modern scientific study is so esoteric that, for any particular experiment conducted, only a handful of insiders understand what the question is, let alone the answer . There's very little study done where even a highly trained scientist can just look at it and say, "Yep. That's obviously true. That stands on its own." Most science is done at the extremes of the disciplines because that's where discoveries are made. And science at the extremes is not easily penetrable by laymen such as ourselves. At that point, in order to evaluate the value of scientific thought, one must make a judgment about the credibility of the scientists or organizations who publish scientific findings. I find that the peoples' scientists, employed by or for our government (at lower pay than their counterparts), have eminently more credibility than corporate scientists, who are motivated by profit. Your claim that real science stands on its own is roughly equivalent to a juror claiming that they can spot a guilty person just by looking at them.

Re:The sky is falling

[Oddly_Drac]

"Because governments always tell the truth and never make mistakes."

If they give you bad news, then generally you can be sure that it's pretty truthful, especially when backed by peer-reviewed articles, but that's where the 'open source' model comes into it's own. Peer review is lots of people with their own opinions coming to the table to confirm or refute claims.

One of the bigger problems I've noticed in this thread is that there are people who build opinions from media, some that look at the reports themselves, and yet another section that are so caught in the rosy glow of their own 'righteousness' that they throw up sentences like the above as one line answers.

You don't like government reports, go look at the subject from the peer-review angle. Just don't sit on your arse and make clever comments about how you distrust the information therefore it MUST be bunk.

Re:The sky is falling

[Oddly_Drac]

"Your claim that real science stands on its own is roughly equivalent to a juror claiming that they can spot a guilty person just by looking at them."

He would do well to check Lord Kelvin's opinion on X-rays, or Einstein's on Quantum theory.

It's me. I did it.

[TheLoneCabbage]

I admit it, it's all my fault.
I've got 200 SUV's & 500 farting cows in the back yard, cranking out the C02.

And it's none too soon, winter is comming and it's gonna get way too cold. Anyone want to donate some microwave boritos to help speed up the process?

Re:It's me. I did it.

[freedom_india]

Sorry. Farting cows release Methane and not CO2 as you have mentioned.

Re:It's me. I did it.

[Overzeetop]

He forgot to mention that his hobby is lighting those farts.

Re:It's me. I did it.

[freedom_india]

with what do you usually light it up?

global warming Back gorund

[Mstrgeek]

I have taken some time to do some Google searches to provide some background information on the topic hope you find the links useful

EPA : EPA Global Warming Site

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/index.html

global warming group http://www.globalwarming.org/

Cause & effect's of global warming http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp

Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic!

[NoSuchGuy]

Remember that talking about Global Warming is very unpatriotic in the US!

Just ask a "sponsored" (read: lobbied) politican.
Then ask a "censored" (read: cut off from money because of non compliant research) scientist.

Re:Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic!

[Anonymous Coward]

hey man, your either with us or against us, you insensitive unpatriotic clod!

i for one bow to our new co2 spewing noxios gas producing SUV overlords

Re:Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic!

[Lehk228]

would you care to back up your claims of scientist losing their funding due to their research?

Re:Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic!

[pla]

would you care to back up your claims of scientist losing their funding due to their research?

Stem cell research, anyone?

Or how about caribou migration patterns in the ANWR? Not just individual scientists, but entire consulting firms got the axe for coming up with the "wrong" answers.

Now, as for global warming... Well, I don't know of any specific instances off the top of my head. But I have "faith", just like a certain US president regarding WMDs, that examples exist.

Re:Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic!

[Lehk228]

But I have "faith", just like a certain US president regarding WMDs, that examples exist.

So the CIA and European Intelligence Agencys have told you that there are examples of scientists losing funding because shrubya doesn't want their research to become well known? fascinating.

Re:Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic!

[Anonymous Coward]

> would you care to back up your claims of scientist losing their funding due to their research?

Of course I can!

SOUNDS OF ALARMS GOING OFF

Erm, what was that?

MEN IN BLACK COME RUNNING IN!

What? I want to use my right to free speesummmmgh! MMMPMMMMGGGBGHH! URHJ!

MUFFLED SOUNDS

MORE MUFFLED SOUNDS

MEN IN BLACK: Nothing here to see, go away.

Re:Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the CIA and European Intelligence Agencys have told you that there are examples of scientists losing funding because shrubya doesn't want their research to become well known? fascinating.

It amazes me how many people believe this admin who is caught in constant lies. This admin makes Reagans and Nixon's time look absolutely clean. Has it dawned on you yet that the CIA did what it was told to do? The CIA was originally against W's use of nukes in his infamous speech. Yet, W. blamed the CIA. Cool. If you listen to what CIA had to say back then, they said that they were sorry that they allowed it in the speech. They did not say that they supported what it said. Also, the fact that the NSA, NGA and the pentagon also check over all this stuff seems to escape people's attention.

Re:Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give a fuck about your USA. I'm on the internet, and exchanging information is the thing to do around here. The only wrong thing to do on the internet is to impose your country's fucked up rules on it, no matter the country.

Of all the songs...

[zecg]

...that might have played at the moment I read this, Foobar2000 and his randomness generator chose this.

"And every dream, hope and desire
Is just a flicker in the fire
And that fire it will consume
The crack of doom
Is coming soon"

This is just a publicity stunt.

[Anonymous Coward]

YA ominous global warming article appears today.
"The Day After Tomorrow" comes out on DVD tomorrow.

Coincidence? I think not!

Re:This is just a publicity stunt.

[Anonymous Coward]

That would really kill the quality of my week if that turned out to be the case. Good thing there's no way one could prove that. At least, one without a tinfoil hat.

To use less hydrocarbon

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanity will have to undergo "demand destruction".

In math terms:

Barrels of oil TIMES Number of Humans = CO2 production.

Now....how many humans wish to reduce the number of the barrels of oil they use? How many "leaders" will see it eaiser to reduce the number of humans?

Re:To use less hydrocarbon

[R.Caley]

How many "leaders" will see it eaiser to reduce the number of humans?

The people it is easiest to eliminate are the ones whose elimination will have least impact on carbon use.

Mind you, some kind of flying robot which picks up any four wheel drive vehicle in use in an urban area and drops it and it's driver into a deep ocean trench is a possibility for significant change few people will object to...

Re:To use less hydrocarbon

[dapyx]

People in the United States produce tens (hundreds?) of times the co2 produced by an African/Indian.

It would be much more efficient to eliminate you and other Americans that don't want to understand the results of real science.

Re:To use less hydrocarbon

[idamaybrown]

Or get rid of the rest of the world.

Re:To use less hydrocarbon

[Anonymous Coward]

To reduce populations which generate a lot of greenhouse gases, and also directly reduce the earth's surface temperature, we need a large scale nuclear war. A large fraction of the industrialized world will cease to emit CO2 (after the fires go out), and nuclear winter, if real, will counteract global warming. It will also eliminate the threat of nuclear terrorism and proliferation, make the world generally more peaceful, reduce the crime rate, and it will be great TV (for a half hour or so).

In the long run it may not make much difference to global warming, since third world populations cutting down and burning all their forrests will ratchet up the CO2 levels anyway, but what the hell, let's give it a shot! With any luck, the nuclear winter will kill off most of those populations as well, giving us another few millenia before this becomes a problem again.

Yes (Scôre: 2, Insightful)

[Anonymous Coward]

FireFox sucks

Sorry to bring facts into this....

[Ancient_Hacker]

All the coal and oil on the planet (about 3 teratons) is only about 8% of the carbon dissolved in the oceans. Which seems to imply two things: (1) We need to stir up the oceans a bit to get some of that CO2-poor deep water to the surface. (2) If we got desperate we could mine the waters for carbon.

Re:Sorry to bring facts into this....

[Anonymous Coward]

Burn fish!

Re:Sorry to bring facts into this....

[Anonymous Coward]

How many terratons of ocean water is there, then?

That'd have to be a HELL of a big spoon!

Re:Sorry to bring facts into this....

[museumpeace]

Careful there. If the huge deposits of frozen methane hydrate that rely on the low temps and high pressure of the deep ocean for their stability are disturbed by some ocean stiring project, or just plain warmer water, we could have a frothing burst of methane outgassing from the ocean that would greatly increase the green house gas content of our atmosphere.

Re:Quick fix...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried that about 5 times but farted each time.

Sorry, but I let out more CO2 and Methane than I kept in by holding my breath.

Maybe a buttplug would help?

How do you dare !?

[thrill12]

Leave our cars alone ! Even though they suck in air, burn it with millions years old Dinosaur-meat, then plunge out recycled Dinosaur-meat in the form of CO(2), that doesn't mean they are the problem.

I think we can only test your far fetched hypothesis by producing new 10-20 liter cars, and decrease the petrol cost by 75% at least. If, after say 25 years, we are imitating the faith of the creatures we now burn, I would say we need to discuss the consequences.

In the mean time, keep burning that oil folks !

I never get how..

[ivano]

...people can say things like this.

Of course the scientists know the assumptions that their models are based on. They understand those assumptions more than anyone. Models are not just used so scientists can say "hey aren't we smart" they're also used to test the theories they're based on and if the data doesn't match the model then back to the drawing board they go. The fact that models are simplified is down to both theoretical non-understanding and computational and mathematical power (not only are they hard to model some of those equations are just plain hard to solve precisely).

When you deal in a limited world you work with what you have.

Ciao

Her ?

[DrSkwid]

How do you determine the gender of planets ?

It is an "it" not a her.

Plus your analysis is idiotic.

Re:Her ?

[Harmfulfreeradical]

Mother nature is commonly referred to as 'her.' This isn't a scientific dissertation, I'm free to make my own labels. Get a life, my analysis? It's a comment! Where's your clever take on all of this then? If the scientists don't know whats going, telling us its too early to judge, and yet we should be cautious, you have the 'answer' that gives you the right to call other people's 'comments' idiotic?

Re:Her ?

[R.Caley]

How do you determine the gender of planets ?

Either look the word up in a dictionary, or ask neighbouring planets what role it plays in their community.

[this message brought to you by the society for laughing at idiots who don't understand the difference between sex and gender]

Re:Muhahah!

[julesh]

I think if Cthulhu were to come, it wouldn't bother with heating us all up a little first.

More Likely...

[CiXeL]

Look at China's booming economy and their insatiable demand for oil driving rates up to insane levels and devouring all supply.

Either that or the ice hydrates in the ocean floor are beginning to thaw in which case we're all fucked.

*shits on self in fear*

Someone look that part up in Revelation where the oceans boil?

Re:More Likely...

[ThaReetLad]

FOUR MORE YEARS (of cheap oil, then we're fucked)

On the other hand, when the oil runs out, at least we'll be able to reduce CO2 emmisions.

Re:More Likely...

[SnapShot]

Oh yeah... it's China's fault. Those bastards.

Re:More Likely...

[Urkki]

Hmm. Maybe a pre-emptive strike would be in order... Better hurry before China has believable and total MAD capability against US... Maybe neutron and/or EMP bombs would be good thing, exploed high enough in the atmosphere so we don't get nuclear winter out of it, but that's just technical detail.

Oh, and don't forget India! Swat two flies at the same time, minimize negative global impact!

Re:More Likely...

[xelah]

Oh yeah... it's China's fault. Those bastards.

Yeah...imagine wanting to drag yourself out of poverty. Tchah!

Actually, this is an important point that some people (especially those who say 'forget the environment - lets spend the money on helping the poor') forget. There is only a limited amount and flow of oil. Poorer countries need this oil to develop their infrastructure (build roads, plumbing, electricity grids, etc.) and their economies. Rich countries easily outcompete them for access to this resource (by simply paying a lot more for it and holding the prices high as a result). A reduction in western oil use would partly help the local and global environment (through reduced total oil use) and partly help those poorer countries (by allowing some of that reduction to end up as increased use by poorer countries).

environmental issues

[Exter-C]

There are so many compounded issues in regards to these figures. The results are very likely to be accurate. The issues that cause increases like this are always no single reason. We are still logging vast amounts of forrest even in the developed world. Its not just something that occurs in the "developing world" like people like to imagine/dream up. Compounding the massive reduction in trees (amazon, daintree etc etc being logged) with the huge and seaddy population increase, and higher than ever demand on power/services because of the increased population... coupling just these factors together makes a massive difference.

End results a warmer world, greater variety of weather patterns and a more F-ed up place to live in for most of the developing world. Most of the "first world" countries will be able to spend the money to shield our poor white arses from the additional heat.. thanks to air con.. but then the issues will be compounded further with the further increase in energy needs..

The end result is people dont want to make the sacrifices on a broad enough level to make a big enough difference fast enough to make a difference in the long term. Coupling Co2 levels with so2 levels increasing as well.. we are in for a real roller coaster ride..

Re:environmental issues

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, from your use of the spelling "arses" i take that as an implication that like me, you are in the UK.

Something to be aware of when thinking about global warming and how it may effect the UK is to note that the Trans-Atlantic Drift - that big current that goes across the Atlantic from South America up past the UK to greenland iirc - well, UK actually owes much of its heat to that, if you look at many other countries around the world on the same lattitude as the UK you will see, most of them are very cold, snow covered places. indeed polar bears are even found on similar lattitudes in other places.

So if the sea levels were to rise, then currents would be affected, more snowcaps melting means less salination in the sea water up by greenland where the 'conveyor' or TLDrift water sinks and makes its way back along the bottom of the atlantic, less salt in the water means it the warm water doesn't sink like it does now... and the conveyor stops, the UK freezes, sledging and skiing become national passtimes.

really though, Global Warming isn't going to make the UK a warmer place to live. Its going to be much much colder and a fair bit of it will be underwater too, all those flat places - chester - worcester - etc i'm thinking of you here - you know why its so flat in the town you live in don't you? because its either a flood plain or its the a prehistoric sea bed, either way, its the ideal place for excess water to gather

Re:environmental issues

[Exter-C]

This is true, london is alreaddy facing issues with the large tides that sweet up the thames, This can be seen by looking up the thames barrier as just one of many examples of ways they are trying to mitigate the floods. Its going to get warmer (based on most reports) around the equator which is where I am actually from. and thats where the problems will be most dramatic. especially as most developing countries are around the equator. Developing countries like bangladesh will just become underwater cities if the water levels rise any more and the hymalaya melt contines...

All in all the weather will be more dramatic and people on hills will have very valuable land ;0

Re:Solution!

[dykofone]

... damn tree huggers. I mean it is absolutely ludicrous to ask questions first and shoot later.

So in Slashdot terms...you're saying that Han Solo (circa Special Edition) was a tree hugger?

Dodge Vipers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its common knowledge that SUVs were the preferred mode of conveyance for said Wooly Mammoths! :P

Global Cooling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we were in a period of Global Cooling?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

What about the singularity?

[Thinkit4]

We will design a cyberthalamus and then what? We won't need the Earth at all. Environmentalism is only important in that it preserves life long enough for it to discover the cyberthalamus and the singularity.

The perfect excuse...

[Anonymous Coward]

to stop mowing my lawn. Excellent!

Re:The perfect excuse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't done mine in 3 years :-o (lot of ovy out back!).

Mod Parent Up

[eutychus_awakes]

This got scored as a Troll, but the author does have a point. The Earth is probably going to kill us before we kill the Earth - if that is even possible. I am in full agreement that we need to be good stewards of the Earth - but we sometimes go WAY too far down the environmentalist path.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[amorsen]

The Earth is probably going to kill us before we kill the Earth

I think that is a very compelling argument for doing what we can to avoid that. Frankly, I don't care about the environment. I care about my survival and my quality of life.

Kyoto Protocol

[fateswarm]

Is anyone familiar with the Kyoto protocol?

It's a United Nations framework of action based on solid scientific research. As others have noticed, the global warming science may be flawed but it's the only one we got. There is NO other real side other than the corporate stock.

for the history the USA's reason for denying it is that "jobs would be lost". spoken again by Bush on the second debate. he also said he'd use alternative versions for the kyoto protocol. Implying bush himself approves its legitimacy.

The full text of the Kyoto Protocol is here.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.htm l

For a kids' or easy version of the story take a look at the extra dvd of 'the day after tomorrow' movie. a great accounting on environmental issues and kyoto specifically.

Re:Kyoto Protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that Europe has no intention what-so-ever of actually living up to Kyoto. It is merely a feel good aspirational law.

Just because it gets passed doesn't mean anyone pays attention to it. In Europe there are plenty of stupid laws that they feel are stupid and therefore ignore.

You really should grow up.

Re:Kyoto Protocol

[jbrelie]

Sharp increase in the last two years... Hrmm... Isn't that right about when Bush withdrew the US from the Kyoto agreement?

Re:Kyoto Protocol

[Professeur Shadoko]

"jobs would be lost"...
You mean, all the jobs the space industry is going to need so we can escape to another planet, in say, twenty years ?

Re:Kyoto Protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent should be modded as flamebait. This is not the political forum of /. and any political rhetoric from either side should be modded down.

Re:Kyoto Protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't your desire to censor political thought (How Orwellian of you, btw) political in of itself? Shouldn't by your own logic you be censored just as you want to censor others who make political expressions?

Re:Kyoto Protocol

[astrotek]

It was killed by the usa because it only limits certain countries. Basically all the violators would have moved to third world countries and kyoto would have solved nothing except kill economies for the countries with tough regulations, ie the usa.

So it would cause massive health problems for small 3rd world countries and limit the production power of all major countries. What does that solve? sounds like a step back to me.

Re:Kyoto Protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is merely a feel good aspirational law.

Which happens to be backed up by the international scientific community

> You really should grow up.

s/grow up/embrace current economic system because there is nothing you can do to change it you little disgusting communist muahahhaha

Re:Kyoto Protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

By SOME of the internation community and denouced by an equal share on the other side!

There is so much uncertainty about GW, it's cause and it's affects, that going off the deep end really makes no sense. Kyoto is chicken little politics.

This should be modded up...

[TheCaptain]

He's making a point with logic instead of reacting emotionally. That is quite alot more scientific than much of the knee jerk environmentalism I've seen here so far, IMHO.

Your math is WAY off

[Tolvor]

Supposing that Earth was operating in a Gaia-ish fashion and needed to "lighten the load", 30000 human death just wouldn't cut it. The human population of Earth is 4.5 billion. Assuming an earth-average pop growth rate of 0.25% (I *know* that pop growth is *negative* in US, China, Japan, Britian, and parts of Africa, but Earth average is positive still) that means 11,250,000 new people on the planet every year (at a minimum). For just summer that would be 2,812,500, and *that* is just to break even. For a healthy die back for the planet, it has to exceed that value. 30,000 doesn't even begin to cut it. Earth needs a major (NON nuclear) war to break out between two large populations, inflicting heavy civilian casulaties. Hmmm... better not give it any ideas...

Re:Your math is WAY off

[Harmfulfreeradical]

30,000 is those dead because of the heatwave. I say, let's pull some figures together, and somehow botch up the figures to get the correct number of dead people. Hmmm...what else can we pin on 'her' :p ? No seriously now. This hyper-reactive, conscious earth idea is just that - an idea. I'm just trying to point to earth's ecology and how little credit we give it. We certainly are a burden, and there is a lot about our 'behaviour' that needs to change, but then again, we are part of that ecology. I understand that we have to be responsible about our role (maybe fossil fuels do need to go, I don't know yet), but at the end of the day, we can't crawl back and live in caves, which seems to be the direction a certain group of people want us to head to (given things I've read elsewhere).

Re:Your math is WAY off

[Spytap]

the human population is 6 billion actually...

Re:Your math is WAY off

[Anonymous Coward]

and population growth in the US is not negative...

http://www.npg.org/facts/uspopfax.htm/

Re:Your math is WAY off

[peacefinder]

(I *know* that pop growth is *negative* in US, China, Japan, Britian, and parts of Africa, but Earth average is positive still)

It's a pity that you didn't take the time to research this before spouting off. It's a good argument, but your numbers are way off. As another poster said, the population is well over 6 billion, and I'm pretty sure most every region you cite still has growing population... but the growth rates are falling and negative population growth is predicted.

Anyway, don't believe me. Here's a research tool for next time.

Total prohibition of carbon-based fuel coming?

[h00manist]

Given how it's more and more apparent that the cross between geopolitics and global economics are mostly producing a lot of procrastination in facing the pollution music, it's likely we'll at one point have an "carbon-caused temperature emergency", and all carbon-producing things will have be turned off, by law, or some other no-foresight way of trying to deal with the problem at the last minute, whether or not it works.

Suddenly bicycles, solar and wind power would be very popular, perhaps?

google build electric bicycle

Its easy

[grishknash]

The answer is simple, its called the precautionary principle. If you don't know what it will do then you better not mess it up in the first place. Too late!

Re:Its easy

[ChrisMaple]

This thing called civilization could be dangerous. Better not develop it.

Re:Its easy

[Anonymous Coward]

*Overdeveloping* civilisation, maybe.

Civilisation allows the general populace to live safer (see herding animals). So your counterpoint has a upside and a downside.

In this case:

Upside: Driving cars a long way to see friends
Downside: All my friends are dead.

Re:Its easy

[HuguesT]

Precisely. In the modern 20th century Western civilization we develop several independent ways to completely and utterly anihilate ourselves, something we never had before. Many have put a positive spin on it (no global war since) but others still believe that we are ultimately doomed.

Just like in the case of nuclear weapons where sanity has mostly prevailed so far despite a number of close calls, governments should be the entities with the power, clout and vision to do the right thing for the future, when individuals clearly cannot be expected to see beyond their immediate short term interests.

Some governments have tried and some haven't. It's not a matter of sacrificing anything. I don't see the countries of governmments who have ratified Kyoto and other international environmental protocols getting any poorer. On the contrary, they are now developing the means for them to become less oil dependent, something that will become increasingly more precious as time goes on.

Farts

[j0kkk3l]

Nah! You better stop farting first.

Best Case Reaction...

[Anonymous Coward]

At best this news is a cause for increased concern and attention. The idea that because we don't fully understand the situation we should do nothing and simply ignore it is absurd.

There is very strong evidence that since the industrial revolution we have significantly increased CO2 input into the ecosystem while at the same time reducing the capacity for CO2 to be locked away as carbon in the world's forests. Now whether or not this has yet had an effect on global temperatures, or will, is still a question to be discussed, although I personally think it almost certainly has.

Someone told me once that if the size of the average car in America were the same as the size of the average car in Europe, America would remove it's entire requirement for Saudi Arabian oil. Does anyone know if that's true?

What people seem to forget

[Illserve]

The earth's carbon sinks are not static in capacity. Everything is interlocked feedback cycles. As CO2 goes up, so too does the growth rate of all vegetation.

It is the naive simplicity of the mathematics used by many lay-men(and sometimes experts) in their discussions of climate change that cause me to seriously doubt their prediction.

Check out this web page for example
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/ articles/ 2_global_warming.htm

which tries to use *addition* to predict changes in CO2. We produce X billion tons, the amazon absorbs Y billion tons, net change is X-Y billion tons.

This approach is as hopelessly naive as trying to calculate the flight dynamics of the space shuttle with natural numbers.

That's just not how it works in a real dynamic system and alarmist crap like this only serves to push through ridiculous laws like Kyoto, the funding for which could bring food and water to a huge proportion of the third world instead of affecting some laughable 7% of the annual *human* CO2 output.

Get those people fed and industrialized, and they'll stop cutting down their own forests, start going to school, and add their share of brainpower to the world's thinktank.

Re:What people seem to forget

[dapulli]

Brilliant, put africa and south america through an industrial revolution and watch the co2 jump again just like the last one in the 1800s. They will still cut down forests because it's their natural resource.
At least Kyoto is there (178 member countries and counting), doing something about it. If the U.S. doesn't like it, is there anything stopping them doing a different version that they feel is right and leading the world that way, instead of just dismissing Kyoto and looking like they don't care whatever happens.

Re:What people seem to forget

[Analogy Man]

Get those people fed and industrialized, and they'll stop cutting down their own forests

True...and a noble gesture at that...but they will also want to live in bigger houses, drive automobiles, have more stuff, use more energy etc. We Americans use energy and natural resources at a much higher rate than subsistance farmers cutting down trees. Deforestation is a huge issue, but transforming a resource extraction economy for an industrial one does not necessarily have a net decrease in impact.

Re:What people seem to forget

[Illserve]

It does in the long run.

We're so pre-occupied with the next 10 years in all of these proposals, but realistically it's the next several decades/century that will really determine how the environment play out.

Kyoto is ignoring the real long term solution (elevate the third world to a well-fed and stable system that starts worrying about the environment instead of tomorrow's breakfast) in order to apply a feel good band-aide patch that will let us pat ourselves on the back.

Then when the real problems occur in 50 years in spite of such nearsighted efforts, we'll all be screaming "don't blame us, we implemented Kyoto, it's all the deforestation by slash& burn farming done by poor farmers in Brazil!"

I'm against Kyoto, but not because I don't care about the environment. Quite the contrary.

Re:What people seem to forget

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that you use the same incorrect "additive" reasoning that you mock earlier. If the funding for Kyoto were used to help the third world, I would bet that most of it would be wasted by bureaucracy and corruption.

Re:What people seem to forget

[Illserve]

That's an excellent point. But the same applies to the same money being applied to the environment, so it's not really a point we can worry about. Corruption just happens.

Re:What people seem to forget

[Analogy Man]

The problem with the modern slash and burn agriculture versus that of the last thousand years or so is that it is now done as an advancing front with development behind it. If a few acres are carved out of the middle of the forest and then abandonded (the practice in S. America for hundreds of years) the forest closes in the cleared area and life moves on.

Re:What people seem to forget

[llansamlet]

elevating the third world to be like us is causing the problem in the first place

I would suggest regressing some first world ideas and replace them with sustainable subsistence living rather than this never ending quest for the devouring of resources and pursuit of wealth

It's not small subsistence farmers that are chopping up the Amazon, it's loggers or cattle farms that will be shipping their produce half way around the world in order to feed our insatiable appetite.

Re:What people seem to forget

[tuxR0x]

Get those people fed and industrialized, and they'll stop cutting down their own forests, start going to school, and add their share of brainpower to the world's thinktank.

Shouldn't that read: "Get those people fed and industrialized, and they'll continue cutting down their own forests, start using motor vehicles extensivley, build coal fired power stations and generally add shit loads more CO2 to the atmoshphere"?

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[museumpeace]

well, maybe not yet. Way down in the middle of the artlcle (you all read it in full, of course;) it says:

Measurements of CO2 levels in Australia and at the south pole were slightly lower, he said, so it looked as though something unusual had occurred in the northern hemisphere.

Since the observatory from which the alarming data is drawn is roughly downwind from China and China has been identified as the source of increasing atmospheric soot loads deposited as far away as Oregon AND China's ramping industrial output [hey Walmart has a lot of shelves to fill] will have been putting ever more CO2 in the air, maybe the data are a bit atypical of the earth as a whole? Where's the model for the natural decay curve for a CO2 spike from a point source? The sky may be falling but the data are so damn hard to interpret.

Denial

[Sumocide]

Ok.

Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, regarded as far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point.

About Mauna Loa:

Rising gradually to more than 4 km above sea level, Mauna Loa is the largest volcano on our planet. Mauna Loa is among Earth's most active volcanoes, having erupted 33 times since its first well-documented historical eruption in 1843.
Through September, more than 580 earthquakes were centered beneath Mauna Loa's summit caldera and the adjacent part of the southwest rift zone. Such a concentrated number of deep LP earthquakes from this part of Mauna Loa is unprecedented, at least in our modern earthquake record dating back to the 1960s.

Spot the coincidence.

Ice Age warning!

[powerful_in_il]

Fools, we MUST heat the planet now, before we die from freezing cold! The sun is reaching a low point in it's cycle, and we are threatened with catastrophy from the coming Ice Age! Only mass-consumption of fossil fuels can generate enough CO2 to save us all from a fate worse than death!

NO MORE BIKINIS!

Aaaaaahhhhh, the pain, the PAIN!

the junk in junkscience.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Steven J. Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and a commentator on Fox News.

He has spent his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organisations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran NEPI (National Environmental Policy Institute) which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding. NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.

NEPI was also associated with the AQSC (Air Quality Standards Coalition) which was devoted to emasculating Clean Air laws. This organisation took up the cry of "we need sound science" from the chemical industry as a way to counter claims of pollution -- and Milloy became involved in what became known as the "sound-science" movement. Its most effective ploy was to label science not beneficial to the large funding corporations as "junk" -- and Milloy was one of its most effective lobbyists because he wrote well, and used humour (PJ O'Rourke was another -- but better!)

He joined Philip Morris's specialist-science/PR company APCO & Associates in 1992, working behind the scenes on a business venture known as "Issues Watch". By this time, APCO had been taken over and become a part of the world-wide Grey Marketing organisation, and so Milloy was able to use the international organisation as a feed source for services to corporations who had international problems.

Issues Watch bulletins were only given out to paying customers, so Milloy started for APCO the "Junkscience.com" web site, which gave him an outlet to attack health and environmental activists, and scientists who published findings not supportive of his client's businesses. Like most good PR it mixes some good, general criticism of science and science-reporting, with some outright distorted and manipulative pieces.

The Junkscience web site was supposedly run by a pseudo-grassroots organisation called TASSC (The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition), which initially paid ex-Governor Curruthers of New Mexico as a front. Milloy actually ran it from the back-room, and issued the press releases. Then when Curruthers resigned, Milloy started to call himself "Director" (Bonner Cohen - another of the same ilk also working for APCO - became "President")

Initially all of this was funded by Philip Morris, as part of their contributions to the distortion of tobacco science, but later they widened out the focus and introduced even more funding by establishing a coalition -- with energy, pharmaceutical, chemical companies. TASSC's funders include 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association,National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace, the asbestos and pesticide manufacturers.

TASSC was then exposed publicly as a fraud. And so Milloy established the "Citizens for the Integrity of Science" to take over the running of the Junkscience.com web site.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Steve n_J._Milloy

amazing what you find on the internets

Re:the junk in junkscience.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to read junkscience.com daily for months until I slowly realized it was full of shit. Some of the articles are great reads but it's basically a n anti-environmentalist site.

Re:the junk in junkscience.com

[Kohath]

All the data in the article is linked to. junkscience.com doesn't have satelites to take temperature measurements.

Follow the links. Go discredit those people too. Maybe Joe Camel owned the satelites.

When you can't argue the facts, smear someone with guilt-by-association. That's what environmentalism is all about.

Re:the junk in junkscience.com

[Dachannien]

I'll take Ad Hominem Arguments for $400, Trebek!

More BS

[jav1231]

Why is it that when these scientists concoct this "global warming" theory they are brilliant and yet when their numbers go completely wrong, they're still brilliant? I'm not saying humans haven't had an impact on the environment, but there is a lot of problems with the GW theory and the media just ignores it. I didn't read all of the posts, but I'm sure there's a Bush reference in here somewhere. This is crap. Keep in mind, people, scientists 20 years ago thought we were headed for a global chill within 50 years.

Re:More BS

[jav1231]

Flamebait? Of course, don't tip the sacred cow.

Warming also tied to orbit changes....

[dangineer]

In a recent National Geographic they say that the CO2 is rising, but the temperature changes through history (from ice cores and other things studied) show that temp changes over time are also tied to changes in the way the earth orbits and we are in one of those changes in orbit right now...

Just makes it a little more

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/index .html

Some one needs to do a sensitivity analysis on all these two.

Re:Warming also tied to orbit changes....

[azipsun]

Someone has. The print version of that issue of National Geographic includes a chart comparing the match between models that only consider human causes, those that only consider natural causes, and those that consider both. The best match with observations is the model that uses both.

Re:Warming also tied to orbit changes....

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

yes,

one factor we can't control.

the other we can control.

why do you advocate saying to hell with controlling CO2 simply because there are other factors we can't control?

why gaurantee a problem in place of maybe having a problem?

Re:Warming also tied to orbit changes....

[dangineer]

While I am probably just being bated here, I will say I advocate controlling CO2, wasn't saying we shouldn't. Just wanted to add to the debate by pointing out that CO2 isn't the only factor and its interesting....

I don't watch a lot of mainstream media, but what little I have seen rarely mentions points like orbit changes or what the first reply mentions 'that both are contributing' (I haven't had the chance to read the whole article)...just extreams on both sides that make good tv.

Re:Warming also tied to orbit changes....

[mahart]

The 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycle are both far too long to be noticed within our lifetime...

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Persepective.....

[acvh]

In 1998 the average concentration of CO2 in the atomosphere was 369ppm.

Fires and rot

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Decaying vegetable matter is a big CO2 source too. The interesting thing is that organic decay works faster when things are warmer (just like any chemical reaction). For an example, unplug your fridge.

Which creates positive feedback: the more the climate warms,the more CO2 goes into the atmosphere.

There are also some forms of negative feedback and other forms of positive feedback. Putting accurate numbers on them is hard. Getting numbers accurate enough for forecasts is really hard. That's why climatologists talk about ranges and probabilities, and is the reason they're truthful when they say they need more research funding.

Re:Fires and rot

[jadel]

Which creates positive feedback: the more the climate warms,the more CO2 goes into the atmosphere.

Increasing the rate of decay will cause a small spike in CO2 production levels but they will converge back to the original rate when the excess matter has been converted. The long term rate of CO2 production would be dependent on the amount of organic matter that is available for conversion.
Thats a transient, not positive feedback.

Getting numbers accurate enough for forecasts is really hard. That's why climatologists talk about ranges and probabilities, and is the reason they're truthful when they say they need more research funding.

I agree that climatology is a very important science, what really annoys me is when this:
From the Guardian article:

"I don't think an increase of 2 ppm for two years in a row is highly significant - there are climatic perturbations that can make this occur," he said. "But the absence of a known climatic event does make these years unusual.

A comment that they have recieved some odd readings and they are looking further into them turns into:
From the story introduction:

This raises the ugly possibility that the capacity of a large carbon sink (possibly the oceans) has been exceeded, and the worst-case scenario is that a tipping point has been reached and a runaway warming scenario is in progress.

You don't know what you're talking about

[Mr. Arbusto]

Evil Doer!

What if....

[rixster]

the current co2 level is around 400 ppm and is currently rising by approx 2ppm per year. Does that mean that in 499,800 years the whole planet will reach 1,000,000 ppm of Co2 and therefore just be a big ball of gas ?

or do I just not quite get it

With apologies to Mr Lehrer

[cardpuncher]

We will all go together, wait and see
Though the means still remains a mystery
We may drown or choke or stifle
So if you don't own a rifle
Throw yourself beneath your neigbour's SUV

Measuring CO2 levels from atop a Volcano is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever there is an environment or politcal topic, it seems that IQ levels drop by about 20 points.

Volcanos can discharge huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. They are measuring CO2 amounts from on top of a Volcano, located on a Volcanic island chain. Dumb ass environmentalists ( I won't use the term scientist) are stumped on how CO2 levels could have jumped high.
The Volcano farted.
Do a google on volcano co2 for additional info. Here is a random link I found.
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheet s/CO2/

Which proves you don't understand Global Warming

[thpr]

Your use of a graph of upper-atmospheric temperature vs. CO2 levels is deceptive. Even the National Academy thinks so. In fact, a decrease in temperature in the upper atmosphere is exactly what the global warming models predict.

The Naval Research Laboratory (and American Geophysical Union) say: "This decrease in density had been predicted by theoretical simulations of the upper atmosphere's response to increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." The decreased density leads to LOWER temperatures in the upper atmosphere. The full article is here

Ahh.. so we should trust the word of a man who

[slashdot_punk]

....has to rethink all the models of global warming.

Re:Probably...

[Red Rocket]

Seriously, isn't it time people realised that environmental studies is still a discipline in its infancy, and political action taken on the basis of a young science is irresponsible ?

Get with the program, dude. ALL our science is in its infancy. Environmental science is no different than any other science. There is uncertainty involved and if you're not comfortable with uncertainty then you're not likely to be able to understand and evaluate the value of scientific study. What you're arguing is for the elimination of science as a basis for the deployment of policy. That leaves us with only faith to go by. I prefer to use uncertain science as a basis for policy rather than certain faith.

Strawman arguments - now THAT's patriotic!

[TheCaptain]

Because not opposing the leadership surely means you just aren't thinking!

THAT movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, believe me, we'll see cows fly and mate with flying pigs sooner than that movie comes alive.

--Coder

true or not, does it matter?

[jonathanbutz]

Geological evidence suggests there were periods in the planet's history when CO2 levels were substantially higher than they are now.

The climate was warmer, and the planet overall appears to have been more productive as a result, spawning larger land creatures (average and maximum) and rain forests at higher latitudes.

Maybe this is just what we need to support our burgeoning population.

Re:true or not, does it matter?

[Urkki]

Our grand grand grand children might get the benefit. In the meanwhile, we and our children would be stuck in the middle of changing climate... Hurricanes of this summer would be childs play...

After the climate settles to a new balance, I wouldn't really be worried about overpopulation, not for a while at least...

Oh well, it'll be fun to wait and see... Do we get even worse hurricane summer next year, and even worse after that and so on, or was this just a fluke, and we'll have to wait decades for a next summer like this...

Re:true or not, does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Geological evidense shows that most of the life on the planet is dead.

Do we join them early?

Re:true or not, does it matter?

[ocmeking]

The only thing needed to support our burgeoning population is a massive vasectomy program.

Re:true or not, does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. Just look at that nice red line in the graph:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_P la nning/New_Data/

Flamebait?

[MrHanky]

Can someone please explain why my comment was modded flamebait after just a few minutes?

MOD PARENT UP

[thelexx]

I don't often go in for such cheerleading, but the parent post seriously needs to be modded up. A lot of people will be taking what junkscience.com at face value otherwise.

Global Warming May Be Natural Climate Change

[Prototerm]

I cannot find the link at this time, but the scientists who came up with the whole Global Warming research deliberately ignored years in the middle ages where the average temperature in Europe was a lot higher than it is today. Apparently, that data did not fit their theory, so they ignored it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that one of the more recent ice ages was caused by arctic ice melting into the Atlantic, the resulting rush of fresh water causing the warm waters of the Gulf Stream to sink. The glaciers started to move in after only 70 years (a short time in Geological terms).

So, it's possible that this whole warmup is natural, and we're actually heading for an ice age. Freeze or Broil, take you pick, everyone.

I wouldn't worry, though, we'll all be killed in the Nuclear War soon, anyway.

Re:Global Warming May Be Natural Climate Change

[Avumede]

Yeah, maybe none of the global warming scientists know that they are talking about. Perhaps they have all ignored very good evidence you have brought forward. In that case, the skeptics could easily write a paper blowing the lid off the whole deal and get it published in a presigious journal.

However, since that has not happened, and since I am not a climatoligist myself, I choose to believe the experts.

Doesn't this seem like a wise thing to do?

Re:Global Warming May Be Natural Climate Change

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Yes, you are totally right.

except for one little point.

That warm period in the middle ages ...

It's actually better known as:

THE LITTLE ICE AGE!

dumbass.

For 300 years in the middle ages, the temperature of Europe was far below normal.

In fact, the last decade has seen the highest average temperatures of the past several thousand years! It's all there in the tree ring studies, and in the Isotope studies of ice.

Go back to school, stop believing merely what you want to believe and look at the evidence put forth by thousands of scientists over the last few decades.

CO2 holds in heat. This is extremely easy to prove.

CO2 levels have increased by more than 50% since the industrial revolution.

Why don't you see a problem? ... simply because you can't see beyond your own short lifespan.

Re:Global Warming May Be Natural Climate Change

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure good papers have been written contradicting the dominant paradigm as it relates to climate change. Perhaps someone has written papers using some outside factor such as Sunspont cycles or Earth Axial tilt (a la Milankovitch Cycles) but it has not been published or if it has it is ignored. You seem to have some rather naive view of science that as soon as someone writes a paper directly contradicting the domianant paradigm, scientists who support the dominant paradigm immediately change position. But, anyone who has read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or who has paid attention to scientific history knows it simply doesn't work that way.

It would be the equivalent to papers coming out which directly contradict the Big Bang Theory (which have and are of good scholarship and sound science) but are they acknowledged? of course not, the dominant astronomical community will not tolerate anything that contradicts their dominant paradigm and will mock, suppress, or simply ignore those that go against the dominant theory, in this case The Big Bang Theory.

This argument dovetails rather nicely with something I found on Wikipedia just yesterday in reference to Special Relavitiy which stated in the introduction that since this theory is so well accepted any theories which contradict it must be due to unreproducable experimental error. This has only to do with the culture of acceptance (popularity contest) not the scientific method by which it is thought science progresses as we have been taught it does. The arrogance and ignorance in the aforementioned statement is profound, infact with thoughts like that I'm surprised scientific progress occurs at all.

Re:Global Warming May Be Natural Climate Change

[superyooser]

A religion does not cease to exist when it is discredited.

Re:Global Warming May Be Natural Climate Change

[Dun Malg]

I'm sure good papers have been written contradicting the dominant paradigm as it relates to climate change. Perhaps someone has written papers using some outside factor such as Sunspont cycles or Earth Axial tilt (a la Milankovitch Cycles) but it has not been published or if it has it is ignored. You seem to have some rather naive view of science that as soon as someone writes a paper directly contradicting the domianant paradigm, scientists who support the dominant paradigm immediately change position. But, anyone who has read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or who has paid attention to scientific history knows it simply doesn't work that way.

It would be the equivalent to papers coming out which directly contradict the Big Bang Theory (which have and are of good scholarship and sound science) but are they acknowledged? of course not, the dominant astronomical community will not tolerate anything that contradicts their dominant paradigm and will mock, suppress, or simply ignore those that go against the dominant theory, in this case The Big Bang Theory.

This argument dovetails rather nicely with something I found on Wikipedia just yesterday in reference to Special Relavitiy which stated in the introduction that since this theory is so well accepted any theories which contradict it must be due to unreproducable experimental error. This has only to do with the culture of acceptance (popularity contest) not the scientific method by which it is thought science progresses as we have been taught it does. The arrogance and ignorance in the aforementioned statement is profound, infact with thoughts like that I'm surprised scientific progress occurs at all.

It seems to me that frequently it takes the weight of a quite a bit of "unreproducable experimental error" to finally collapse the bulwark of belief.

Re:Global Warming May Be Natural Climate Change

[Dun Malg]

That warm period in the middle ages ... It's actually better known as: THE LITTLE ICE AGE!

I was under the impression that the Little Ice age followed the Medieval Warm Period. Why do you suggest that the "ice age" half of it is the only salient aspect of the two events? The fact that it got cold after it got hot doesn't change the fact that it got hot. Is this page for the Geology 150 course at the University of Southern California incorrect in metioning the two on equal footing? Are all these links when one googles "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period" wrong because they find the former as relevant as the latter?

This is just hype...

[Ingolfke]

If you read the article you'll see that these scientists are really saying they don't know WTF is going on, and they're using their ignorance to stir up the folks at Greenpeace. No doubt to raise more funding for their research.

And considering the DVD for The Day After Tomorrow comes out tomorrow I really have to question whether this is anything more than a well placed promotion.

Either way, global warming or not, call me when we're ready to start the looting.

Re:This is just hype...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Lovely fount of ignorance there - I'd suggest a browse through a few scientific journals, rather than "Guns & Ammo", might turn up more info on "these scientists". The article is NOT what you should be basing such a wide-reaching statement of - it's the proper paper you should read.

Re:This is just hype...

[Qrlx]

Wow, how arrogant.

Why, when you don't know WTF is going on, would you assume that everything is fine?

I suppose if you were the first doctor to see a case of AIDS, you would be like, Hmm, this is odd, but I can't really explain it, therefore it must not be a problem. Meanwhile, I'll cry the sky is falling, and line my pockets with grant money.

I realize there is more than a bit of levity to your post, but "using their ignorance to stir up the folks at Greenpeace?"

Let me ask you this: Do you believe it's in accord with the laws of chemistry or physics that we can keep adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere and not see any effects? Did you learn about buffered solutions when you were in Chemistry class? They retain their pH as additives push them one way or the other, but past a point the buffer breaks down and it begins changing its pH just like a regular solution would.

Re:This is just hype...

[WindBourne]

Sadly, I heard these same arguments back in the 60's.

Perhaps, you would like a drink of PCBs or perhaps a bit of ddt? They are perfectly safe and all the crap being raised by scientists is simply nonsense.

How about a cigarette? These are great for you and will help with your cough.

In my 45 years, I have found that when the overwhelming majority of scientists hold a belief, then it is way past time to think about doing something. As to the looting, well, I personally think that it started a while ago.

Re:This is just hype...

[roman_mir]

In the big schema of things is it really that bad? I would rather see dramatic decreases in economy now and for the next 20 years then find out that 10 years from now there will be no food and clean water left and that I will have to move south to just not get frozen to death and that I will have to wear a gas mask for the rest of my life while outside.

Re:This is just hype...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't know what is going on, then pray tell, how do you know which direction to go flying off the handle?

It is best to not do anything until you do know what is going on or you may make the problem a LOT WORSE.

Re:This is just hype...

[Qrlx]

Really? If we stopped dumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere that would make it worse?

How much knowledge do you need before you take action? Take the WMD claims and subsequent invasion of Iraq as an example.

Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by

[Doug Dante]

So, all of the models are now useless based on new data? Hmm.

"To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models." ( Michael Crichton)

Read his excellent lecture entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming

climate change or no, we could all waste less

[Tek Tekson]

Well even if we are really lucky and there is no relationship between climate change and pollution, we should still back off on the pollution.

It's just common sense. Don't shit where you eat, right?

This trend toward polarizing and over-simplifying every issue is really lame. I find it really scary when I see people validating their outrageous consumption levels with arguments like "global warming isn't real". Climate change is just one of many symptoms of industry's impact on this planet that anyone who is paying attention would notice.

Lets find ways to reduce waste soon. Everyone agreed? This is one of those things where "every little bit" does count and there is lots that you and me and the guy next door can do to effect real change. IMO anyone who won't even TRY to reduce their waste is a selfish moron.

Deserves every negative mod it got

[Gothmolly]

For posting Flamebait, and being European.

The chart starts in 1978 and only shows atmosphere

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Drill some ice cores, take the data back hundreds of thousands of years, and the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature is one of the tightest you'll ever see.

Pick a small subset of some noisy data and you can lose sight of the signal.

Humans are prejudiced to think in terms of atmospheric temperature, but most of the earth's life happens in the ocean or in soil. Temperatures there seem to be rising. Tropospheric temperature measured by satellite is not tracking the rest of the planet. All that proves is that we don't fully understand the climate system.

Since we don't fully understand the system, you can argue that major policy measures are a waste of effort. You could also argue that maybe we shouldn't run an unpredictable experiment like raising CO2 levels on a planet we're trying to use at the same time. Do you change tuning parameters at random on a production server?

BTW the junkscience.com article is mostly good.

Healthy skepticism would be to wonder whether higher temperatures caused greater CO2 levels, or whether they were both caused by something else.

Raw data has no bias

[piotr alfredovich]

The data provided is probably correct. What one might suspect is bias in favour of a conclusion that will result in increased funding for Mr. Keeling's activities. I have known far too many scholars to not suspect that most of these 'soft' sciences include heavy bias in favour of one side of the issue or the other. If anyone feels like having a quick go at the raw data, it can be found here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/GLOBALVIEW/gv/ As you will notice, the variations are rather large, some even to the point that one must suspect an anomaly local in nature. The variations are also seasonally variable. Might this just be part of a larger seasonal variation? Sun spots? Might a scientist secretly have taken up smoking? As it says in the article, the rise is not uniform across the globe, so it might just be local volcanic activity that sets the Mauna Loa meter off. Is this really data we want to use as a basis for banning fossil fuels? And even if the data correctly predicts rising CO2 levels, is the correlation between CO2 levels on Mauna Loa and global temperature reliable? And if it is, will we be able to substantially affect the outcome by using alternate (more expensive) fuels? And even more pertinent: Will China be in on the deal? One billion Chinese who are rapidly reaching the same levels of industrialization as the West might be reluctant to give up higher living standards for that warm, fuzzy feeling that alternate fuels give you. The advantage of this whole scheme would be that we wouldn't have to kill so many brown people when we don't need their oil anymore.

Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe all this crap, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.

Re:Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, where is a '-1, Stupid' when you need it?
An Anonymous Mod

Two paths

[crovira]

The first leads to complete anihilation while the other leads to utter destitution.

Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose well.

Re:Probably...

[TheCaptain]

Get with the program, dude. ALL our science is in its infancy.

Well...you made a statement that can't be proven wrong. It's slick, but misleading. Relative to the other branches of science, environmental sciences are very immature. For the record, what would qualify a branch of science as mature to you? That can't really be quantified in a meaningful way...it's all relative.

We've been dealing with mathematics, for a few thousand years now. We've been dealing with physics for at least several centuries. Metallurgy and chemistry goes back quite a long way as well. We've been studying the C02 levels in the atmosphere for a few decades at most...particularly since we have satellites to give us a better view of it.

The quantity of fuel we use...

[xxx_Birdman_xxx]

I often think about what happens to the petrol that is used by my car. At the moment, I'm a fairly light user of my car. But it doesn't take long to go through 10 litres of petrol.
Once that petrol has been used by the car, it has been converted into gases, and released into the atmosphere. Matter can't be destroyed, so it's not like the petrol was 'used up', it purely changes form, releasing energy. Secondly, a gas takes up a much much larger space than a liquid, and that liquid petrol is turned into gases (and water vapour, which I guess condenses eventually).
Cars burn thousands of litres in their lifetime, and there are millions of cars. I know the earth is huge, but the atmosphere is still finite. I live in relatively small city compared to others (Adelaide, Australia), yet there is often a morning haze over the city from people driving to work. The haze is caused by the exhaust from cars reacting with sunlight, etc... No-one seems to think that it's a problem as it eventually drifts away with the wind. Out of sight, out of mind. But the gasses are still up there!
The fact that we are not seeing more of a greenhouse/atmosphere problem I find amazing.

Re:The quantity of fuel we use...

[Trurl's Machine]

I often think about what happens to the petrol that is used by my car. At the moment, I'm a fairly light user of my car. But it doesn't take long to go through 10 litres of petrol.

Thinking this way you will lure yourself into madness. It's not just petrol, you know. If you drink milk or eat beef, you contribute to the greenhouse gas emission from cow's derriere. Ecologists claim that average beef-eater is responsible for 0.35 tonnes of greenhouse gases (as CO2 equivalent) a year, while each litre of burned petrol releases 2.5 kg of CO2. However if you start to think this way you get the inevitable result that in order to save the planet you have to commit suicide immediately - after all, you generate greenhouse gas every time you breathe (literally!).

True opposites

[Wills]

• "in 1978 we were told that we had less than 10 years worth of oil still in the ground? Since then we have learned quite the opposite."

I guess this is the opposite :-)

Re:True opposites

[Dun Malg]

"in 1978 we were told that we had less than 10 years worth of oil still in the ground? Since then we have learned quite the opposite."

I guess this is the opposite :-)

No, that would be more of the same "Peak Oil" crap, which relies upon the assumption that oil exists only down to a certain depth beneath the earth's surface in order to calculate "undiscovered reserves". The Russians are finding oil more than 40,000 feet deep. This, plus the fact that the theory that oil is a finite, depletable resource was formed in the mid-1700's and hasn't really changed since. Lot's of information to discredit Hubbert out there. Just depends on which side you choose to believe: the doomsday scenario, or one that doesn't conveniently ignore contradictory evidence.

Re:True opposites

[Wills]

• "relies upon the assumption that oil exists only down to a certain depth"

In what way does the theory of peak oil rely on this assumption?

• "the theory that oil is a finite, depletable resource was formed in the mid-1700's and hasn't really changed since."

Please give bibliographic details for published peer-reviewed journal papers that support the interesting hypothesis that oil is currently being renewed faster than it is being consumed.

• "Lot's of information [link to 7thfirewbsite] to discredit Hubbert out there."

I wouldn't trust a website like that one which is filled with unpleasant racist claims (links on right-hand side). Secondly, giving quotations from people and links to other like-minded websites is ok for just a webpage but it is not scientifically peer-validated evidence to support their hypothesis. If it was a serious article, there would be citations including full bibliographic data to peer-reviewed journal papers. The Economist, the New York Times, the New Scientist, fromthewildness.com may be great news sources but they are not peer-reviewed journals.

Global warming = Global BS!

[viper592]

Having been involved with the Oklahoma Anthropological Society the last several years; and we work closely with the Oklahoma Archeological Survey. I have learned that at least for Oklahoma the climate goes through dramatic changes about every 1000 yrs or so. I can also tell you from the archeological record there that Oklahoma is about 30 yrs over due for a Major Drought that will bring Sand dunes as far east as Oklahoma City. The point being the Earth goes through dramatic climate changes on a regularly scheduled basis. IE yes the earth is getting warming, but it is right on schedule doing so. Man Kind has little to do with it. Note: If you listen to NPR for news, well that just lets the rest of us know your political views. 1) Your a John Kerry Supporter 2) You hate George W Bush 3) You hate Capitalism 4) Vladamir Lenin is your Hero 5) Fidel Castro is your Uncle 6) Your so far to the left you couldn't see the right if you wanted too.

Re:Global warming = Global BS!

[Abies Bracteata]

How could someone involved with an anthropological society come off sounding so pig ignorant?

Oh.... waitaminute.... we are talking about the Oklahoma Anthropological society. That explains everything...

Re:Global warming = Global BS!

[Sand_Man]

Hmmm. Ok, so some Okie from the lauded Oklahoma Anthropological Society has it all figured out. Great, guess I don't have to worry anymore. From your post I gather that you have looked in detail at all aspects of this issue, and didn't go on a little treasure hunt for only those pieces of info that would support the opinion that you already formed.

FYI, I listen to NPR as one of my news sources. 1) I am unimpressed with Kerry 2) I am unimpressed with Bush 3) I am a Banker and
4)- 6) Make you look like an imbecile.

Re:Global warming = Global BS!

[dtfinch]

Yes, anyone who believes we shouldn't be ignorant of the possibility that we are messing up our environment is an irrational left wing commie. Like, we already know the world is going to end with the Apocalypse right? So even entertaining the idea that something else may contribute to our demise is just silly. Of course you'd be surprised what you can live through.

Re:Global warming = Global BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

and you're (NOT YOUR) an illiterate

You see? Here is the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If we make it a little faster, then we just eliminate ourselves as a species a little faster, something else will take over eventually."

You hear this kind of statement (or at least I have...) sometimes when talking about climate change. "climate varies over time" and "these things happen in earth's history naturally".

Man, who cares if it's a natuarl phenomenon if it still kills us dead? I don't give a crap who did or didn't CAUSE the global catastrophe. I just don't want it killin my ass off. "Humans are / aren't to blame" -- who cares?

Look - the goal here is to prevent me from being dead. Seriously. I just got married and my wife would be super pissed off if the world got all screwed up just after she got a hold of the plates she wanted. And I've made her pissed off a few times, trust me it's no good.

Perhaps the climate is fluctuating normally. Perhaps it's humanity doing it. Maybe all the cows farting in the fields are doing it. What we need is to try and figure out if we can control it. If we screw up the environment then my wife is just gonna start tearing around the country kicking people's asses.

Ask the Folks in Florida?

[bstadil]

If you ask the Florida folks that is being hit by ever increasing Hurricanes I would say Yes, but they indirectly decided to scrap the Kyoto accord so on balance I would say no it doesn't matter.

Global Warming Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

First, over 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor - not greenhouse gasses. While Carbon Dioxide is the largest contributor to the greenhouse gasses that make up the rest of the greenhouse effect, the human contribution to this is estimated somewhere between 0.2% and 0.3%. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol will have only about a 0.04% effect on the total greenhouse effect. Natural changes are much more significant.

Furthermore, the greenhouse effect is only one minor factor in the global warming equation. Bigger factors are due to precession and eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, changes in axis tilt, plate tectonics, and solar fluctuations. Global warming periods are a normal "feature" of our planet's life cycle, as are ice ages. If you want to have a real impact on global temperatures, you probably need to do something about that pesky gravity that's really causing all this havoc.

However, before you run off and stop global warming, you might want to reconsider. The Earth is about 5 thousand years overdue for it's next ice age...

Finally, realize that one man's science is another man's bunk. While it is true that many scientists are measuring increases in global temperatures, you should understand that this is based on a sampling methodology where temperatures are measured at various "accessible" sites, but not uniformly around the globe. An alternate scientific method uses satellite thermal imaging to measure the overall global temperature trends. Satellite measurements show that we are actually in a cooling trend. Who's science do you choose to believe???

There's a lot of good reasons to cut fossil fuel consumption, but global warming is probably not one of them. Plus, whether we are headed for a roast or the big chill, there's very little that we can do about it... In the immortal words of Douglas Adams... "Don't Panic!"

Re:Why worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to my foe list.

Then add him/her, you lazy ass. :-P

Still remember...

[cavac]

...that the US had i big war with Irak (and another with Afganistan) recently; more or less burning up those countries.

You know, burning oil pipelines and cities *do* produce some CO2.

Wonder if that has something to do with it?

I'll say it again...

[Anonymous Writer]

Like I said before, the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica collapsed in 2002, and exposed glaciers have had accellerated movements and melting. Could all this melted ice have affected the carbon sink capacity of the oceans, since this unexplained leap in CO2 coincidentally started around the same time?

Oh, and I just watched The Day After Tomorrow on DVD, and it was all about cataclysmic natural disasters, and the movie began with the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf. Coincidentally, I watched it after my previous post about the ice shelf, without knowing the movie was going to mention it. Kind of wierd.

Oh look, more demonization

[Anonymous Coward]

But I guess when that's all you have left to fight with, it's what you use.

Re:Oh look, more demonization

[Anonymous Coward]

You already have your perfect society; why should you care? I mean - 'till they start blowing up your skyscrapers?

Consider this...

[CiXeL]

Look at China's booming economy and their insatiable demand for oil driving rates up to insane levels and devouring all supply.

Either that or the ice hydrates in the ocean floor are beginning to thaw in which case we're all fucked.

*shits on self in fear*

Someone look that part up in Revelation where the oceans boil?

Re:Consider this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't find it in the bible. It's in the Qur'an though. The Day of Resurrection is depicted in the Qur'an as a most frightening day. O mankind! Fear your Lord! For the convulsion of the Hour (of Judgement) will be a thing most terrible. The Day you shall see it, every mother giving suck shall forget her suckling-babe, and every pregnant female shall drop her load (unformed). You shall see mankind as in a drunken riot, yet not drunk, but the dreadful will be the Chastisement of Allah. (22: 1-2) A description of the changes to the universe that will take place on the Day of Resurrection is given on more than an occasion. The following is one description: When the sun is folded up; when the stars lose their lustre; when the mountains vanish; when the she-camels, ten months with young, are left untended; when the wild beasts are herded together; when the oceans boil over with a swell; when souls are sorted out (being joined like with like); when the female infant buried alive is questioned for what crime she was killed; when the Scrolls are laid open; when the sky is unveiled; when the Blazing Fire is kindled to fierce heat; and when the Garden is brought near; then shall each soul know what it has put forward. (81:1-14)

Re:Consider this...

[jericho4.0]

Revelation 8:8

And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

Hmmmmm...obviously some chemical reaction we have not yet considered.

Re:Consider this...

[CiXeL]

cyanobacteria bloom. i get it in my 60 gallon reef tank all the time. its crimson just like blood and grows on the walls of the tank and the sand. its from too many nutrients in the water.

The cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe cowboy neal has been eating a lot of beans out on the range

Adding iron to the oceans... it doesn't work

[CJF]

> Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide
> spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2? It's
> viability was proved years ago?.

It has been tried recently. Despite what lab results may suggest, it turns out that in reality, adding iron salts to the sea removes less CO2 than is generated by the ship that is used to transport it... doesn't sound like a viable solution to me.

> Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?

Because they may in turn also have unexpected and undesirable consequences themselves, or indeed carry a risk that they may make things worse in the long run?

E.g. we could bury liquified CO2 in the oceans or in deep mines, as some oil executives suggest, only for it all to bubble up in a few decades time as the temperature rises, or because of natural landslips, leading to local suffocations and dramatic increases in global temperatures. (There are precedents with natural, underwater C02 and methane deposits in lakes in Africa, where entire towns and villages have been suffocated as a result.)

If your boat springs a leak, you fix it, you don't just install a bigger bilge pump.

Re:Adding iron to the oceans... it doesn't work

[SydShamino]

>> If your boat springs a leak, you fix it, you don't just install a bigger bilge pump.

Funny, because that's just what I was thinking New Orleans is going to do...

'The noble scientist' ROTFL

[Anonymous Coward]

"Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power. You go into science because you have a fundamental desire to understand the truth about the world we live in. "

You probably believe that North American aborigines were 'in touch with the land and mother earth' when in fact they killed and ate each other and gave the bones to their children to play with.

AND

That the porpise is a morally superior being, hiding it's intelligence while swimming free and suffering at the hand of man because long ago it abandoned the evils of technology to live a pure life, swimming in our planets beautiful oceans.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

Lawyers are not interested in money, they believe in the benefits of law and want to use it to make the world a better place.

Doctors are in it because they want to make the lives of the ill and injured better. Yes, that stripper with the Dupone(tm) 73 FFFFF chest is certainly better off for medicine.

Some scientists are in it for the greater knowledge. However, for many it's just another effing career and they are just as political, just as scheming, just as corrupt, and just as human, as the population they come from.

Do a little effing reading in the atmospheric sciences. Pay attention to the grants and contracts while you read. Look at who gets paid for what and then re-read with a critical eye and see how many are seeking evidence to support the idea of global warming rather than taking an objective view of the data.

If I spend my days looking for four leaf clover, talk about nothing but 4 leaf clover, and preach to the world that our milk supply may be threatened by 4 leaf clover, well then you might begin to think it's a problem.

More on trailers and trash

[Vintermann]

Um, it may be that you are indeed an "informed scientist" in some field, but if you expect this to influence our views, it's probably wise to trade your nickname, "Trailer Trash", for something more impressive, even though that would cost you your five-digit user ID...

Re:More on trailers and trash

[iNetRunner]

What? Maybe the influence of /. has improved his social standing since he got his id?-)

Re:More on trailers and trash

[spoonyfork]

What's the value of a five-digit user ID?

Re:More on trailers and trash

[VendingMenace]

this is exactly what is wrong with the world. People are more concerned with the NAME of the person saying something that with WHAT is being said and if it makes sense or not.

The parent's argument was totally valid and lucid. It matters not one iota what his username is.

I swear, (no sarcasm at all -- i am deadly serious). It is this mentality and the people that hold it that are responsible
for many of the worlds problems. When we can start thinking about what is said, rather than saying "oh, so and so said this, and his name has some letters after it." Then and only then will things start to improve around here

Re:More on trailers and trash

[vsprintf]

Um, it may be that you are indeed an "informed scientist" in some field, but if you expect this to influence our views, it's probably wise to trade your nickname, "Trailer Trash", for something more impressive

I work with people who actually have "Scientist" in their title. I'm constantly amazed at how people like an "Information Scientist" can be completely uninformed and have no clue as to scientific method. Whenever I see something from the Union of Concerned Scientists, I think about the ones I know who claim that title, and I give it all the respect it's due. The people who are really scientists don't usually wear it as a title. Trailer Trash, Engineer, Physicist, Chemist, whatever, they all work for me as long as the person is doing the job.

Re:More on trailers and trash

[Phil Wilkins]

Somewhere between zip, and fuck-all.

I blame the smokers

[whimdot]

I'll bet they just got a no-smoking policy in the building next to the CO2 detector, so folk are going outside to stand next to the detector to have a smoke.

neoliberal/neocon philosophy is bankrupt

[Cryofan]

When all you have is the demonization defense, you know you are intellectually bankrupt.

Of course, the neoliberals/neoconservatives would be the ones to know all about demonization--they are the ones that demonized socialism, leftism, keynesianism, the welfare state, liberals, labor unions, fair trade, etc etc....

Re:neoliberal/neocon philosophy is bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

When all you have is the demonization defense defense, you know you are regressively moronic.

How is pointing out that someone is attacking the person instead of the argument, "intellectually bankrupt"?? No, lets not call the blanket ad hominems "intellectually bankrupt", because we probably agree with those. Better to just take a swipe at the ones calling bullshit on the "argument".

Geezus.

Re:neoliberal/neocon philosophy is bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you call an argument intellectually bankrupt, and then use it yourself?

Re:neoliberal/neocon philosophy is bankrupt

[mefus]

It is an ad hominem to demonstrate the speaker or mover has a conflict of interest that renders any conclusions he may have suspect.

But, that is a valid argument just the same.

Re:neoliberal/neocon philosophy is bankrupt

[mefus]

...I should add that this is valid when the speaker or mover is creating a controversy calling in question the conclusions make by experts in the field whose intent merely supports the status quo.

Not looking good for Florida

[asdren]

^^nuff said

Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're wrong, we're all dead. If the global warming people are wrong, we're all OK. Which would you prefer?

Yeah. That's right. Better safe than sorry. Don't fuck with the earth dude, you don't know what the hell you're talking about

Sure, we don't know what Normal levels are. But what if you're wrong, and the normal level IS a stable level. Then we're fucked.

We cannot claim to have altered the cycles. Therefore, we cannot claim that we can claim that we have not affected the cycles.

You see, it goes both ways. You can't just say "Oh yeah, we don't know if we affect the cycles" without also saying "We don't know if we don't affect the cycles."

That's why your argument is so much bullshit.

Nuclear Bombs

[obiquity]

Scientists are often right at predicting physical outcomes. Who'd have thought that all that "relativity" mumbo jumbo actually worked? Of course it did for atomic theory and nuclear bombs? When people criticize scientific "theories" for being useless because "they are just theories" I can't help but think of atomic theory and the politicization of science. When science is politicized, as it was with Nuclear physics, (and as it is now with Climate), disasters occur.

OBQT

Speaking of politicization of science:
http://scientistsandengineersforchange.org/index.p hp

Crying wolf

[kid_wonder]

I don't know s**t about science, or the atmosphere or anything else related to this CO2 level thing. But I can tell you this: I am tired of hearing all these cries from scientists about global warming and CO2 levels, and all this other stuff.

First, if I remember correctly from grade school, humans have been on this planet for an very small fraction of the earths "life", so how can they even pretend to assume they have any clue what is going on here?

Second, a decade here or there does not a trend make - especially when you are talking about such a huge amount of time.

Can't someone just say, "This is weird, the CO2 levels have risen quite a bit but we have no idea what that means, we'll have to watch it over the next 100 years to see what happens"

Oh, and for those of you who are going to tell me: "We have to be cautious, and make sure we don't harm the planet" I say, If the planet doesn't like what we're doing we will be killed off - perhaps along with all other life as well - and the planet will slowly move back to an equilibrium. Done deal.

Re:Crying wolf

[Vintermann]

"First, if I remember correctly from grade school, humans have been on this planet for an very small fraction of the earths "life", so how can they even pretend to assume they have any clue what is going on here?"

This argument could be used against most science.

There are just so many posts like this in this thread. Are really so many slashdotters global warming deniers? No one reads Deltoid?

Suprisingly many of you also have low user IDs. This may say something about the initial audience of slashdot, or it might, it just possibly, very unlikely of course, possibly imply that there is some astroturfing going on with bought IDs. To see if I can verify or deny either hypothesis, I'm placing all of you five-digits GW deniers into my enemies list. It's nothing personal, it's just to remember so I can check it up later. Bye.

Re:Crying wolf

[kid_wonder]

This argument could be used against most science.

Wrong! Science is supposed to be provable and reproducable. None of the conclusions of the glabal warming crowd are provable, period. In fact, in my opinion, there is more proof that this may be one of the planets "cycles" - e.g. ice age style environment changes.


Are really so many slashdotters global warming deniers?

No one is denying global warming, in general. I have seen the data and I agree that over the past decades the average earth temperature has risen slightly. I disagree with the conclusions that anyone has reached based on this.

I would suggest another reason for your /.ers observation: We are intelligent and thoughtful so we do not listen to whatever crap comes out of someones mouth. We tend to be thinkers and problem solvers, which allows us to see alternatives to generally accepted answers and solutions. Basically, we are not sheep - unless we're being anti-MSFT - we think for ourselves and take everything with a grain of salt. I would also argue that this is much more true for the early adopters of /.

Slashthink at work

[Illserve]

There's an overwhelming amount of biased moderation going on in thread, more than is usual even for a global warming debate.

Can mods please stop shooting down well written and insightful arguments from the other side? What are you afraid of? being convinced?

Re:Slashthink at work

[advocate_one]

yup, and there are some mods who have had a sense of humour failure...

Man's destruction will release a LOT of CO2

[jbash]

The carbon dioxide that the vegetation sank into its cells will be liberated by the death of those biomes. And since a lot of this vegetation is burned for fuel, that release will be quicker than it would in the absence of human activity.

The tundra is releasing huge amounts of methane and carbon dioxide now, from microbial processes. Plus, as the oceans warm up, increasing amounts of methane gas are released as the molecular methane bound in methane clathrate ices is freed by melting. Just to give an idea of how this is changing the atmosphere now, Summer temperatures at the North Pole were 15F warmer than normal -- just a few weeks ago.

Right now, these newly-active natural sources of GHGs (Greenhouse Gasses) may exceed the amount of industrial GHGs being produced. The process is certainly self-reinforcing, and the feedback loop is now fully established.

It's no longer a matter of turning off lights and buying hybrid cars. Global Warming will not stop until the natural mechanisms now producing it stop. We should manage the energy sources we have as best we can, but there's nothing we can do about climate any time soon.

Since the time that the Earth formed a crust, the planet has been bi-stable in terms of climate: either hot or cold, stadial or glacial. The balance has been seriously threatened about half a dozen times, AFAIK: During the early Proterozoic "Iceball Earth" episode 2.3 BYA; during the pre-Cambrian Vendian period, 900-600 MYA, 4 glacial epochs; and during the Permian extinction (251 MYA). Why the climate recovered, I don't know, but it did. But this time, if we keep pushing the atmosphere with increasing amounts of waste heat and heat-trapping GHGs, we could push it beyond its ability to recover at all. No one knows what that point is, but within a few centuries of it starting, the surface of the Earth would be too hot to support life.

We started the ball rolling, but now it's gotten beyond our control. If we survive this era, I hope our decendants learn not to do what we have done.

Rise in C02 explained: GWB envirnoment policy

[LordKazan]

The rise in CO2 is because GWB's disasterous policies - his "clean air" iniatives set 'target levels' but mandated no _enforced_ levels, infact it repealed enforcement of almost all clean air standards from previous administrations.

What about this?

[rpgguy76]

The hole in the ozone layer has actually SHRUNK 20% from last year. More evidence that the scientist do no fully understand the ecosystem enough to make alarmist predictions.

The proof: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1147332004 /

Re:What about this?

[cens0r]

You do realize that CO2 and the hole in the ozone layer are two unrelated things, right?

Re:What about this?

[tenco]

A thinner ozon layer let more solar energy get through and more CO2 in the atmosphere keeps more energy stuck to the earth. So, if we're talking about the greenhouse effect here, this seems like a relation, doesn't it?

Re:What about this?

[rpgguy76]

You do realize that CO2 and the hole in the ozone layer are two unrelated things, right?

Yes, but when sheeple start spouting off that "The World Is Going To End Any Day Now(tm)" all because of Global Warming(tm), I felt obliged to point out this article I read last week. I have a hard time believing all of these "experts" especially when they can't even accurately predict tomorrows weather....or heck even if it's going to rain latter tonight.

Re:What about this?

[cens0r]

There is a fundamental difference between long term and short term prediction. It was easy for scientists to predict a few weeks ago that Mt. St. Helens was going to errupt soon. They had know idea exactly when or how big it was going to be. Climatology is different than meterology. Climatology is based on long term models which use the best data we have now. Meterology is based of prediciting weather patterns based on what we see now.

Where do you live that they can't predict the weather tomorrow? I have found that the prediction of weather here on the west coast completly sucks and is wrong more often than it is right. However, growing up in Oklahoma, they were usually spot on and got better with each passing year. When there was a tornado or severe storm they could tell you down to the minute when it would pass a specific intersection.

Re:What about this?

[rpgguy76]

Climatology is based on long term models which use the best data we have now

That's pretty much my point right there. For both climatology and meterology, I don't think we have enough data points to make consistently accurate and dependable projections. We need more data. The weather can be foracasted a couple of days in advance with semi-reasonable accuracy. Even then, though, they are not always correct. Like this past weekend it was supposed to rain. Did it? Nope, just cloudy all weekend. I long for the day when, like in Back to the Future II, they could predict down to the second how long the rain would last.

As for predicting when a storm is going to hit certain areas at specific times that's easy enough to do....Speed/Time.

/end rambling

Election season!

[jeephistorian]

Its obvious that the candidates are causing this! You think all that hot air is good for the world?

la la la la la... everything is fine...

[fforw]

The global warming pundits insist that they must ordinarily be constant. That's fairly unlikely; there appear (in the small amount of data we have collected over the past few decades) to be complicated cycles at work. We do not understand those cycles. Therefore we cannot claim to have altered them.

a) there are methods to determine CO2 concentration for a lot more than "a few decades" Ice Core drilling for example provides us with data about the last 200.000 years

b) Even if it's not as bad as the leading climate scientists tell us, it's no reason to say "hey.. all is fine. let's waste energy and blow as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can."

If we don't know for sure it would be a good policy to be cautious.

Re:la la la la la... everything is fine...

[CounterZer0]

Is that 200 years with 6 significant digits?

Re:la la la la la... everything is fine...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Ice Core drilling for example provides us with data about the last 200.000 years

Curiously, 200K years ago, like now, is in the Ice Age(s), when temperatures were much lower than the mean since mammals became dominant, much less the much longer periods preceding in which mammals were a minor part of the biosphere.

The million (trillion?) dollar question is: "Can we stop Climate Change?", not "should we?". The evidence is that the climate changes. And that the last 10,000 years has had a particularly nice climate.

It is likely that any climate change will be for the worse, but do we really know enough to hold the climate at the recent ideal, much less have the power to do so?

Re:la la la la la... everything is fine...

[fforw]

no.. 2*10^5 in my culturally preferred formatting.

Because this is an american site

[Anonymous Coward]

And your comment was anti-Corporate, anti-American, EcoTerrorist and all that stuff. Why oh why do you hate america?

Occam's Razor

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

The simplest explanation is probably true, or one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

Therefore, let me suggest that the increase in CO2 is due to increased emissions due to THIS discussion over the past several years

Re:Probably...

[haxor.dk]

"Get with the program, dude. ALL our science is in its infancy. Environmental science is no different than any other science."

Nonsense. I can mention (at least) one science that is so successful and complete that it has almost destroyed itself in terms of academic achievement: Particle physics.

Furthermore, you didn't address my point - is taking (political) action on basis of flawed data and models responsible ?

Re:*sigh* *sigh* *sigh*

[Vintermann]

IF scientists IN field_of_expertize THEN
'widely accepted amongst scientists' == science,

usually.

There are no problems in the world today.

[schmaltz]

Deny, deny, deny.

I voted green last election, but...

[xutopia]

this raise in CO2 could be attributed to the numerous forest fires in the last 3 years (in the chronological order I remember France, Spain, Portugal, Canada and the US). My guess is this isn't some CO2 coming from the sea or the great tundra just yet. Mind you I'd be looking out for that soon.

Of course anomalous amounts of forest fires could be due to lower than average rain falls, which could be due to polution and heat creation something nature could do without.

right

[DrSkwid]

just being honest

I don't need to be a carpenter to know when the table is broken.

How do you prove a tipping point?

[HangingChad]

Tipping point? Proof, please?

How do you prove a tipping point in a complex system? If you're looking strictly at statistical variations from the norm in a complex system the variations in any one element prior to calmity can be quite small initially. It's a little like trying to predict the butterfly effect.

I certainly wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 4 ppm increase as insignificant because it falls within the range of monthly variations. If that turns out to be a sustainable average increase the previous author's suggestion that our first real indication of trouble could be plans to relocate Miami are not inconceivable.

I'd also remind you that it wasn't that long ago that the suggestion of the scientifically valid possibility that the Earth could experience an extinction event caused by a giant rock falling out of the sky would have not only been ridiculed by their fellow scientists, but the author might well have been burned as a heretic.

Re:Probably...

[Red Rocket]

I can mention (at least) one science that is so successful and complete that it has almost destroyed itself in terms of academic achievement: Particle physics.

And a hundred years from now (assuming we don't destroy ourselves with our certainty) particle physics will be completely unrecognizable to a current practitioner were they able to examine it. Drop your bluster and free yourself from your temporal bias.

Furthermore, you didn't address my point - is taking (political) action on basis of flawed data and models responsible ?

See what you did there? You used a loaded word ("flawed") to describe current science. By your use of the word, life itself would be considered "flawed" because it is filled with uncertainty. It's as impossible to remove all uncertainty from science as it is to remove it from life itself. Use some wisdom instead of twisted rhetoric.

warm fuzzy feeling when you say that, huh?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Someone will be along soon to tell us that this is all part of a natural progression and we have nothing to worry about and to all go back to driving 5.0 SUVs as we can't hope to understand the climate and so figures are irrelevant and its not are fault etc etc etc. I wonder how many of these people STILL have their heads in the sand after this?

It just makes you feel *so* smart and superior to type that, doesn't it?

Hate to penetrate your smugness, but we still don't understand the dynamic systems of climate. And unless you were typing that on some sort of birch bark, nuclear powered computer (hey, no CO2!) you might want to tone down the superiority complex.

Do you have any ideas, other than lousy, inequitable treaties, or full-of-it smugness?

Re: warm fuzzy feeling when you say that, huh?

[Viol8]

Aww , did I hit a nerve? Tough. And its nothing to do with being smug , its to do with not screwing up the climate. No doubt you're the typical "How dare anyone tell me what to do , I'll do what I damn well please and fuck anyone or anything else until I have 100% proof that my SUV causes problems."

"Do you have any ideas, other than lousy, inequitable treaties, or full-of-it smugness?"

Well , lets see , umm , how about fuel efficient cars? You know , the ones europeans and japanese manage to drive? How about general energy conservation wrt electricity usage? How about less forest destruction? Etc. Its not hard. Well , not for most people , you could be an exception.

"It just makes you feel *so* smart and superior to type that, doesn't it?"

Anyone could feel superior to someone like you. Thanks for unwittingly proving my point btw.

Junk science it is...

[Vintermann]

Tim Lambert has a good article on your source.

Human contributed to increased CO2 levels

[Anonymous Coward]

We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere

Actually, we don't. We do not have an accurate record of what 'normal' CO2 levels are, so we cannot even say *if* CO2 levels have increased.

Actually we do. While it is true that we don't know exactly what normal levels of CO2 are, we have some pretty strong evidence that we're about as high or more likely even higher than it has been in the last 1/2 million years. Even ignoring that, we can still detect the influence that humans have made on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Where the evidence? Look at the cosmic rays. They are continually produding C13 and C14 at the edge of our atmosphere. This carbon also gets mixed into the carbon cycle, going in and out of available sinks. Lets just assume for now that fossil fuels were created several millions of years ago. The C13 locked in at that time has all but disappeared because C13 decays relatively quickly. So what happens if the to the relative amount of C13 in CO2 as we burn up C13-depleted fossil fuel. Bingo. Less C13 in the atmosphere. Set against any changes in the cosmic ray background, it's a done deal. It has been measured, and it is a simple undeniable fact that humans burning fossil fuels are increasingly responsible for at least part of the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Here's a nice carbon cycle explanation for anyone who's interested http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEAWIFS/LIVING_OCEAN/ TEACHER4.html] A google will throw up lot's of information about C13 and C14. (The latter can also used as evidence to bolster the measurements.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not seeing the forrest for the trees?

[Pseud0]

Quote from Dr. Piers Foster of Reading University: 'If this is a rate change, of course it will be very significant. It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all our global warming predictions for the next hundred years or so will have to be redone.

Because him having to recalculate his models is the biggest concern, I'm sure!

Dear lord...

[warrax_666]

How could they not?

So what you're saying is: "They've increased because they must have". That's a great argument.

We've come up with many many ways to pump out more of it, and we weren't doing that a few hundred years ago. The planet puts out CO2 on its own, and now we are adding to that, so of course levels are going to be higher now than they used to be.

I think you missed the logic train. "We put out a lot of CO2" does not in any way, shape, or form mean that "The global level of CO2 is increasing because of us". There may be natural fluctuations which we are nowhere close to understanding and which would completely automatically dwarf anything put of by humans.

Re:Dear lord...

[Feanturi]

Those natural fluctuations are going to happen with or without us. But they are fluctuations, happening over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years and then shifting to something else. What we output to the atmosphere is continuous, and on the rise. I do not understand how logic is absent here. If we all disappeared suddenly, like if aliens came and beamed us all onto their mothership for cattle, it is likely that all the crap we've got in the air right now would be nicely absorbed and dealt with, and the planet continues merrily on its way. But that's if we stop RIGHT NOW. What's to say that another 50 years of our continuous and increasing output isn't going to tip the system right on its ass? We might find out that, while our total amount of contribution is small compared to the natural processes, it may also be much faster in its movement, and that can be a real problem in a system that is accustomed to more gradual change.

Re:Why worse?

[StrawberryFrog]

An unanticipated change in CO2 = "things are worse" ?

As far as warning of C02 emissions go, an unanticipated leap in CO2 = "things are worse", oh yes. Read the title, if nothing else.

And you can't spell

So I have a job and was called to a meeting before I had time to proofread, big deal.

And the 'some of us' comment, clearly Flamebait, its one of the cheapest ad hominem attacks that there is.

Grow some thicker skin, dude. I was thinking of people who study ecosystems full-time. No, I'm not one of them. A statement such as "the ecosystem is a bit more complex than any of us realize" is virtually meaningless, unless you know everyone.

And you're European. Welcome to my foe list.

If that's your criterion, grow up.

New England being cooler does not void the facts

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up in Pennsylvania and now live in Connecticut. It is true we've had a few cool years. Global warming projections specifically point out that some areas will cool - at lest for a while.

If you take the time to examine weather patterns, you will notice that New England is not getting the Jetstream southern dip effect lately. This means the stream is not dipping into the tropics (Gulf of Mexico) and up the east coast. This is why we are cooler.

You'd also notice that the west continues to be unusually hot and dry. You'd have to be under a rather large rock to not have seen the massive forest fires throughout the west in the last five years or so. This year, they started in May, when the usual expected period starts in August.

Our oil-coal-nuclear-timber industry run government is responding to these fires by "thinning the forests". That is, logging wild forests nowhere near communities. Brilliant.

You'd also notice that the weather pattens are pushing warm air into the arctic. Guess what? If you push warm air into the arctic, where does the cold air go? - SOUTH!!! In this case, into northeastern United States.

We here in the U.S. of A. need to take our collective heads out of our extremely fat asses and take a look around. Stop listenning to soundbites from our government and start researching the truth (or lies) behind them.

To our friends across the globe, I can only reassure you that we the people of North America are not all clueless, but we do seem to be powerless in a democracy that is going awry, and awash in Orwellian newspeak. I am truely frightenned for our country.

RE: Umm... in a word, no

[King_TJ]

Following your logic, we'd be restricted from doing almost *anything* - based on the simplistic concept of "Well, we never had a problem with item X before people started doing item Y - so let's seriously investigate stopping item X!"

It seems fairly obvious to me that the planet is still operating just fine. The only "signs of a problem" we've received are some scientists spouting *theories* based on watching numbers changing by a few parts per million.

Meanwhile, just as many scientists are arguing counter-theories cancelling those theories out. This hardly sounds like "cause for alarm" to me.

We've already spent many millions on reducing CO2 emissions at power plants, among other places - and yet nobody seems to be able to show evidence of any improvements from it.

Which idiot?

[Rufosx]

We get to choose between 2 idiots this year. I sure wish we had a better choice too.

Re:Why worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can't spell. And you're European.

So, while we're on the subject of flamebait and cheap ad hominem attacks...

I've got an idea which can reduce CO2 emissions

[lukestuts]

Basically, everyone in China holds their breath for as long as they can. Sorted!

The Guardian

[peterpi]

It should be pointed out to non-UK readers that The Guardian is incredibly anti-Bush.

I'm not saying that this proves anything, but it's worth keeping in mind as you read the article.

Re:The Guardian

[djmurdoch]

It may be anti-Bush, but it's generally a reasonably good paper. (Maybe those are effect and cause?)

Unfortunately, like other newspapers, it's not very good on science. They don't even provide a plot of the CO2 levels, or the history of the year-over-year rises. If you plot the data (available online, as another reader posted), it's clear that the last two years aren't particularly unusual.

Re:The Guardian

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

It should be pointed out the the USA ...

ALL THE WORLD IS ANTI-BUSH

It's only you american dumbasses that haven't opened your eyes to see what he's doing to your formerly great nation.

Re:The Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought just about everyone in the UK was "anti-bush". Just about every film I've seen that came out of the UK makes us look at the "willies" of English actors. We prefer bush in the US. Too much time under Thatcher's control?

Re:The Guardian

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

troll!

hahaha

truth hurts, better pound the guy down with a troll rating!

hahahahahaha

damn im glad im not you.

Gee, maybe the fire is too hot?

[yungblud]

http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm I'm sure someone will post that this guy is a nazi and on the payroll of 20 'evil' corporations...

Re:You see? Here is the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly, but do you really think it is going to happen in the next 80 years?

Spaceship fuel biproduct is CO2?

[tonsofpcs]

If any form of spaceship fuel creates CO2 when combusted, the X-Prize may be to blame. And now they're gonna have a new 'XPrize Cup' every year!

Ansari X Prize

It doesn't matter at this point

[Edmund Blackadder]

Even if the icecaps melt and the earth gets flooded, people would still say "I don't think we have enough evidence" and "The earth used to be this hot a billion years ago, so stop complaining" and "These scientists are just trying to get more research funding", and "It's just a natural phenomenon we can't do anything about it"

It is amazing how people will ignore the whole scientific community in favor of several more pleasant sounding lies told by opportunistic politicians.

Re:It doesn't matter at this point

[TheSync]

Between 6500 and 3500 B.C. (the "Holocene Maximum"), earth average temperature was much 62 F, much warmer than today, and close to what global warming models project for the Earth by 2100.

The most striking fact is that it was during this period that the Agricultural Revolution began in the Middle East, laying the foundation for civilization.

Re:It doesn't matter at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is amazing how people will ignore the whole scientific community in favor of several more pleasant sounding lies told by opportunistic politicians"

You are confused. It is only a "relatively" small segment of the relevant "scientific community" that even agree that global warming has been demonstrated. Most of those scientists believe the human contribution to global warming is insignificant. About an equal segment feels that the evidence actually shows that we are in a cooling trend. However, the larger segment of the relevant scientific community feels that we do not have adequate models to understand the issue.

Just because it seems like a noble cause, and just because it seems like there are some people with supporting scientific evidence, doesn't make it true.

Dude, you seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

need a Humour Transplant.

Re:Dude, you seriously

[DrSkwid]

to match your expectations ?

should I also partake in your 'dude' affectation ?

Alright Who Farted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some jerk, a pumper* probably, farted near one of the sensors.


*A pumper is someone who likes to put an airhose in his ass, usually a bicycle pump and fills his intestinal tract with air.

Looting?

[Azureflare]

This is not something to joke about. Sure, you may think they are doing a lot of handwaving, but my impression is that they are saying this is very unusual and we need to study it. They don't know anything about it because they've never seen it before.

Unlike you and many of the American population who demonize science and those who follow it, I trust these scientists to follow the scientific method and monitor the situation of the world.

This is not a joking issue. This is serious. It is not an issue where we should be panicking and running around like chickens with their heads cut off. This needs reasoned thought and we need to listen to the people who are capable of it.

Sadly, most of the population of the United States is incapable of calm reasoning and sound logic (ha, when was the last time that was taught in public schools?)

Just because it tells you something you don't want to believe doesn't make it untrue, or unimportant.

I still find it amazing that science has gone from being worshipped in the '50s to being demonized in the 21st century. It's cool to be the bully, but not to be the geek...

P.S. The Day After Tomorrow was a total flop and no amount of handwaving is going to get people to buy it.

Re:Looting?

[TachyonAT]

I can see why you might get defensive about people implying that scientists think they know everything, but i think this guy was just kidding.

I would also like to point out that whenever someone criticizes science they are immediately labeled as a religious nut and ignored. I think pure science is a great thing but i think many scientists either do not stick to it, or they allow funding or their own opinions to cloud it. Fortunately thats why we have people record their data and experiments so others can check them.

While it is true that science is based on looking at we don't know and trying to investigate it, there are some 'scientists' who really do think they know everything. That doesn't say anything bad about science, just people. People can be arrogant. Take a look around here and i'm sure you can come to that conclusion yourself

Re:Looting?

[Illserve]

Agreed.

Science is not a pure discipline, and is greatly affected by political influence, exerted through funding schemes.

Right now, Global warming is the popular opinion, and because of this, there's a huge bias towards pro-global warming research. You can get away with publishing awfully specious results as long as they say the right thing. But publish an anti-Warming article, and it will have to pass far more stringent test.

Re:Looting?

[Abies Bracteata]

But publish an anti-Warming article, and it will have to pass far more stringent test.

You mean, stringent tests like this?

Stringent tests indeed... Only in a global-warming denier publication could someone screw up degrees vs. radians conversions and still get published.

You global-warming deniers are as pathetic as creationists.

Re:Looting?

[tomcode]

The Day After Tomorrow was crap. But there is no way to make an interesting movie about the real effects of climate change. Scuba trip to New Orleans? Florida an uninhabited storm-buffer? California coastline moved twenty miles east? Children learning about Venice in history class? A bunch of island countries we never heard of are gone? That's just not Hollywood.

Crying wolf.

[warrax_666]

I think a large part of the problem is that people have been crying wolf for a long time. After a while you just tune out... and so they have to shout louder which just makes people tune out even quicker...

(Not that I don't agree with the ridiculousness of the whole SUV-thing in the US. It just amazes me how many people actually seem to see it as some sort badge of honour. "I pollute *this* much!")

Re:Crying wolf.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Not that I don't agree with the ridiculousness of the whole SUV-thing in the US. It just amazes me how many people actually seem to see it as some sort badge of honour. "I pollute *this* much!")

Absolutely. Now try using a phrase like "begs the question" and see how many people counter-argue "I misuse existing language *this* much!" Dare to be stupid, baby.

Tired of being told off by people who are right, some seek to be as wrong as possible. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Given two pieces of information, one is chosen...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1324379,00.html

-------
Information piece ONE:

Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, regarded as far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point.

In recent decades CO2 increased on average by 1.5 parts per million (ppm) a year because of the amount of oil, coal and gas burnt, but has now jumped to more than 2 ppm in 2002 and 2003.
------------

-------
Information piece TWO:

Peter Cox, head of the Carbon Cycle Group at the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Change, said the increase in carbon dioxide was not uniform across the globe.

Measurements of CO2 levels in Australia and at the south pole were slightly lower, he said, so it looked as though something unusual had occurred in the northern hemisphere.
-----------------

Our first piece of information is that CO2 levels have gone remarkably up at one observatory. Our second piece of information is that CO2 levels have gone slightly down at two other observatories.

How come that everyone exclaims information piece 1 as "the big news"? How come that people discuss information piece 1 to the exclusion of information piece 2?

Most interestingly, which guidelines do newspapers follow when selecting which information piece to base a headline on? Are these guidelines publically available?

Your predictions have to be redone?!

[automatic wombat]

It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all our global warming predictions for the next hundred years or so will have to be redone.
Redone, redone! The world is ending (according to the dire media predictions) and you're worried about having to redo your prediction of when it happens?

Cry Wolf

[yipper]

People ignore the "scientific community" because they have been desensitized by the steady stream of dire predictions that appear in the press. In addition, the remedies recommended are always some way-out impossibility. Stop driving your car to work, stop eating, stop breathing.

p.s. the ozone hole is smaller this year. too bad nobody saw fit to put that in the newspaper.

Re:Cry Wolf

[Edmund Blackadder]

"p.s. the ozone hole is smaller this year. too bad nobody saw fit to put that in the newspaper."

Which surely happened because the industrialized countries stopped using ozone damaging substances. It was a rare case where they actually did listen to the scientists.

Re:Cry Wolf

[yipper]

I would surely like to see a graph of global ozone damaging substance use vs. ozone hole size.

I don't suppose you have one in your back pocket?

Oh puh-lease

[windermere]

4 years of a dazzlingly stupid drunkard (okay, I know he's just stupid, but he seems drunk) at the helm of the world's largest polluting country, arrogant flouting of the Kyoto protocol... who can honestly be surprised that we've seen a leap in CO2 levels!

We are all gonna die

[Anonymous Coward]

'bout fucking time. Speaking of fucking. Since we are going to all die because of global warming, it's time to get laid.

probably is warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Scripps did a study of microbe skeletons in ocean floor layers. From the skelitcal remains they showed that indeed there is more co2 in the atmosphere today than in the past. The graph was very cyclical with peaks of the same magnitude for thousands of years. The chart shows a spike beginning at the industrial revolution that is larger than all the preceeding peaks on the chart. They took core samples off the coast of south america.

I think its the problem is a rate game. The rate that the environment can process back the co2. eg. acid rain reacts with the earths surface. Or acid reacts with all the metal in the sea sand or other materials like lime. ( stick a magnet in the sand ) If the production rate is higher then we have accumulation.

16 of the 20 most polluting cities are in China. I saw an article yesterday that France signed a multibillion dollar deal with China to build industrial equipment. They were going to invite president Chirac to an airshow. But they had to cancel the airshow because the atmosphere was at a toxic level. Most people were told to stay indoors. Most of that c02 comes from chinese peasants burning coal pallets to stay warm. Most of the new Chinese cars have low emissions standards. Also, the massive demand in China is driving up commodity prices like oil.

Re:probably is warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I stopped reading after your atrocious spelling of (I think) "skeletal". Look, if you can't be bothered to check basic shit like that, why should I believe anything else?

What is the Libertarian view?

[Qrlx]

My question is simple: How many of the people saying "No conclusive proof means stay the course" are Libertarians?

And how many of the people saying "No, wait a minute, perhaps human activity is the problem" are Libertarians?

I'm very curious to know if Libertarians are more apt to think that manmade CO2 emissions are a problem or aren't.

I don't understand Libertarianism at all and this is just an attempt to get a better understanding of you creatures.

Losing Florida, and other great Warming benefits!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I agree that Global Warming could be beneficial. While we may lose some cool places like lower Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco, etc. we will also have the great benefit of losing Hollywood and Florida.

If only Utah were near the coast, then I would buy a Hummer and commute 50 miles to work everyday just to hasten that great day!

Basic biology...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, it all balances out.

More CO2 means more plantlife growing that will give off O2.

This just more of the same old, "The sky is falling!" crap that we hear year after year without much consideration for the bigger picture.

Re:Basic biology...

[cruachan]

Nope. It's waaay more complex than that, including which photosynthetic cycle your plant uses (C4 or C3). Also above a certain C02 level plants open their stomata less and CO2 conxumption actually drops

Re:Basic biology...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also if it is warmer during the wimnter, we won't need to burn as much fossil fuels to stay warm.
(even if your house is heated by electricity, its most likely generated from a power plant fired by coal or natural gas.)

What really amazes me about this issue...

[amper]

Is that no one who seems to be speaking out about the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the possible effects on the "global warming" phenomenon seems to think about the issue in a truly critical manner.

For one thing, I personally don't believe that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide is really having all that much effect. I think the CO2 issue is merely a symptom of what is actually causing the average temperature to rise.

Here's the kicker--why is it that no one really seems to be talking about all the waste heat that the human species tosses into the environment as a direct result of our ever-increasing consumption of energy in all its forms?

The Kyoto Treaty was *not* the answer. That's why the US effectively pulled out. No long term solution to global warming can be effective if the rapidly expaning economies of countries like China and India do not accept the same committments we do. Yes, right now the US consumes more. That will not be true for very much longer. While the US does, indeed, need to reduce it's per capita consumption, we all need to make sure that no other country ever even approaches current US levels of consumption. This, of course, does not sit well with developing nations, but perhaps they should be more concerned about learning lessons from American failures than trying to duplicate American excesses.

Look, a modern Hummer engine puts out less emissions than much smaller engines of yesteryear. But it still produces an amazing amount of waste heat!

We cannot ignore this issue any longer. The only answer is, we need to stop using so much damned energy!

Yes, right now, the US is the biggest problem--and the US's problem will be particularly difficult to solve, given the profligate nature of most US citizens. It is sad to see that in a time when the US needs the help of the global community the most, the Bush Administration has chosen to erode our moral position even further by squandering much of the trust we have been able to build in the world.

None of this is to say that carbon dioxide does not contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the environment--but CO2 is not a source of heat, and the environment's ability to cope with increased levels of CO2 is very great. The real problem is that we've created a positive feedback loop here--more energy consumption causes more heat and more CO2, more CO2 helps trap more heat, especially from a heat source which we cannot control. Reducing consumption *will* reduce CO2. Reducing CO2 without reducing consumption will not have enough of an effect to matter.

Technology cannot solve this problem. Conservation is the only answer.

PS: I apologize for my lack of ability to produce a subscript...but there's only so many times I can type "carbon dioxide" without getting bored, and you know what I mean...
.

Re:What really amazes me about this issue...

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Wow, the ignorance is amazing!

Kyoto may not have been a solution, but it was a start. The USA DID NOT stay out because Kyoto was lacking in effectiveness, they stayed out purely to take advantage of not being restricted by it while other countries actually tried to do something positive. ... as an economic advantage to the USA while the rest of the world took a hit to try to improve things.

Bush is an oil man. Bush has intentionally done everything in his power as president to ensure he keeps making lots of oil profits. He would never support ANY proposal that harms his oil profits. The actions he has taken have succeeded fully ... Thanks to BUSH destabilizing the oil markets with false fears, and restricting world oil supplies by invading Iraq, the price of oil has MORE THAN DOUBLED in the last 4 years!!!!

Bush has fought to stop an attempt to mandate an increase in mileage of new cars federally. This 3mpg target would have saved 3 times more oil for the US than has historically been imported from Iraq, .... this is also 6 times more oil than could possibly be pumped by raping and pillaging that World Heritage Park in Alaska.

Bush SUED california to force them to stop trying to increase car fuel efficiency.

Bush lept at the chance to use 911 as a tool to keep you constantly scared, to destabilize the world oil markets over constant 'fears' over oil supply. .. and you fell for it, hook line and sinker.

Bush has kept Iraqi oil off the markets. .. the real reason for invading Iraq, not to take the oil, but to restrict it. (WMD's? what WMD's? ... Iraq didn't even have any of the chemical weapons left that YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT GAVE THEM to use against Iran!)

Bush didn't just give a few billion dollars to Hydrogen research a year or so ago, in the very same spending bill, he gave 17 Billion to subsidise US oil companies!

Bush's administration has removed all references to the possibility of global warming from all federal websites, and forced 'unbiased' government scientists to come up with new results when their work showed evidence for global warming.

Bush has placed oil industry people in every 'unbiased' scientific commitee that has investigated the topic of global warming.

Wake up you damn fools!

He has done it all for his own profit, while you sit there saying please please screw me some more!

Re:What really amazes me about this issue...

[amper]

I really hate to burst your bubble here, but you seem to have pidgeon-holed me as a Bush supporter.

In fact, I despise what George W. Bush and his so-called "administration" have done to our nation, with about 50% of the voting populace as willing accomplices.

Check your facts--it wasn't Bush who let Kyoto die. Al Gore was naive in believing that US participation in Kyoto would ever be effective without considering the much greater import of the long-term effects of industrialization in the developing world. You did notice that the populations of India and China both exceed 1 billion, didn't you?

The two of those countries combined have a population about 7 times that of the US. You think things are bad now? Wait 20-40 years. The rest of the world would very much like to enjoy the same standard of living we have here in the US, and they are not going to let a little thing like Kyoto stop them from acheiving it.

That's what killed Kyoto.

You say:

Kyoto may not have been a solution, but it was a start. The USA DID NOT stay out because Kyoto was lacking in effectiveness, they stayed out purely to take advantage of not being restricted by it while other countries actually tried to do something positive. ... as an economic advantage to the USA while the rest of the world took a hit to try to improve things.

But in fact, the "rest of the world" was not willing to "take a hit". Look, we've been through this before--would the world have been better off if the US had unilaterally disarmed in the 20th Century? Somehow, I doubt it. You may like the idea of Maoist China running the show or maybe even India (what with it's internal religious conflicts, not to mention the Kashmiri problem with Pakistan that threatens to turn a large portion of the subcontinent into a radioactive glass bowl) having the upper hand. I don't.

The US isn't perfect. Far from it! I'll be the first to admit we have some critical problems to solve here, not least of which is energy policy, but the US is a damn sight better than anything that's come before or anything else on the horizon.

We need to stop focusing so much on Bush and his neo-con insane clown posse and start thinking seriously about how to change our lives on a fundamental basis in a responsible manner without upsetting the apple cart so much that we create a power vacuum.

The very fact that you place so much emphasis on "hydrogen research" shows, IMO, that you have very little understanding of energy science. Hydrogen is not a source of energy--it may make a halfway-decent battery system, but that's about it.

There is only one correct answer. Stop using so much energy. This goes for everyone, not just the US. I'm fairly confident that future history will bear this out.
.

Re:What really amazes me about this issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with most everything you said up to:

"There is only one correct answer. Stop using so much energy"...

Maybe you meant "Stop wasting so much energy".

Re:What really amazes me about this issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

> But in fact, the "rest of the world" was not willing to "take a hit"

Let's see, you're the world's superpower and you contribute roughly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, but you're not willing to "take a hit?" However, you expect developing and improverished countries to "take a hit?"

I'd counter your other points, but I'd prefer not waste the energy.

Re:What really amazes me about this issue...

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Hey fool,

I passingly mentioned hydrogen, pointing out how Bush is manipulating you into thinking he supports it when he sent 5 times more funding to subsidise the oil industry in the very same spending bill that funds hydrogen research.

And,

Hydrogen is an excellent source of fuel for far more than just 'batteries' .. (you do realize dont you that a fuel cell is not a battery?)

The problem is generating the hydrogen without consuming all kinds of greenhouse gas producing fuels (hmmm could it be that bush likes hydrogen because it will take oil to make it?). Oh and theres that little problem of not being able to easily confine and transport hydrogen safely.

Your reasoning basically states that in 20 years the world will be cooked anyways, so why the hell should anyone do anything.

Ya, thats logical. Throw the world away so your kids have nothing because the world will end anyways. ... oh wait thats another Bush way of thinking as he is a strong believer in the Book of Revelations.

The point is that Kyoto was a START.

If you can't bring yourself to start to solve the problem, then do us all a favour and cook yourself now.

Re:What really amazes me about this issue...

[amper]

Sorry, but Bush hasn't manipulated *me* into thinking anything...perhaps you've missed my signature on these posts? It seems to me that Bush has manipulated you into losing your faculties.

And, BTW, you've invalidated your own point about fuel cells. Fuel cells don't spontaneously appear, or spontaneously fill themselves with hydrogen. We have to free the hydrogen from other sources, like water or fossil fuels--which takes energy and will never be 100% efficient. Which brings up the point--why not just burn the fossil fuels directly? Assuming that mass conversion of hydrogen can be done more efficiently than individual usage of fossil fuels, and assuming that the storage/transport issues are contained, then hey, I'm all for it.

In the meantime, it looks like forced-induction, direct injection diesel engines are the wave of the future, now that we can construct efficient particulate filters to deal with the soot. I wonder if all those people out there driving Toyota and Honda hybrids realize that VW has been selling a Lupo in the EU that gets even better mileage...and I wonder why we don't have anything better than a 1.9L TDI here.

And no, my reasoning doesn't state "that in 20 years the world will be cooked anyways, so why the hell should anyone do anything", what it states is that if we don't *all* stop using/wasting so much energy, the world *will* eventually cook. We can do something to prevent this and we should--but I think that global disruption is a more immediate danger.

You want to start solving the problem? Stop wasting energy on pointless rhetoric and:

1. Use less energy.
2. Vote your conscience.
3. Convince other people to do the same.
4. Be prepared.

Have a nice day.
.

Re:What really amazes me about this issue...

[amper]

No, actually I *did* mean "stop using so much energy". Energy that is easily available is a finite resource, and no conversion of energy from one form to another will ever be 100% efficient (thank you Sir Issac), so any energy use will inevitably cause some amount of waste.

As the industrialized poulation of the world grows larger, energy usage will grow. We need to bring the per-capita usage down to a managable level. The US is the prime example--our per-capita usage is grossly higher than the per-capita of the rest of the world, and that's not particularly easy to justify.

I will agree that as the biggest consumers, we need to lead the charge toward conservation--but not at the expense of global stability. Hey, I don't oppose the *idea* of the Kyoto Treaty, just that particular implementation.
.

Re:What really amazes me about this issue...

[amper]

Might I inquire as to the nation in which you reside?

I never said that the US was unwilling to conserve (though certainly many US citizens are not so willing), but that the energy usage of the developing world will very shortly outpace that of the US. After all, we do only have about 300 million people here...as compared to 2 billion plus for China and India combined--two countries who are well on the way to consuming more energy than the US, even if their per-capita rate is currently far below ours.

Imagine what would happen if those two countries were to use energy at the same rate the US does today (as they are well on their way to doing)? How would you feel about the US increasing it's energy consumption seven-fold? I suspect you'd be a bit unhappy about that (as would I). Are you suggesting that it's OK for the rest of the world, but not for the US? Is this some sort of revenge fantasy you have?

We've got a pretty comfortable standard of living here in the US, and don't have any problem understanding that other peoples might want the same. However, they (and we) need to understand that our standard of living is supported by an extremely profligate use of energy, and this is not a healthy thing, nor should any other nation aspire to such profligate heights.

President Clinton took a lot of criticism for suggesting this very thing to the Chinese. Those of us in the US who are of somewhat greatr than average understanding can accept that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in suggesting this, but remember, this *is* a democratic republic of 300 million or so people, and policy doesn't change here at the drop of a hat. It takes time to get enough people to realize that there's a problem and even more time to motivate them to do something about it.
.

Single data point on a volcanic island

[foldedspace]

The data comes from a single source on a volcanic island (Hawaii). http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html http://www.essc.psu.edu/cgi-bin/essc.cgi?news&leth al_italian_co2&index.html Gee, I wonder where that CO2 could have come from. I also wonder how much money they get for that grant. Have there been any studies of CO2 levels in thick forests for 40 years? What about large cities?

A lot of the people that don't want to believe in "Global Warming" aren't against the idea that the Earth is increasing in temperature, just that humans have a measurable impact on it. We are insignificant compared to the natural processes of the planet alone. The temperature on a geological timeline moved up and down "A LOT" (technical term) and since we've been running around with R12 and chain saws it's been pretty stable. But, it's way too soon to say, oh yeah WE doomed the planet... Everybody hold your breath and read your Junior Skeptic magazine or plant a tree or something. ;)

Whew....its about time....

[cbdavis]

The end of the world has arrived. And its about time. I was getting bored waiting for it. Hurricanes, volcanos, Supermans death,all portent the end of our time.

The rational explanation

[EmagGeek]

Uhh, wouldn't the scientifically responsible thing to do before publishing this fearmongering tripe have been to go MEASURE the CO2 in the ocean to see if indeed it has absorbed as much as it can?

Here's what is likely causing the increase in CO2:

1) China is consuming oil and burning it as fast as they possibly can.
2) The world economy is picking up, which naturally causes the world to need more energy, which it gets most of from burning fossil fuels
3) Massive wildfires have contributed massive amounts of CO2, albeit temporarily, while at the same time reducing the amount of plant life to absorb it. (this will negate itself when the plants grow back)

All of these have happened in the last two years, especially #1, that could easily explain a quick spike in CO2 levels. Scientists are not supposed to jump to conclusions.

Speaking of reliable measuring points, FTFA:

"Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, regarded as far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point. "

Uhhh, isn't a volcano a huge source of CO2? It's there an active volcano somewhere in hawaii? Did they look at any possible shifts in the prevailing winds that might bring in CO2 from another source?

Also FTFA:

"It is possible that this is merely a reflection of natural events like previous peaks in the rate, but it is also possible that it is the beginning of a natural process unprecedented in the record."

Uhhh, isn't this a completely speculative non-statement? It's also possible that aliens have dropped a CO2 bomb somewhere on the planet in order to suffocate us and take over. It's also possible that monkey are about to fly out of my ass at hypersonic speeds. Of course, part of the scientific process is speculating as to why things happen, but this is just pointed fearmongering.

"Dr Keeling said since there was no sign of a dramatic increase in the amount of fossil fuels being burnt in 2002 and 2003, the rise "could be a weakening of the Earth's carbon sinks, associated with the world warming, as part of a climate change feedback mechanism. It is a cause for concern'."

This is a blatant LIE. The price of oil would not be twice what it was 3 years ago if demand had not increased dramatically. As with any economic upturn, energy consumption NECESSARILY increases. Ergo, more fossile fuels MUST be consumed to generate that energy.

Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College London, and a former special adviser to the former Tory environment minister John Gummer, warned: "We're watching the clock and the clock is beginning to tick faster, like it seems to before a bomb goes off."

More blatant fearmongering. There is no scientific evidence to support any of the things they are trying to scare you with.

The article FINALLY starts to make some sense after the point which most modern ADHD people would have stopped reading:

Measurements of CO2 levels in Australia and at the south pole were slightly lower, he said, so it looked as though something unusual had occurred in the northern hemisphere.

"My guess is that there were extra forest fires in the northern hemisphere, and particularly a very hot summer in Europe," Dr Cox said. "This led to a die-back in vegetation and an increase in release of carbon from the soil, rather than more growing plants taking carbon out of the atmosphere, which is usually the case in summer."

Finally some speculation that is direct, and could make sense with the proper research, stating some SPECIFIC possible causes rather than just "oh this could be very very bad!"

So, after pages of FUD on "global warming," the article finally closes with a spurt instead of a bang:

"Based on those two years alone I would say it was too soon to say that a new trend has been established, but it warrants close scrutiny."

well DUH... talk about people just trying to get published somewhere...

Jeez...

Re:Probably...

[StrawberryFrog]

political action taken on the basis of a young science is irresponsible ?

And political inaction on the basis of "well hey, it might not happen" is what exactly?

Re:More on sinks - ano reference

[whimdot]

I came across the same quote, concerning the relative efficiency of modern trains and cars in a telegraph article. Sorry, free registration required.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xm l= /opinion/2004/10/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004 /10/11/ixportal.html

Here in Northern Oregon

[PotatoHead]

the weather has been interesting. Very warm summers, but more extreme winters. (How does that play into the picture?)

My 80 year old Grandmother has an interesting take having to do with cycles. She does not see anything different yet, unless the current cycle does not end...

She says it works on about 11 year swings.

I know, not scientific, but I thought her perspective interesting. (Yes, we did talk about this 'whole dang global warmin thing' a while back. She is old, but still very interesting to talk to. Her favorite new tech: Cell Phones and VCR +. Does not use the computer at all however. "Why bother when you can just call?"

My own take is that we don't really have a good picture of our environmental trends yet. For all we know, we could just be living in a brief (on cosmic scale timelines) period of stability that we have little control over. Of course common sense says burning lots of things combined with the diminished forests has got to do something...

Guess I am just rambling this morning --need coffee... I don't see a warming trend, but I do see greater temp. extremes similar to those about 10 years ago here. (Hmmm.. maybe grammy might be right)

Re:Here in Northern Oregon

[dragonbutt]

"She says it works on about 11 year swings"

sounds like sun spot cycles

Re:Here in Northern Oregon

[PotatoHead]

Yeah, that is what I think too. Anyway, it was a pretty cool observation from grannie.

Get real...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh know the world is going to end.

Get a grip on reality. The planet has been here alot longer than all of us and it will be here even after we are long gone. This global warming stuff is just alot of FUD by some scientists that want the spot light. Just look at the history and you will fine that the planet has gone thru far worse cases than abuse by us humans.

Re:Get real...

[SumoRoach]

True. The ice ages are a natural part of the global cycle. But it sure would be nice if we didn't make it so that our grandchildren would endure it rather than our great great great great grandchildren.

Unknowns

[12357bd]

Maybe that CO2 increment could be related to the Global Dimming effect.
IANACE (climate expert) but two unknows happening at the same time, on the same subject (atmos)...

Kyoto Alliance

[lotho brandybuck]

Perhaps the Kyoto Alliance should excercise a preemptive right to defend itself against the United States.

We've got bigger problems than "terrorism" and "perscription drugs" (all of which will go generic in about 20 yrs.) I wish we had visionary leadership that would deal with the real problems we've got. I am sick that we have to import oil from the Saudis, decently efficient cars from Japan, and get our nuclear fuel reprocessed in France. And hitchhike our way to the spacestation on Russian rockets. We've gone from the scientific leaders of the planet to a bunch of sissified head-in-the sand consumers.

Or maybe it's just Monday.

And then there's the DOWNWARD spiral.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

His conclusion that the warming of the planet will greatly accelerate the release of carbon from the soil, which in turn, will warm the planet, which in turn will release more carbon from the soil. As you can see, he predicts a nasty spiral.

One way to drastically drop the carbon level is to seed the southern Pacific ocean with small amounts of iron. This has been shown to cause an algae bloom, drastically increasing the sinking of CO2 from the air. (A major fraction of the algae die without being eaten and sink, taking the carbon with them to the deep ocean where it sits for millenia until the sluggish currents bring it to an upwelling.)

If we have a runaway we can try using this to turn it around. Attempting to fine-tune the carbon content of the atmosphere with it now risks the opposite spiral and a new ice age:

- Carbon sink lowers the C02 level and greenhouse effect.
- CO2 drop produces global cooling.
- Cooling results in more glaciation on Antarctica and the polar extremes of the other continents.
- Sequestered water and cooler temperatures reduce rainfall.
- Reduced rainfall expands deserts.
- Expanded deserts result in more dust in the atmosphere, including iron and other micronutrients.
- Some of this dust falls in the ocean, reenforcing and expanding the algae blooms.

There is currently some question as to whether this, rather than (just) solar cycles or continental drift modifying weather cycles, is the cause of ice ages.

One concern about the readings

[Anonymous Coward]

article says: "Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, regarded as far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point."

Well perhaps Mauna Loa is no longer "far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point." I'd like to know what's changed in that area in the last two years...

Take the long view.

[ghjm]

1. We aren't likely to destroy a planet. At most, we're going to change its atmospheric composition and climate to the point where it is no longer a viable environment for many of its current species, including ours. However, more than likely we will continue to thrive as a species, and will merely be forced to operate at a lower level of technology, and/or in a different geographic range.

2. Most people who are concerned about global warming are also concerned about the global dominance of America, oil companies, and so forth. These interests vitally depend the current geographic range of the human species, and its current social behaviors including the use of technology.

3. Problem solved. Just wait.

Now, if you are concerned about your own prospects as a competitive individual within the species, you should consider what the change in range and/or climate is likely to do to you, and plan appropriately (since you, uniquely or at least ultimately among species, have that capacity).

-Graham

Cause? I think I found it!

[fitten]

Hmmm.... Sudden rise in CO2 in the atmosphere... start of the USA Presidential election campaigns... I think I see something here...

Me too!

[KontinMonet]

Amazing coincidence! I'm a 'computer' scientist and informed and I'm convinced from all my research into the subject that we are on a course with disaster. Any other scientists care to comment?

Re:Me too!

[BrokenHalo]

Any other scientists care to comment?

Yep. I spent many (many) years in computing as a sysprog, but I got a bit of an awakening when I went back to school to study biotechnology, and found out (almost for the first time) what the scientific method was.

Computer Science is not science.

Given that I'm now over 40, I spent enough years working with computers to come to regard the discipline (such as it is) of computer science as being an accretion of currently trendy concepts. I'm sorry if that seems excessively cynical, but that's how I've come to feel about it.

FUD spreading

[Anonymous Coward]

This is of course just FUD. From the tones of the article, the scientific incorrectness, powered by frightening language trying to cover the fact that the data shown just is not so different than what we're collecting since years, it should be clear that this is FUD.

This is not to say that climate should not be studied more in depth to discover the real links between CO2 levels, human population, global and local temperature changes, etc, but as for now very little is known, and very little is certain about all these links.

The problem to find causes and consequences in climate study is really hard so beware of "this is the answer / this is the evil cause" assertions.

Just my 2c.

DONATE TO GREEPEACE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there's a book by that name, too. All the CO2 alarmist stuff is actually pretty decent, in my opinion. I'd rather see us not using oil from any other countries (or "energy" in general). I guess they need the money for funding all their advertisement, so we should all donate to Greenpeace.

We'll do just like in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

Launch the solar shade!!

One data point?

[AnotherBlackHat]

Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, regarded as far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point.

Did they check with any of the other CO2 monitoring stations in the world?

If they did, then why didn't they mention that?

And if the didn't, then why should I believe it?

-- Should you believe authority without question?

south americans burning rainforests seem concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

but probably not as concerned as the chinese...

B52's

[Tablizer]

Now the B52's can sing "My own private Venus".

John Charles Has A Masters Degree....

[Anonymous Coward]

In Public Administration!

I'd like to see an honest

[Firethorn]

Me want balance sheet showing relative costs per megawatt and availability for various power systems.
Include figures for the costs of waste disposal and penalties for any pollution.

1. Nuclear power with intelligent safety requirements & regulations. Preferably breeder. The certification process needs to be streamlined.
2. Solar (limited areas. At my latitude I get something like a third of the light that florida gets).
3. Wind - Limited areas & seasons
4. Tidal - Coastal, marine life affected by mass deployment?
5. Geo-Thermal- Limited areas
6. Hydro-Electric-Limited areas, already tapped out
7. Natural Gas- Running out faster than oil
8. Oil - Seen the prices lately?
9. Coal - Dirty.

No monthly swing greater than 2.53 ppm

[Somegeek]

I imported the data from the table that you linked into a spreadsheet and calculated each of the absolute month to month differences.

There were no month to month variations greater than 2.53 ppm, let alone 4!

Where did you come up with the data that "4 ppm would be a normal monthly swing?"

Summary:
Over 500 months of valid data.
Only 35 months >= 2.0 ppm month to month variation.
Only 2 months > 2.5 ppm month to month variation.

Top ten greatest month to month variations (in ppm):

aug-sep 1983 2.53
jul-aug 2002 2.53
jul-aug 1995 2.44
jul-aug 1965 2.34
jul-aug 1999 2.33
aug-sep 1997 2.32
aug-sep 1999 2.31
jul-aug 1960 2.27
jul-aug 1982 2.24
jul-aug 1989 2.23
jul-aug 2003 2.12

Re:No monthly swing greater than 2.53 ppm

[Anonymous Coward]

lots of good vintage wine in those years

Re:No monthly swing greater than 2.53 ppm

[djmurdoch]

The typical year has a swing from winter to summer of around 5 or 6 ppm. Didn't you plot the series and see that?

Re:No monthly swing greater than 2.53 ppm

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you weren't paying attention when he said "monthly" differences. That means the difference from one month to the next month. Last time I checked there's a 6 month difference between summer and winter.

I pray that you aren't actually involved in the computer industry, because such a blatant lack of insight is scary, in such a way that I'd be suspect of any employer that would hire you, much less any product you might produce. Hopefully, you're still in school, where there's some minute chance that you could be taught to think.

Re:No monthly swing greater than 2.53 ppm

[djmurdoch]

Nice try, AC.

Specious reasoning

[Illserve]

They take the data from here:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vo st ok.co2.gif

Which are extrapolated atmospheric CO2 measurements from the ice core in Antarctica, and then tack on the modern CO2 measurements from the actual atmosphere in a different climate.

That they don't even mention the caveats of this dangerously speculative merging of incompatible data sets makes it clear that they are more worried about convincing you than finding the truth.

The two methodologies (trapped CO2 measurement in ice vs CO2 measurement in the atmosphere) cannot be merged like this, even discounting the vast differences in climate between Hawaii and Antarctica.

For failing to mention glaring caveats that should be obvious to anyone with a critical scientific eye, I have to dub this alarmist propaganda which is informative and interesting, but not empirical.

Continue Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

Never never stop reading. Always keep on reading. Always listen to arguments from both sides and evaluate them on their own merits and compare them. Always keep a lookout for new arguments for both sides. This is a quite young area in science, not all rules and formulas are known. And when the formula is known the parameters are not certain, resulting in a wide range of results and predictions. More is known every day, but until we have a solid comprehension of the environment, nobody can speak on the subject with 100% authority.

This is not a trivial issue. What happens in the others' backyards may come to haunt you. Never stop reading.

CO2 gas += Hummer

[jasonshortphd]

Isn't that when the Hummer 2.0 came out? :)

Global Warming

[cdrguru]

If you accept the current beliefs on this, it is fairly obvious that we need to restrict output of CO2 to limits that will allow it to be naturally absorbed. This is pretty much pre-industrial or early industrial age limits. We are not talking about 1990 levels anymore - that is perhaps a start, but it isn't much of a start. If that is what is needed to shock people into realizing what "sustainable CO2 emissions" means, by all means, let's implement those limits.

But, if the "solution" for the problem is to implement a "sustainable" carbon cycle on the planet, there are some pretty significant changes coming down.

First off, can we take it as a given that all practical forms of energy use produce undesirable byproducts? OK, I suppose a windmill does not produce many, but it is difficult to envision the current electrical consumption being supported by wind power. Solar (PV electric generation) in a large scale will produce far more pollutants than any other generation methods except perhaps nuclear - just from manufacturing the cells in large enough quantities.

The question then becomes can we continue with current energy use levels? Wouldn't seem so. The main problem isn't just pollution - it is the waste products from energy use. CO2 is one of those. Heat is another. If the target is "sustainable" we need to look at the effects of using any form of energy over hundreds of years. Simple - if we were using sunshine as the only energy source at the same levels the planet is consuming energy at this would cause serious side effects. So, the answer must be to reduce energy consumption - not decrease energy "wastage" or increase efficiency, but actually decrease consumption. This is the only effective long-term answer.

I think you can pick a date between 1800 and 1950 where energy use became "unsustainable" over the long term. If nothing else, the waste heat from this energy consumption would spell the end for the planet. Therefore, if the goal is to have a "sustainable" environment we must reduce the energy use to those levels which will allow natural processes (heat radiation to space, carbon recyling, etc.) to cope with this energy use. Some improvements can be obtained by greater effiencies available today than were available previously, so we can actually choose a date at which previously unsustainable energy use was taking place and still be able to have a sustainable environment. However, it is not possible to make this up at today's levels. This would entail a world population of perhaps 10 million at most with a comfortable lifestyle. It might be possible for the population to be as high as 50 million, but these people would have a low life expectancy and live in conditions that could only be described as abysmal - something like Bangladesh today, or worse.

The threat is clear - if we want to choose a sustainable environment, we need to begin implementing population reduction measures immediately. There are just too many people to reduce the energy consumption levels to that which could possibly be sustainable. Anyone that says differently is deluding themselves. At the current world population level we would need to kill more than a million people a day just to make a dent in the problem, and even at that rate it would take nearly 20 years.

The other way to look at the problem is that energy use isn't sustainable at a planetary level and resources from outside are needed. We have the technology and skills to move in this direction, but it would require some understanding that this was actually necessary for our survival. I don't think we are there, and universities are churning out people that believe we must be sustainable within our planetary environment. Do you think they understand the population problem? I don't.

OHhhh, there's the problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell Smith to stop breathing on the detector!

Satellite temperature measurements

[Phronesis]

The author is thinking of the discrepancy between surface measurements and satellite measurements of the troposphere. Satellites show only half the warming trend that surface measurements do. It's not true that satellites show no warming, but they show a warming of between 0.0 and 0.2 Kelvin between 1980 and 2000, where surface measurements showed a warming of 0.25 to 0.4 K during the same period. Details may be found here.

There have been attempts to reconcile the two sets of data, mostly having to do with the difficulty of maintaining calibration of the satellites. These tend to produce corrected satellite records that agree with the larger warming measured on the surface, but the jury is still out.

obFuturama

[Greyfox]

Bender: This could mean the end of the banana daiquiri as we know it. Also, life.

Hmm how about a Southpark one?

Darryl Weathers: How the hell is global warming gonna cause an ice age?!
Chet: Well you know, the... global warming could bring on, like, a climate shift or somethin'?
Darryl Weathers: Chet you are a fuckin' retard, you know that? Even if global warming were real, which all proven scientific data shows it isn't, it would take millions of years for a climate shift to happen. You think at ice age can just happen all of a sudden-like?
Chet: Well I was just tryin' to be helpful.
Darryl Weathers: Well help yourself to a fuckin' scence book, 'cause you're talkin' like a fuckin' retard! Now come on people, we've got to think! Damnit, they took our jerbs!

So, if humans aren't to blame for global warming..

[spun]

We should just sit back, throw up our hands and do nothing about it? "It's God's will that the Earth get warmer, nothing we can do." The fact is, it doesn't matter why the Earth is getting warmer or why there is more CO2 in the air. The actions we need to take remain the same.

We can't afford to just wait and see. We need to start doing something to reverse the trend or the costs will be catastrophic. The causes don't matter and the facts are indisputable: the Earth is getting warmer and there is more CO2 in the air.

we should not take the risk of inaction

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read thread about this topic I see that some people present evidence of global warming and other denouce that there is no proven correlation between xyz (in this case CO2) and temperature rising or something like that.

For what I undestand there is no certainty or proof that the temperatures will rise fast and provoque many damages so many people feel that's not the time to act ('cause acting means $$$).

However during theses discussions I rarely see people saying that there is absolutely no problem and everything is fine. I would says that people disagree more on when we should begin to act.

In my opinion, we should not take the risk of inaction when our habitat in only planet is en danger.

Fair And Balanced

[Farley Mullet]

No, you should always be balanced. Balanced, as it relates to politics, means that BOTH sides could either be lying or wrong. Last time I checked, not a whole lot has been PROVEN about global warming. Or maybe I'm wrong and we can model the entire atmosphere now?

So, by your reasoning, every time the media runs a story about a satelite in orbit, they should also have someone from the Flat-Earth Society on for balance? We might not be able to model the entire atmosphere, but our thermometers work pretty well. Global Warming is a fact: things are getting hotter.

As for modeling: asking to model the entire atmosphere before you accept a global warming explanation implicating CO2 levels is like asking for a model of every particle in the solar system before you accept a model of planetary mechanics that implicates gravity. Using the word 'PROVEN' in big letters like that shows that you don't have a strong grip on how science works, or how good public policy is made. Science (and this holds in both Popper's and Kuhn's account) is inherently provisional, and doesn't admit anything resembling capital-P proof, let alone the all-capitalized proof you want.

And as far as public policy goes, when the potential consequences are so catastrophic, and when the system has such a lag in it, it's irresponsible to quibble over absolute proof: by the time the proof comes in, it'll likely be too late to do anything. Good public policy manages risks, and with climate change, the risks involved with twidding our thumbs while we wait for enough evidence to satisfy petrochemical executives are simply too high. There's a clear scientific consensus on the issue. That's all the balance that we need.

Re:Fair And Balanced

[Pandion]

So, by your reasoning, every time the media runs a story about a satelite in orbit, they should also have someone from the Flat-Earth Society on for balance? We might not be able to model the entire atmosphere, but our thermometers work pretty well. Global Warming is a fact: things are getting hotter.

Explain how a satellite launch is a political issue. Also please point out the point at which I stated that it wasn't getting warmer.

As for modeling: asking to model the entire atmosphere before you accept a global warming explanation implicating CO2 levels is like asking for a model of every particle in the solar system before you accept a model of planetary mechanics that implicates gravity. Using the word 'PROVEN' in big letters like that shows that you don't have a strong grip on how science works, or how good public policy is made. Science (and this holds in both Popper's and Kuhn's account) is inherently provisional, and doesn't admit anything resembling capital-P proof, let alone the all-capitalized proof you want.

Apparently you have a tenuous grasp of English in general and hyperbole in particular. I wasn't disputing the CO2 or the heat. My point was that there is not enough data from which to draw a good conclusion. I was addressing a political debate.

And as far as public policy goes, when the potential consequences are so catastrophic, and when the system has such a lag in it, it's irresponsible to quibble over absolute proof: by the time the proof comes in, it'll likely be too late to do anything. Good public policy manages risks, and with climate change, the risks involved with twidding our thumbs while we wait for enough evidence to satisfy petrochemical executives are simply too high. There's a clear scientific consensus on the issue. That's all the balance that we need.

Oh by all means let's jump to a conclusion and implement a solution with catastrophic impact before we actually understand the problem or even admit that we may be wrong. But then again, the sky is falling isn't it? It can't possibly be that hard to fix the climate...

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[jd]

That would imply that the air currents may be changing. If convection currents don't carry the heat up, then it would be entirely expected for you to get "anomolies" of this kind.

Highly localised anomolies are not that unusual. You get temperature inversions, for example, in many places. Where this coincides with a city, this produces some of the most evil smogs. Aside from the fact that this isn't good for the inhabitants, it probably traps a good deal of the heat in as well.

You've also got to consider that different molecules absorb at different frequencies. Thus, the infrared (ie: heat) given off by direct reflection from the ground is going to be different from that given off by sulpher dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and other pollutants. the pollution is going to absorb some of the radiation and then re-radiate it at different frequencies.

What this means is that the temperature of the troposphere is not a good measure of what is happening overall. There are just too many variables. Localized effects, changes in frequency, etc, mean that trivial analysis is not going to produce useful results.

Sure, I'm certain this has all been thought of before. Climatologists aren't stupid. However, they don't exactly have the kind of budget you'd need to build a network of comprehensive sensors to scan all layers of the atmosphere at all wavelengths. Even if they did, they don't have the computing resources to process that kind of data, either. They can barely scrape together enough procesor time to carry out research on the data they DO collect.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

You expressed this so concisely and simply - and I hope you continue to do so. People just don't get this message, and they urgently need to.

Re:Electronics

[Anonymous Coward]

Little trivia fact for the global warming pundits: There are more trees in North America now than there were in 1970. It's true.

The argument that this is applicable is flawed. First of all, what is the source of the numbers. I hear the right claiming it all the time, yet never see hard evidence. Second, even if there are more trees, the replanting of new trees does not re-establish the same leaf surface area immediately. It is tree leaves that absorb CO2 from the air, and young trees have fewer and smaller leaves, and fewer branches. So young trees on a per capita basis are not as effective as older ones as carbon sinks from that standpoint. Third, we have to consider global quantities of trees, not just North America. In Latin America, far more acreage is clearcut daily than is being replanted in the US. Hence, the removal of carbon sinks by third-world countries is not balanced by any phony PR efforts by American logging companies. And finally, there are huge and increasing numbers of CO2-belching vehicles you're not counting. Talking about trees and lungs alone is misleading.

"Unusual" readings

[SEWilco]

Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory

So 2 years of readings out of almost 50... that means that 1/25th, or 4% of all the measurements are these "high" values. If these numbers had shown up 10% of the time should there be panic? 5%? 4%?

Can you say insufficient data?

Today's message is brought to you by the numbers 2, 4, 50, and 100.

Re:So, if humans aren't to blame for global warmin

[prisoner-of-enigma]

We need to start doing something to reverse the trend or the costs will be catastrophic. The causes don't matter and the facts are indisputable: the Earth is getting warmer and there is more CO2 in the air.

Using your logic, you could also say "the Earth is getting warmer and there are more humans on Earth than 100 years ago. Therefore, we should kill enough people to put our population numbers back to what they were." You've just arbitrarily chosen CO2 as the linchpin of your argument. You could have just as easily chosen a huge number of other variables, each of which may be just as important or even more important to the overall climate equation. But, hey, doing something is great, right? Sure, let's just make a decision based on incomplete, unsupported findings by a few scientists and disregard the equally-valid counterclaims of other scientists.

Your mentality in this is alarmingly uninformed, but common these days. It amounts to saying "we don't care what science says, we know what's going on and we're going to do something about it." Try being a bit more humble and you'll see the utter folly of your argument.

Let me tell you what would happen if everyone suddenly decided to think like you: everyone would focus on CO2 emissions to the exclusion of everything else. Research into possible other causes of global warming would wither and die. If you're wrong, you just made the situation much, much worse by jumping to an unsupportable conclusion.

There are three possible cases here: CO2 is reponsible for it all, CO2 is partially responsible, or CO2 has little or nothing to do with it. You're taking case #1 and calling everyone else liars. However, with better studies and more exacting information, we can emphatically say that CO2 is or is not the bogeyman we need to be pursuing. I'm not saying we wait forever, but a delay of a decade might give us much more valuable insight into a global climate we know very, very little about.

If history has shown us anything, it's shown that the more important the decision being made, the more reliable and voluminous the data must be before making that decision. Your thinking would shortcut that entire process. I again urge you to rethink your position on this and consider that science is far from being "done" with the entire question of climate change. This is not the Dark Ages of mysticism, so quit acting like you've got a crystal ball telling you the infallible truth.

A tip for you Fred

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed on your homepage that more of it is in French than in English. This seems to fit with the annoying Canadian tendancy to intentionally misinterpret what "American" means.

Here's a tip for you: In English, if the context is unknown, "American" means a person from the nation with the Statue of Liberty and the stars and stripes on the flag. American is VERY VERY rarely used to refer to all peoples of North or South America. In fact, America unambiguously refers to the country, while the term for the 2 continents is "The Americas".

PS. Before you start to go off on that why don't you just say "United States" tangent, I'll answer it for you. There are two United States in the region: the United States of America, and the United States of Mexico. And we don't say, "people from the United States of America" because that's just way to long.

The Risk of Inaction vs The Arrogance of Man

[thelizman]

Lets presume you're right, then what? Do we proceed on some half-baked 'plan' to save the environment? What if whatever we do doesn't actually solve the problem - or worse, makes it worse?

The proper and necessary course of action is to actually come to a consensus as to what effect - if any - human output has on the environment, particularly with respect to 'global warming'.

Here is where the arrogance of so-called 'environmentalists' becomes staggering. To assume that humankind has any hope of significantly impacting a system as large and powerful as the earths atmosphere. Alas, arrogance trumps science, which is all too common these days.

Re:The Risk of Inaction vs The Arrogance of Man

[Corwyn ap]

Man is an arrogant creature.

it was arrogant to think man could tame fire.
It was arrogant to think man could harness the wind.
It was arrogant to think man could tame animals.
It was arrogant to think man could cultivate crops.
.
.
It was arrogant to think man could fly.
It was arrogant to think man could cause mass extinctions.
It was arrogant to think man could affect the speed of the spin of the earth (through keeping water in reservoirs).
It was arrogant to think man could go to the moon.

These things have been done. Why is this next arrogant thing therefore impossible?

More to the point, environmentalists would no doubt be happy if nothing is done. Unfortunately, we are busy doing something, namely dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (at an increasing rate). Inaction would be a vast improvement.

Thank You Kindly.

Has anyone checked the power stations in Mexico?

[pair-a-noyd]

Zane? Zane? Are you out there?
Are you through with my dish yet? I need it back, I have to catch the Sopranos on rerun tonight!

Zane? Zane!!!!!

Declaring fealty

[jlowery]

I, for one, welcome our gaseous overlords.

Specious Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll repost this anonymously from my post above so people don't think I'm karma whoring.

But this famous graph of theirs is badly flawed methodologically.

They take the data from here:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vo st ok.co2.gif

Which are extrapolated atmospheric CO2 measurements from the ice core in Antarctica, and then tack on the modern CO2 measurements from the actual atmosphere in a different climate.

That they don't even mention the caveats of this dangerously speculative merging of incompatible data sets makes it clear that they are more worried about convincing you than finding the truth.

The two methodologies (trapped CO2 measurement in ice vs CO2 measurement in the atmosphere) cannot be merged like this, even discounting the vast differences in climate between Hawaii and Antarctica.

For failing to mention glaring caveats that should be obvious to them, though not necessarily the reader who bothers to actually check their source data, I have to dub this as alarmist propaganda which is informative and interesting, but not empirical.

Re:Measuring CO2 levels from atop a Volcano is stu

[Anonymous Coward]

The exact same thing occured to me as soon as I read where it was located. Also, volcanoes throw out so many different things in vast quanities, they have to estimate it in the billions of tons.

Billions of tons, in gas form. Whoot.

Effective CO2 converters

[b00m3rang]

Has any research been done regarding which plants are the best CO2 converters, and would increasing their numbers help at all?

Radioactivity from coal burning

[Medievalist]

Yes, and those coal plants churn out all kinds of radioactivity.

Most people don't realize this.

Or, wait, did you think you were being ironic?

That would be funny!

Re:Radioactivity from coal burning

[Doc Ruby]

That radioactive poison from petro fuels isn't very funny. I used to live downstream from the biggest radioactive dump ever brought to any justice in America: the ExxonMobil dump along the Mississippi River outside of New Orleans. These petro fuels are dirtier than anyone realizes. But, as a medievalist, I suppose you probably already know all about this particular travesty.

-10 Flamebait!

[rts008]

Of F*CKING COURSE the planet is warming up! The planet is just trying to warm back up to it's natural state. AHHH! We all forgot about the catastrophic event that brought on the Ice Age That Killed Off The Dinasaurs(TM). Warm and tropical before-boom- ice age ensues, etc. Who would be foolish enough to think it would stay cold...oops. Get over it!

Re:-10 Flamebait!

[spitzak]

There have been many, many ice ages since the Dinosaurs were killed.

You crack me up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who'd you pay for the "Insightful" mod?

The "multi-billion dollar a year" "global warming industry" is one of the funniest fantasies I've ever heard a ditto-head spew... having actually worked in the field of Natural Science, I must say that's a milk-snorter!

We need to do something

[AaronW]

While many agree that nobody is exactly sure what will happen with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, most models predict major problems. Should we wait until someone develops a perfect model, which might not be possible due to limited computing power, or do something about it now. If there's a 50% chance that widespread damage will occur due to global warming (i.e. rising oceans, more hurricanes/tornadoes, stronger weather, more drought, frozen Europe), then doesn't it make a lot of sense to try and limit the damage we cause?

Bush and others claim huge costs with complying with Kyoto. I don't buy it. Some companies (Du Pont, BP) are already complying and have found that they're saving money because they use less energy. Sure, hybrid vehicles cost a bit more to produce than regular vehicles, but I think the extra efficiency will more than make up for it over the life of the vehicle, especially with the rising cost of oil.

And using the fact that China doesn't have to comply is just an excuse. If the rest of the world follows Kyoto, it will help encourage China and those who don't to follow. Not only that, it will make the technology they need to comply cheaper.

I've seen a number of articles about other effects caused by the warming of the oceans. For example, while melting the polar ice cap won't in itself raise the oceans, it will raise the temperature further since ice reflects the sunlight back out into space whereas water absorbs it. A rise in the ocean temperature could cause massive amounts of methane to enter the atmosphere from all the methane hydrides at the ocean floor, and methane is a much bigger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Ignorance of the full global warming effects is no excuse for inaction when we have enough evidence that serious problems are likely.

Maybe we should also try and aid Indonesia with putting out their peat bog fires, which are releasing huge amounts of CO2 as a start.

As it is, today I was contemplating replacing my ancient inefficient refrigerator with a new efficient one. I think I'll go ahead and do it (it helps that Orchard Supply has a tax-free day today when sales tax is 8.75%).

-Aaron

CO2 scrubber

[man_ls]

How do the CO2 scrubbers in space vehicles work?

In SeaQuest 2032 or whatever, the earth's atmosphere was destroyed by global warming; there weren't enough rainforests to process CO2. So they build massive CO2 scrubbing refineries.

Would something like that be viable?

Dear God

[Remlik]

Please give the poor human population on this planet a sign that will let them know the world is much more complex, and better balanced than we could ever hope to understand. Show us, in some manner, that we as humans cannot destroy our world.

God: Cue Mount St.Helens eruption.

Fools.

A Priori???

[zeitgeist_chaser]

Please do not use terms like "a priori" when you clearly have no idea what they mean. A priori knowledge is gained independently of experience. As you are basing your claims on scientific observations, they are a posteriori. By definition, all scientific knowledge is a posteriori. Here, educate yourself.

I apologize for the offtopic post, but I can't let this sort of mistake slide. Mod me down if you will.

Re:A Priori???

[mefus]

hmm. Maybe I was...

"The CO2 fraction on Point Conception weather station at noon on Aug. 21 1999 was 1.2224%" (or whatever). That is a synthetic proposition. Do that 'til the cows come home and you have a bunch of data, but you imply it's no longer a priori to say the CO2 fraction has continuously risen above previous data points. Is that right?

But that initial phrase I made was contingent and a priori. Is the average taken over one year no longer a priori? And is the integral of the slope of those averages taken over time no longer a priori?

My thoughts were influenced by this:

Saul Kripke argues in Naming and Necessity, against Kant, that aprioricity is an epistemological property, and should not be conflated with the separate, metaphysical matter of necessity. In support of this argument he offers several pleas to intuition: "Hesperus is Phosphorus" is necessary if true (see rigid designation), but known a posteriori; while, on the other hand, (of the bar in Paris that formerly served as the standard for the meter), "That bar is one meter long" is contingent (we could have taken another length to define the meter, etc.) but known a priori. That is because one meter is defined as the length of that bar, so the bar must be one meter long - it is a tautology.

And, there is evidently some controversy over a priori that you don't mention in your post. I'm curious how you would address this.

Thanks,

Re:A Priori???

[zeitgeist_chaser]

Reading my initial post, it very much came off as a flame, even though I did not intend it that way. Thank you for not responding in kind. :)

I am aware that there is some controversy over the concept of a priori, but not in this case. I'm not only implying that it is "no longer a priori to say the CO2 fraction has continuously risen above previous data points," I'm saying that it never was a priori knowledge and never will be. Making a valid logical inference from the data that cannot be disputed by any sane person does not make the inferred proposition a priori. I think you are confusing the epistemological property of aprioricity with logical validity (assuming the premises are true). The a priori / a posteriori distinction only applies to how you came about the knoweldge. If there was observation used in the course of forming the proposition, then that proposition is a posteriori.

I've read Naming and Necessity and I'm unsure about why you think it applies in this case. "The CO2 fraction has continuously risen above previous data points" is a contingent, a posteriori proposition. I'm not sure why you might think otherwise.

Cheers.

Re:A Priori???

[Ragnar Forkbeard]

And, there is evidently some controversy over a priori that you don't mention in your post. I'm curious how you would address this.

Nope, no controversy, just a matter of definition:

a priori: knowledge gained prior to or without dependence upon experience, e.g. mathematics and logically necessary truths.

a posteriori: knowledge gained after experience, e.g. all scientific knowledge.

You're confusing the issue by bringing up Kant, Kripke and synthetic a priori statements, but let me explain a bit. Kripke argued that aprioricity is an epistemic property, and thus is distinct from necessity. To illustrate, he gives the classic example of Hesperus (the morning star, i.e. Venus) and Phosphorus (the evening star, also Venus). Hesperus is strictly identical to Phosphorus, and thus the statement "Hesperus is Phosphorus" is necessarily true, but this statement is known to be true a posteriori, since for much of history Hesperus and Phosphorus were thought to be entirely different entities. The statement "that bar is one meter long" is contingently true, since it might have been the case that another bar of a different length was chosen as the standard for the meter, but it is known a priori, since that statement is true by definition. Thus, Kripke argues, the concept of "a priori" is distinct from the concept of "necessity."

None of which has anything to do with the CO2 measurements you're discussing, since they involve neither definitional truths nor statements of identity.

Hope that helps!

Re:A Priori???

[mefus]

I'll tell you what I'm doing: I think I'm convincing myself the empiricists are right and nothing is a priori knowledge, by assuming the rationalists are correct.

2 + 2 = 4
(data set) + (math technique) = (trend)

Re:A Priori???

[mefus]

Nope, no controversy, just a matter of definition:

You are in denial if you think there is no controversy regarding a priori.

I'm leaning towards the empiricists (that there is no fact known a priori).

Re:A Priori???

[Ragnar Forkbeard]

You are in denial if you think there is no real controversy regarding a priori.

Hey, thanks for missing the point. I was clarifying the correct definition (and hence usage) of the term a priori, concerning which there is no controversy.

I'm leaning towards the empiricists (that there is no fact known a priori).

You're confusing innate knowledge, which the empiricists denied, with a priori knowledge, which they did not. Let me give another example: the statement "All bachelors are unmarried men" is known to be true a priori; that is, you need not go and examine all bachelors to determine if they are unmarried, because the statement is true by definition. In contrast, the statement "All bachelors have brown eyes" must be verified a posteriori; that is, you need to go and examine actual bachelors to determine the truth of the statement.

My choice of car DID affect MY environment

[Anonymous Coward]

Since my Prius engine shuts off when it's not needed - like for instance when I'm sitting still in a traffic jam - I find the air immediately around my car is cleaner than around other people's cars.

If I let six feet or so open up between me and the fume-belching Hummer in front of me (target demographic for Humvees: same as for penis enlargement - it's true!) I can open the windows and enjoy a nice breeze...

Most of my family died, is dying, or expects to die from cancer. So the Prius is an investment in my own health, because it's part of a larger program of reducing my exposure to carcinogens.

Memorable Bush quote

[dtfinch]

"CO2 is not a greenhouse gas! My daddy said so."

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[letxa2000]

There have been attempts to reconcile the two sets of data, mostly having to do with the difficulty of maintaining calibration of the satellites.

Hmmmm... Difficulty in maintaining the satellites is the problem? Or perhaps its the weird and subjective fudge factors that are applied to the service record to compensate for heat islands?

Sorry, I trust the satellites. You should too.

Everybody do their part

[anachattak]

Okay everybody...it's time we all pitched in to help get the CO2 levels down. I think the easiest solution is to just not breath so much, and especially no heavy breathing. And because heavy breathing is exacerbated by exercise, we all need to stop exercising and start breathing slowly. Also, we may want to implement some kind of plan, where a certain segment of society holds its breath in turns. We aren't going to solve this problem unless we work together and start with the obvious solution.

As a show of solidarity, I'll start holding my breath first. Anyone else who feels so inclined, go right ahead.

I missed that one...

[bornbitter]

Hey, just wondering if you could enighten me a little more of how, if in fact, the satellite not reading an increase in temperature is supportive to the global warming thesis? If I understand the greenhouse gas effects correctly, it is that more heat is retained, thus resulting in LESS radiant energy being detected from space... right? (I understand that there was no mention of detected radient temperature dropping along with the comment that it wasn't increasing. If it is otherwise, then I would like a url so I can also be infomed.) IF, (and a big if at that), there is no decrease in radient energy then this also goes against the global warming thesis, unless the sun decided to add a massive amount of extra energy to the earth all of a sudden. -- also, I would add that I am somewhat curious and amused at this entire argument. Instead of just telling us what is wrong, how about suggesting a cure? ...Or is there no such suggestion because it is too complex for us to actually know if we would be able to have an effect? Are we really this haughty as a race, or are we actually advanced far enough to presume to 'control' the global climate? -- just curious.

You must be really young...

[13thirteen]

At least, too young to remember the drought and heat wave of 1980. It caused somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 deaths in the U.S. and billions of dollars of damage. The years around it were no picnic, either. I remember frying an egg on a cinderblock for brunch at my grandmother's house in eastern Oklahoma that summer. I have read accounts since then that say it can be done if the temperature is as low as 95 degrees, but we tried several other times and never got one to fry if the temperature was lower than 105 - maybe something to do with using a cinderblock instead of a sidewalk (there aren't many sidewalks in the country).

Re:You must be really young...

[Doc Ruby]

No, I also remember Stevie Wonder's new _Hotter than July_ seeming especially apropos that Summer. But I *am* too young to remember the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. You'd think after these direct experiences of human interaction with the environment that we'd have learned not to mess with Mother Nature.

Junkscience.com is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're a moron for believing it.

My 2 cents

[hackronym0]

I just wanted to throw in my view for a second (thats what we do around here anyways). I bet there are people around here that might not mind having the environment get a little warmer. Who is to say that beachfront property in the middle of the US isn't desirable. Some people might like it a little cooler too. So if we all stop producing any CO2 and find new ways to make it colder, it would be nice to not have to run the AC all summer. The point I am trying to make is that argument can go either way. The people that are intelligent enough to look at the available information will do so. They will draw their own conclusions and they will use their system of ethics and morals to decide a personal course of action that may include lobbying for reform. The media is just like the annoying 13 year old that will say ANYTHING just so that he can get a rise out of you. Just kick him in the groin and get on with your day!

Where were these readings taken?

[aristotle-dude]

If they were, as some suggested, taken at the top of a volcano, the results are totally garbage.

Re:Where were these readings taken?

[Anthony]

Garbage? The carbon dioxide component of the volcano is removed fropm the measurements. I don't have a reference handy, but I suspect the isotopic signature of the volcanic carbon dioxide differs from that of the atmospheric signature. Instrumentation of vents would help too.

Re:Where were these readings taken?

[trongey]

That really wouldn't work. Assuming the isotopic signatures are different (which I never heard in geology school) then you would be filtering out all of the volcanic emissions, not just the current ones. That would take out all of the CO2 contributed by the volcano, and probably many other sources. And trying to monitor ALL of the places where a volcano vents would be a full-time job for a lot of people.

Add to all of that the fact that the 'Guardian' is not recognized as a bastion of reliable scientific reporting.

Re:Where were these readings taken?

[Anthony]

Good reply. I did a slashdot "shoot first/:check facts later". My brief research suggests that 1) measurement methodology has not changed since the 1950s and 2) looking at the graph, the seasonality doesn't seem to be affected by any other fluctuations(scale may be masking it, but I doubt that). As aside, I am sure there would be an isotopic difference the the C and O components of the degassed CO2 vs the bio-derived fossil fuels (I expect delta values to be lower in the fossil fuel derived CO2 due to greater uptake of lighter C and O isotopes by the once-living organisms as well as modern respiration CO2 generation) and higher in mantle-derived CO2.

Waste heat is not very important

[spitzak]

The waste heat output of all our machines is minor and completely swamped by solar heating. The main reason cities are heat producers is due to all the asphalt absorbing solar energy, not from the exhaust from the air conditioners.

Re:Waste heat is not very important

[amper]

I wish I had more quantitative information on this, but I sincerely doubt that our heat output is "minor".

The point is that solar output has remained more or less (for the puposes of this discussion) constant, while the heat output of humans, which was nearly non-existent from a statistical standpoint just 250 years ago, has increased at an alarming rate.

I suspect that our heat output, coupled with the additional problem of the CO2 blanket that our energy consumption is creating, has caused a major imbalance in the environment--but I don't see any one studying this issue.

Let's just make some wild-ass assumptions here. I have a 15,000 BTU air-con unit in my house, which runs at 15 amps/120V, or 1.8 KW/hr. During the summer it runs 24 hours a day, let's say that makes 120 days out of the year times 24 hours times 1.8KW/hr. That means I've not only consumed about 5.2 MegaWatts of energy, I've also moved over that time 43.2 million BTU's of heat from my house into the atmosphere.

And that's just *my* house. What about the other 130 million households in the US plus all the commerical buildings?

What about heating systems in the winter? Lighting? Other electrical consumption? Heat loss from the generating plants? Heat loss from cars, trucks, planes, boats, etc? Manufacturing?

Do you really think this effect is minor?

Next summer take a trip to New York City--check the temperature in Times Square versus the temperature of the outer boroughs. Manhattan is invariably hotter by several degrees due to the level of energy consumption and the shift of all that heat from inside buildings to the outside (also exacerbated by the giant thermal sink of all that concrete and asphalt). The same is true of all urban areas.

Take a look at a satellite photo of the eastern US or western Europe at night. Most of us can't even see the stars anymore because of the light pollution. Where do you think all that energy goes? Not all of it goes off to deep space...

Remember, all this heat output is over and above the normal solar gain. If we weren't here, the energy wouldn't have been used!

Most of the energy we're using would normally have existed in a bound state deep underground. Very little of our generating capacity comes from sources which actually take energy out of the environment (solar, wind, water, etc).

The CO2 problem is a side effect, not a cause, though certainly, it's a contributing factor. However, the environment can cope with a hell of lot of excess CO2. The world, for lack of a better term, has "evolved" around this fact (OK, so there's entropy, but we're talking geologic cycles, not cosmic). The environment has no short-term defense against human energy consumption. Long-term, the environment will kill us if the temperature keeps rising, thus lowering the temperature again, but that's not a comforting thought for a human.
.

Re:Waste heat is not very important

[djmurdoch]

Let's just make some wild-ass assumptions here. I have a 15,000 BTU air-con unit in my house, which runs at 15 amps/120V, or 1.8 KW/hr. During the summer it runs 24 hours a day, let's say that makes 120 days out of the year times 24 hours times 1.8KW/hr. That means I've not only consumed about 5.2 MegaWatts of energy, I've also moved over that time 43.2 million BTU's of heat from my house into the atmosphere.

You got the units wrong. If your current consumption is correct, your air-con consumes 1.8 KW. In 120 days of 24 hour use it would consume 5.2 MWh of energy, not 5.2 MW.

Now let's say you're in NY. Then you receive an average of about 150 W per square meter in solar radiation averaged over the year, so 12 square meters would receive the same amount of incident solar radiation as your air-con puts out.

There isn't an air conditioner or equivalent in every 12 square meters of the USA (that would require about 100 billion air conditioners), so I think it's safe to say that the effect of your heat output is small compared to that of the sun.

Re:Waste heat is not very important

[amper]

Whoops, I forgot the /h.

But, that 150W/m^2 would still be here even if the human race was not.

Air-con, on the other hand, wouldn't exist without humans. Nor would the internal-combustion engine, or any number of other industrial goodies we've cooked up.

The numbers are simply staggering.
.

But...but Kyoto was supposed to fix all this!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn that evil Bush!

Kicking the Sacred Cow

[tohoward]

To quote from the book Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan:

The first thing to be said is that the "greenhouse effect" isn't something new, brought about by human activities. It's a natural phenomenon that has existed for as long as the Earth has had an atmosphere. All objects above zero degrees Kelvin radiate heat. As an object gets hotter, the peak of the frequency band that it radiates (where most of the radiated energy is emitted) shifts toward shorter wavelengths. Thus, a warm hotplate on a stove radiates mainly in the infrared band, which while invisible can still be felt as heat. As the hotplate is heated more, its radiation peak moves up into the visible region to red and then orange. The Sun radiates a lot of energy at ultraviolet wavelengths, shorter than the visible. The atmosphere is transparent to certain bands of this, which reach the Earth's surface and are absorbed. But since the Earth is a lot cooler than the Sun, this energy is reradiated not at ultraviolet wavelengths but at the much longer infrared, to which the atmosphere is not as transparent. Atmospheric gas molecules that consist of three or more atoms typically absorb energy at characteristic wavelengths within the infrared band, which heats them up, and consequently the atmosphere. Note that this excludes the diatomic gases N2 and O2 that form the bulk of the atmosphere (78 and 20 percent respectively), and also the monatomic traces, argon and neon.

This, then, defines the notorious "greenhouse gases" that are going to stifle the planet. The one that gets all the publicity is carbon dioxide, which human activities generate in five main ways: making cement (CO2 being driven out of the limestone used in the process); breathing; rearing animals; using wood (which once harvested, eventually decomposes one way or another); and burning fossil fuels. This translates into the release of about 3 million liters on average of CO2 per human per year, for a grand yearly total of 1.6 x 1016 liters, or 30 billion tonnes. 144 (1 tonne = a "metric ton" = 1,000 kilograms = 0.984 ton.) The other gases, while present in smaller amounts, have a greater relative absorptive capacity that ranges from fifty-eight times that of CO2 in the case of methane to several thousand for CFCs, and the amounts of them have been increasing.

This all sounds like something that should indeed be a cause for concern, until it's realized that the atmosphere contains something like 1,800 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide already from such sources as volcanoes, the outgassing of oceans, and the natural functioning of the biosphere. In other words, all of human activity adds less than two percent to the gases that nature puts out anyway. And then it turns out that all of these gases put together add up to a minor player, for the greatest contributor by far is water vapor. Although the exact figure varies from place to place and season to season, water vapor is typically present at ten times the concentration of carbon dioxide; further, it is active across the whole infrared range, whereas heat absorption by CO2 is confined to two narrow bands. Without this natural greenhouse mechanism, the Earth would be about 33 deg C cooler than it is, which would mean permanent ice at the equator. Estimates of the contribution of water vapor vary from 95 to 99 percent, thereby accounting for somewhere around 32 deg C of this. The remaining one degree is due to other gases. The effects of all of human activity are in the order of two percent of this latter figure. But, of course, you can't put a tax on water vapor or lambaste your favorite industrial villains for producing it, and so water vapor never gets mentioned in the polemics. Even professionals uncritically buy the publicized line. An astronomer reports that in an impromptu survey, six out of ten of her fellow astronomers replied "carbon dioxide" when asked what was the major greenhouse gas. 145

I there

Re:Kicking the Sacred Cow

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well known water vaopr is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 but the fact is the natural water cycle guarentees there will never bee too much water vapor. It simply rains. CO2 on the other hand is hard to get rid of once you put it in the atmosphere and we are putting more and more than natural without any measures to remove it.

What we know and what we don't

[NetCynicism]

Here's what we (or rather, I) know and don't know about this. We know that the Earth is trending warmer, empirically. We know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, and that CO2 is a greehouse gas. We don't know how significant the amounts involved are. You can make anything look impressive by plotting it ona graph with a small enough scale. What I want to know is how much CO2 we can dump in the atmosphere before the temperature goes up a degree. We don't know whether there's anything we can do about it, or whether it's already too late. We don't know how much warming may be due to non-greenhouse factors such as orbital fluctuations or whatever it is. We don't know what the cost/benefit structure looks like. If we're only going to lose New Orleans and Holland and everybody else is safe, and we'd have to go back to living in caves to prevent the climate change, then it's time to move those folks to high ground. I, for one, am open to persuasion on these issues, but I want solid answers (some of these may already be answered, but I'll admit to not having done the research). If the solution is "let's go back to living in caves now and see what happens," I'm out. If it's a matter of pursuing some reasonable alternative energy policies that we should be pursuing anyway to ease our dependence on foreign oil, I'm in. If it's Kyoto, which appears to have a huge cost for a relatively small reduction in human CO2 even in the unlikely event that everyone hits their targets, and which exempts huge stretches of the polluting world, I'm extremely sceptical. If all these answers are known, and the result is that we have to dismantle the industrial economy to survive on this planet, I'm still out. Once we do that, there's no going back and no long-term possibility of survival when the planet's resources are exhausted. Technology is our long-term hope, period. Time to move to Mars instead.

Mods on crack today?

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot find the link at this time, but the scientists who came up with the whole Global Warming research deliberately ignored years in the middle ages where the average temperature in Europe was a lot higher than it is today. Apparently, that data did not fit their theory, so they ignored it.

You can't find the link because you made this nonsense up perhaps?

Or maybe you read it in the Spectator, or heard it on Limbaugh...

The scientist (note use of SINGULAR here) who came up with "the whole Global Warming research", as you put it, did not need to cherrypick data. His data was all accessible to the public when I personally verified it after listening to him speak around a decade ago.

God, you people are sheep. Baaaaah!!! BAAAAAAAAH!!!

thermodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

just out of curiosity, has anyone done a serious study covering heat polution, as opposed to 'greenhouse gasses'? i mean -- having a couple of billion internal combustion engines, who knows how many power plants (using the old heat->steam->mechanical energy->electricity cycle), internal environmental controls (e.g. furnaces, air-conditioners, &c.) running, for which there is no serious analog, just 2 centuries ago, has got to be doing something to the environment. is all of this waste heat (e.g. not just del-H, but del-S) just radiating off into 'space'? how many BTUs of extra heat [beyond what we were generating back in - say - 1804] are we generating/liberating, these days, and where is it all going?

Blame it on SUV's

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how certain so many people can be of something that we, as a species, know so little about. For those of you who are so certain that humans are the sole culprit of the atmosperic changes, I want you to consider a couple things. Being that we have been studying this phenomenon for what is a geological blink of the eye, how can you be so certain this isn't part of a cycle that we are still discovering. Explain how we have come out of the previous 9 or so ice ages without SUV's, factories, and excessive bovine farts?

What did you say ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This raises the ugly possibility that the capacity of a large carbon sink (possibly the oceans) has been exceeded, and the worst-case scenario is that a tipping point has been reached and a runaway warming scenario is in progress.

Oh, shit!!! Time to buy land in north Canada.

Permafrost meltdown = Bad News for Global Warming

[shrike_love]

The permafrost apparently contains a HUGE amount of trapped methane that is being released as it melts. This new finding will have to be studied and added to the global warming models.

Keep in mind that methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2 -- 25 times worse!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox- a&q=permafrost+methane&spell=1

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS SACRED....

[bornbitter]

...does this mean that mankind will actually have to adapt?! Will the THEORY of evolution be proved once and for all?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/data/mauna

[Anonymous Coward]

The Guardian is reporting that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have leapt by 4.5 ppm in the last two years

CO2
Year Amplitude(ppm)

1958 4.29
1978 5.46
1999 6.5

Source of Mauna Loa data:
"Keeling, C.D. and Whorf, T.P. 2000."
"Atmospheric CO2 concentrations -- Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1958-1999."
"NDP-001. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee."

The CO2 levels increased more in the last 2 years than they did from 1958 to 1999 !

Nobody will read this.. but...

[ylikone]

Why is that a such a large portion of the american public will believe the corporate lies that humans aren't responsible for causing havoc to the environment. It's just an obvious thing in my mind that if you put crap into a system, you get a crappy system. Duh! The MAJORITY of scientists all around the world already know this and try to warn us all the time... yet, stupid americans just continue to deny and accuse the scientists of just wanting grant money or something (yeah, nice logic there).

Grow up americans, take some responsibility for your actions and stop denying any wrong-doing.

MOD PARENT UP

[Thuktun]

This is very insightful. I had known about these potential super-tsunami landslide sites, but never thought about the terrorist connection.

Timing

[janne]

What is interesting is that this is old news, about average CO2 during 2002 and 2003. The record high 2003 increase was reported already at the beginning of the year, and then there were news about record-high March announced by someone with access to the information in a conference.

Does anybody know the origin of the current news story? Was there a press release somewhere? Why just now? Because of the US election or because the trend has got more confirmation during the recent months?

(Yes, models are uncertain. No, warming is most likely not due to natural causes. CO2 increase is definitely mostly of human origin. Biosphere is very complex. We have played Russian roulette enough for now.)

How about posts from the National Enquirer?

[Banner]

Why not quote from the Weekly World Standard? Or the National Enquirer?

Both papers have the same level of journalist standards.

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[Phronesis]

If you follow the link I supplied, you will find that the National Academy of Science panel finds this anomaly a significant puzzle, not something that's been thought of and resolved.

The balance of evidence suggests that the world is indeed warming up, but climatologists do consider the microwave sounding data to be a real anomaly that they can't easily explain away.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also says, in their report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis that "It is very likely that these significant differences in trends between the surface and lower troposphere are real and not solely an artifact of measurement bias," (p. 102)and that "uncertainties due to limited temporal sampling prevent confident extrapolation of these trends to other or longer time periods. ... [A] full explanation of the lower-troposphere lapse rate changes since 1958 requires further research." (p. 123)

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[Phronesis]

Maintainig the satellites is one thing. Maintaining calibration as the orbits vary, microwave radiometers age, and the satellite moves in and out of the sun is another.

See, for instance, Global Warming Trend of Mean Tropospheric Temperature Observed by Satellites, by K.Y. Vinnikov and N.C. Grody, Science 302, 269-72 (2003), which points to the difficulty of maintaining calibration of the microwave radiometers through the diurnal cycle and the problems of determining appropriate weighting functions to calibrate measurements taken with the radiometer pointing somewhere other nadir.

Please mod parent up. [n/t]

[mefus]

I keep seeing arguments against irrelevant points being made without even propping up the argument they oppose before knocking it down.

Jousting haystacks, as it were...

We're polluting our atmosphere?

[Won Ton Hammer]

I for one welcome our new CO2-breathing overlords.

Re:We're polluting our atmosphere?

[Zoolander]

I know it's old, but I can't help laughing nonetheless :D

Who cares about global warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming may or may not be happening, what we do know is happening is that the breast milk of inuits in Greenland is by US standards considered hazardous waste; pregnant women should not eat certain types of fish because of the high level of mercury. Inuits live by and for the nature and live thousands of miles away from the western world, how do you think all that toxic waste ended up in their bodies?

Texas should be fun in a few years

[Anonymous Coward]

Given all the damage the current administration has done to greenhouse control laws/treaties it'll be fun to see them cook down there in Texas in a few years...

He he he. OK, go ahead, mod me troll but I couldn't resist...

Liberal HOKUM

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming is a myth. Environmental degradation is a myth. The environment is actually BETTER now than it has been for thousands of years. Liberals want to go back to the dark ages. Don't let them win. Fight the global warming myth.

Protect America, Bush Cheney 2004.

Think China

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently scientists of have discovered high levels of pollution in winds blowing into the Pacific NW out of the west and the culprit seems to be China's growing industrialization. Similar winds out of China may be a major factor in these outlying Hawaiian observations.

In the early 80s I had a professor who'd maintained close ties to China since he was a Marine guard at the Peking embassy just after WWII. He was disgusted that China seemed to "have learned nothing" from the mistakes we made with industrialization.

--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

The parent's argument was totally valid???

[alizard]

Horseshit. He didn't cite any evidence, just an assertion that he is a "scientist".

Re:The parent's argument was totally valid???

[VendingMenace]

of course, he didn't say anything that required citation, as it is not really nessesary to cite something that is taken to be common knowledge -- which his claims were. But just so we are all in agreement, let us look at his arguemnt...

1) Climate fluxuates.
2) It fluxuates even without human intervention
3) We do not fully understand these fluxxions

Conclusion:
The warming trend we see in the earth's climate may not be due (in part or in full) to increasing CO2 levels. And even if we were to reduce CO2 levels we might still see an increase in warming.

ie:
our inability to understand the trends in climate change may mean that we do not understand why the climate in increasing in temp right now.

Yeah?

Ok, so now lets look at his claims and see wich ones need citing...

1) So we will start off slow with this one...
What was the temp where you live this morning at 3am? How about at 3pm. Did it change? (hint: the answer is probably "yes"). If it did we see that the climate can flux in temp.

Moving along to slightly longer times...
What was the temp of your home town January 1st. How about July 1st. Were they different? (again, the answer is prolly, "yes"). The temp changes throughout the year too!

Ok, a bit longer then...
Do you suppose that it was cooler durring the last ice age than it is now? (hint: the same answer as for the above questions). If you answer "yes" (you should have) then you will see that the temp can change over thousands of years.

So, i would say that through common sense and knowledge, one should be able to arrive at the conclusion (and just know it) that the earth's climate has changed with time. so we will just go ahead and mark down this one as "common knowledge" ok? Cool.

2) Now number 2 might seem a bit less like common knowledge, but i assure you it still is.

Think about how long humans have been around. Lets say around 10 million years (overkill)i think a reasonably educated person should at least know this sort of ballpark figure -- at least the target audeince of his post. Now how old is the earth. Lets say 10 billion years.

Now we use "logic." Do we assume that the temp of the earth just started to wildy flux in the last 1% of its life? Of course not. That would be rediculous. For one, the earth radiates heat away from its surface into space, so that it would seem to cool. But for another, it vents heat from its core so that the surface would seem to warm. Overall, the temp of the earth would have to be in flux throughout its history. This is assuming the uniformatarianism hypothesis is correct, which again is logical.

Thus we see that there is cause to belive that the earth has fluxed in temp on its surface one way or the other through most of its life. Thus, the surface temp of the earth has fluxed whilst humans were not around. And this was arrived at by the simple process of thinking. No need to cite something as obvious as this.

3) This one is so mind bendingly simple that i will not even present an argument. Show me one person that thinks the fully the climate fluxes of the earth and i will show you an arogant bastard who has clearly not thought much on this topic.

Now onto the conclusion that was offered. It was simply this;

Since we do not fully understand the climate fluxations of the earch without humans and we do not understand them WITH humans around, we cannot be sure of anything regarding the fluxxes of the earths temp. Thus, we cannot totally differentiate the efffects of CO2 from the natural fluxxes. Thus, we cannot make any definative statemtns. Futhermore, the whole mess is so complicated that there may be other factors that we haven't thought of. And lastly, even if we were to stabalize the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it may be that the temp would still change (very likely) and perhaps even rise.

Of course this is not to say that CO2 CAN"T contribute to the rise in temp. THere are ve

Re:The parent's argument was totally valid???

[CaptainAvatar]

Yep, and judging by the resume on his website, he ain't. At his last university he studied "Computer Science, General Studies, Basketball" (!). Saying he's an "informed scientist" is just a rhetorical device - ie anyone who disagrees with him is just an ill-informed non-scientist, that's all.

Re:The parent's argument was totally valid???

[Anonymous Coward]

It also says

"General Science/Engineering"

and

"Math"

Re:The parent's argument was totally valid???

[CaptainAvatar]

Those were at his first two colleges, which I assume were at a lower level than his last studies (although the fact he was doing "general studies" there hardly suggests that he was a postgraduate; in fact, there is no indication on his resume that he actually ever received any qualifications in any of the things he studied). Up to 2 years of "General Science/Engineering" and 3 years of "Math" don't make somebody a scientist, sorry. Geez, I did 2 years of math, and a total of 8 years of physics and astrophysics (including a master's degree), and I don't go around calling myself a scientist, just scientifically-trained.

Global warming's got nothing to do with CO2

[the-build-chicken]

Think about it...when did temperatures start to rise...right about the time that countries, all around the world, started to implement daylight savings!

You introduce an extra hour of sunlight...every day...for a third and sometimes half the year...and wonder why it starts to get hotter!!! Crazy. It's just common sense!!

Stop daylight savings and you'll have an hour less of sunlight during the day...it's bound to cool back down then.

I have told my theory to many leading atmospheric scientists but they, or rather the officer issueing the restraining order, were unwilling to enter into debate about the subject. I think there may be a massive coverup underway by the leisure craft industry.

Almost OT

[tehdaemon]

Bravo! You just gave a brilliant example of why democracy sucks!

Re:More on sinks Bzzt! Hybrids, can we say????

[davidsyes]

I understand that China is keenly interested in HYBRID vehicles being given entry priority.

I have harped away off and on over the past 2 or so years, as if I have a Chinese Officials audience, with, essentially, these points for China:

China, PLEASE, PLEASE, for your domestic consumption, national security, and local and global pollution concerns:

--don't let in ANY foreign vehicles which don't offer hybrid or Honda ULEV (ultra low emission vehicle) standards

--don't let your nation have hundreds of thousands or millions of new drivers monthly taking to the roads in pollution-belching, smog-assisting vehicles. If Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Chrysler, GM, and the rest of them drag ass/drag feet and don't want to DO what they technically CAN and KNOW how to do, then to heck with them. Honda and Toyota can give you what you and the world needs: Cleaner vehicles

--DON'T let your nation become more addicted to oil for all those new vehicles coming ashore. If you do, you could find yourself in the position of being AT THE MERCY of the US, should the US decided to grab the oil fields you and Japan and the rest of Asia need to remain opened and unfettered. If you face being starved by the US, it could force your hand and make you precipitate a war, war which no on needs

--Lighter vehicles, particulary the non-allowance of SUVs, would allow your roads to last longer, requiring lest tar, asphalt, cement and other materials which also exude chemicals under harsh sunlight, and material which is worn off and sent into drains or into the air

I rattled on with more details, but these are the salient points. Besides, if more cars are produced locally there, and are cleaner, less maritime/marine fuel would be used shipping all over the place.

So, to me, it seems China WANTS to publicly, if not actually, do a nice part. We'll see, though, in a few years, based on satellite imagery.

The time is NOW for automakers to get off their oil-shackled asses and start mass-producing hybrids and lower-horsepower vehicles so that economies of scale will forever shut down the squealing, lying-assed manufacturers garbage about "we're losing money on hybrids".

First of all, they're outright lying to maintain their comfort zone.

Second, they're being manipulated from within and without to dupe the public into not pressuring them as much.

Third, NO, I repeat NO average citizen joe or jane deserves or has any RIGHT to drive a recklessly irresponsible, gas-swilling vehicle high-horsepower. Why should civilian vehicles (other than the weak argument of allowing citizenry to "blow off steam on occasion) have over 150 horsepower? WHY? Just to pass up somebody? Show off some status? Evade or speed away from a stalker? BS excuses, and poor, weak states of mind, I think.

Horsepower, necessitated by heavier, show-off vehicles, and coupled with mindless demand for ever-increasing "POWER and SPEED" contribute to the production of major gulpers of fuel.

The ONLY I repeat ONLY entities entitled to drive powerful vehicles should be:

-law enforcement
-heavy construction
-product transportation
-mass transit
-fire, medical, and rescue teams
-agriculture
-SOME, but not all, individuals who demonstrate a need to be securely transported from point A to B

and similar.

Individuals who THINK they need a gas-swilling vehicle need to rethink their options, and change their habits. If they think this piece of my mind is an encroachment upon "their rights" then maybe THEY should play chicken in the road to earthmovers that can crush them; maybe THEY should be put into rooms hooked to CO2 and other exhaust by products; maybe THEY should have a greatly higher property tax or use tax on road-wearing, air-heating, intimidation-exuding vehicles.

I don't expect "perfection", but dammit, the progress towards cleaner combustion or pure electric with reduced horsepower needs to be sped up.

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[vsprintf]

Sorry, I trust the satellites. You should too.

Go get some Landsat 7 data from May of last year. Then notice the smear on the edges. Unless you are using raw data and doing your own corrections and compensations for hardware problems and know about all of the hardware problems, you're way too trusting.

Appeal to authority.

[killjoe]

First of all Lomborg is not an authority. He has a PHD in political science. The fact that you would hold him up as an authority in the study of climate change shows exactly how ignorant you are.

Secondly you want people to take your word over the scientists that actually study this. Tell me one reason why I should believe you instead of the scientists.

Re:Appeal to authority.

[qbwiz]

For some other info, google "climatologist global warming" and see what you get.
I get "The IPCC claims that human activities are responsible for nearly all the earth's recorded warming during the past two centuries," said NCPA Adjunct Scholar David Legates, the report's author and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. "Yet the primary assessment they use as support appears to be more junk science than solid evidence."
And Christy is a respected climatologist, but he's also a maverick who argues that global warming isn't a problem worth worrying about.
Of course there's Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels says fears of catastrophic global warming are scientifically unfounded and "alarmist." Any climate change that does occur would not affect Earth or its inhabitants in any significant way, he said.

The problem with Arguing by Authority is that there are so many authorities. It becomes a clash of "My scientist is better than your scientist." You do not need to believe me instead of the scientists (which, of course, are one homogeneous group who believe exactly the same thing, viz. harmful and unprecendented global warming is going on right now). You may believe me *and* the scientists.

Re:Appeal to authority.

[killjoe]

As has been said many times on this topic. There are allways "authorities" or people who claim to be authorities even though they have no formal training in the field who are willing to take a contrarian position. There are physicist who claim we are being visited by aliens, there are biologists who claim God created the world in seven days etc.

You have chosen to ignore 99% of the scientists who claim that global warming is happeing and decided to believe the 1% who claim otherwise.

This is exacly what is wrong with the media coverage of this issue. In order to present a semblance of balance the media tracks down the 1% of the contrarian scientists and presents them as if the scientific community is split 50/50.

If had a show about physics of space travel would it be fair to invite a phyisicist who believes in faster then light travel and alien visitation and pretend that his point of view is shared widely?

"
The problem with Arguing by Authority is that there are so many authorities."

So what is the alternative? Are you going to the antartic and drill your own core samples and analyze them yourself? You probably can't even read the papers that climatologists present let alone write your own.

You can't go along pretending that you can know everything there is to know based on some sort of a bullshit buzzer you think you have.

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[letxa2000]

Great. And can you point me to a paper that points out the difficulty in calculating an accurate, unbiased adjustment to reasonably adjust the measured temperature in heat islands due to expanding urban areas around the temperature station? Or are there only studies into the potential difficulties of measuring techniques that question global warming?

Regardless of potential difficulties involved in satellite temperature readings, I'll take an unbiased satellite reading that is calculated by a computer to a collection of hundreds or thousands of individual station readings that are manually massaged by what can only be called a "fudge factor" to compensate for local urban heat island effects.

Re:More on sinks - no other side???

[CoronalPendragon]

Slow down there, you had better believe there is another side, and no, I am not an significant source of pollution. What I am is physicist in solar physicist.

You suggest that we completely understand the atmosphere and the things that drive it. We don't.

Here is the issue we have with it. At least 3 times in the last 2000 years the sun has, for its own mysterious reasons, stopped producing sunspots. These are called the Wolff and the Sporrer and the Maunder minimums. (Excuse my spelling) These sunspot minima are correlated with signifcant atmospheric change. The last one, and by far the best observed, the Maunder Minimum, happened the same time as the Little Ice Age. Periods of high solar activity correlate well with increases in terrestrial temperature, eg. the Dust Bowl Days.

Right now, we are entering a period of exceptional solar activity. [I am of course talking about years at a time, because at the moment, we have just started into the declining phase of the solar cycle.] And likewise, we notice the Earth getting a bit warmer. This happened in the Middle Ages too.

The only real objection, is that we have no idea, how this is happening. It doesn't appear to be Total Solar Irradiance, but we have not had high quality observations for that long. More likely, it has to do with the sun's extended magnetic field, and whether we are impacted by slow or fast solar wind, or both. That does have an effect on the upper atmosphere.

I admit, this is not an objection to be ignored, but nor is the very good correlation between global temperatures and solar activity.

Stop acting like anyone who disagrees is a crackpot or a terrorist. That is devisive and short-sighted.

What am *I* doing in a roomful of scientists?

[Provocateur]

I'm just the guy hanging around the punch bowl.

(Even *I* can't discuss the weather with these guys! Sheesh!)

Stupid Clipboard user

[HughsOnFirst]

link should have been
In an article Greenhouse Gas Jump Spurs Global Warming Fears

(Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!)
Uh Yeah....

Oh shut up please.

[jotaeleemeese]

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."

-President Bush, Sept. 23, 2002, Trenton, New Jersey, speech

Re:Oh shut up please.

[skids]

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."

-President Bush, Sept. 23, 2002, Trenton, New Jersey, speech

It is scary that I even have to ask this, but is that what he meant, or did he actually mean to say "conservation?"

Re:Oh shut up please.

[SumoRoach]

Given that his argument against the Kyoto Accord is that it will cost jobs, he definitely wants us buying American SUV's to keep the economy from 'dying'.

You don't have to give up your AC

[jotaeleemeese]

Just insulate properly your house.

You don't need a 10 ton vehicle that travels one mile per gallon to drop your children at the school 200m down the road.

OK, I am exagerating, but certainly there are decisions to be made that would not alter greatly our level of life (get a damned compact car that is efficent).

Hmmm, May be it has something to do with the oil w

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, May be it has something to do with the oil wells that burnt up, oh and the bombs going off

Thanks, humans!

[hudsong]

This is fucking great! Thanks alot Mr. Ford!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Bottom lines

[kn0tw0rk]

Then there is the bottom line most males are interested in, the VPL (visible panty line), which is much more noticible in the warmer weather :)

Re:Probably...

[villageidiot357]

If it turns out that global warming is not caused by human activity, but is still happening do we want to stop it them?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Using your own figures

[The Cookie Monster]

So at 30 billion tonnes per year into an atmosphere of 1800 billion tonnes... that's a 16% man-made increase in atmospheric CO2 over 1 decade, except this sort of thing has been going on in various amounts since the industrial revolution.

Sure CO2 levels are naturally cyclic, sure we might just happen to be on a peak, but current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are above 370 parts per million, that's higher than any level ever recorded from an ice core, ~30% higher than any peak the natural cycle has ever produced, and over 150000 years it just co-incidently happens to be occurring while we spit out 30 billion tonnes of it a year.

Don't kid yourself, you're not kicking the sacred cow because you're smart or know something others don't, you're kicking it because you don't want to have to change your views or your way of life.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonC yc le/carbon_cycle4.html

I thought we already covered this....

[Orne]

Russia wants to join Kyoto because the very essense of the Kyoto Treaty creates a "pollution credit" as a form of tradable currency. Credits were calculated based on 1990 production output. Russia has since entered an industrial decline, and thus under the Kyoto calculations would have a incredible excess of "allowed pollution" amounts. Under the treaty, they could trade away these credits for cold hard cash, possibly as high as $3 billion a year income stream...

China loves Kyoto because they managed to get themselves exempted from it under some "third world status" clause, despite the fact that they have since grown to become the world's second largest consumer of petroleum resources.

So in this case, the U.S.'s policy of doing nothing is, in fact, the best political action for them to take. "Yeah, I want to sign myself into an agreement that will cost my country billions in retrofitting factories, while exempting my philosophical rival nations from any responsibility. Oh yeah, and we're going to allow them to compete commercially with us on the open markets, such that their goods will always be the lower cost (since they don't have to follow the environmental regulations) which will only hurt my future gross domestic product." Brilliant!

Lets try the "Nuke em all" Policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey lets face it, if Global warming were WMDs there is more than enough evidence to go to war.....

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[Phronesis]

The IPCC reports are probably the best resource for this. They point to hundreds of papers in the peer-reviewed literature that deal with this very real and difficult problem.

This is a real problem, but people have been working hard on it for 15 to 20 years. Just last week, a paper was published in Science Express (the advance version of Science) that suggests that the uncertainties in measuring past climates are greater than what are commonly accepted by mainstream scientists. The article is available only by subscription, but the New York Times has a good balanced account of it.

Just in time?

[thegreatpissant]

http://www.physorg.com/news1041.html

Re:More on sinks - no other side???

[jd]

I'll agree with you that the sun's behavior is not well-understood, and that there have been (so far) unexplained minima and maxima. These may well have skewed results. Three observations, over a four billion year period, doesn't make for particularly meaningful statistics.

I'll also agree that we need more data. We need to know what's happening, why it's happening, and what effect it has on the biosphere, both short-term and long-term.

The only thing I'll add is that we need that data as soon as possible. If the sun is a larger factor than environmentalists have considered, we need to know now for economic reasons. If the sun is actually a smaller factor, then the models need to be scaled up accordingly.

Whichever way it is (or even if the current models have the sun's influence dead-on) we need to know BEFORE we go down a catastrophic path, and we won't know how long we have before we go down such a path until we have the data.

Oh, bullpucky

[Intraloper]

We have over 400,000 years of useful atmospheric data. Your ignorance of this very basic fact disqualifies the entirety of your statement.

Re:Oh, bullpucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite your source please.

Re:More on sinks I AGREE COMPLETELY

[newpath4com]

I grew up in the 1950's, in Virginia. The air was fresh, Monarch butterflys visited our "butterfly bushes" every summer as they migrated south. They were so very beautiful. Over the last year I have been blessed to figure out why the LN2000 nitrogen engine failed to work properly. I share your sentiment there bigberk. I don't want to have the noose of History around my neck for being the generation that killed Mankind. In the U.S. last I heard we spent $15 trillion last year for medical care, and much of our worst medical needs stems directly from air pollution. I recently completed several pages describing as best I could how a "steam-enhanced" nitrogen engine can be totally non-polluting. I also wrote 5 pages I called "Icy Hot". All of these links are reached through http://www.newpath4.com/NNINDEX/nnindex.htm and http://www.newpath4.com/effectsofairpollution.htm. The original LN2000 pre-warmed the nitrogen, expanded it to where it didn't have much power left, because the inventors were trying to keep the supercold liquid nitrogen from freezing the engine piston to a crawl or a dead stop. Sucked the power right out. By adding steam before the nitrogen, I showed how to get the FULL EXPANSION & UNLEASHED BLAST OF POWER inside the engine cylinder. By using two inert mediums as donkeys to carry energies into the cylinder, all of the power -an explosion without combustion- occurs where it's needed. Soon we'll be able to drive to our heart's content and not pollute this planet. We can drive SUV's and stretch limos if we have the money. [And why shouldn't we once we're using a free fuel supply?] Also, I'd like to make a note, that by using these cold & hot energies, the engine is TEMPERATURE-BALANCED and does not need a COOLING SYSTEM. Which means we can do away with poisonous antifreeze for all our cars that has been adding to the planet's overall pollution and groundwater soilage, not to mention leachate from our dumps. I released the engine for free onto the Internet to counter what you're saying, how the corporate moguls seem to be dropping the ball for profits. If Detroit refuses to build it, I'm sure the Japanese will be there for us. Oh yeah; it doesn't need a heavy starter or battery either... [See http://www.newpath4.com/index.html#RocketScience], and Have a Really Great Day tomorrow my friends!

Using CO2 measurements from a large active volcano

[chopperlinux]

I normally don't comment on slashdot articles, but this time the topic is in my area of science, as i am a Masters Geology at a New Zealand university and i have substantial spatial modelling experience.

Firstly, my comments based on my geology background. Taking CO2 measurements from the peak of a large active volcano and using it for broad scare-mongering stories on a potential approaching cataclysm is, well, stupid. The only legitimate use for such data is to form theories on relationships between CO2 emissions and basaltic volcanos and the Hawaii Volcanic Centre, and build some predictive models of C02 emissions and future volcanism. At the most you could claim you are investigating volcanic contributions to worldwide C02 concentrations.

See here for basic data on Mauna Loa:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/maunaloa/

See here for a study on C02 emissions from Mt Erebus, the most active Antartic volcano:
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/geochem /co2.html

Secondly, my comments from a spatial modelling perspective. Pre-satellite data collected in the past on C02 concentrations and temperature in the atmosphere (from balloons etc) and nearer the Earths surface (ground stations etc) are taken from discrete sampling locations, often at discrete points in time, often located near major urban areas. This leaves CO2 and global temperature models based on this data inherently biased due to:

1. the assumed spatial relationship between two or more points of data, ie a bogus belief by some
modellers that you can simply interpolate data over regions of land or volumes of atmosphere between two or more real world locations.

2. the assumption that a measurement taken at one point in time is representative of all values possible over a certain time frame, e.g. taking a measurement at midday on one day of the year as being representative of all times in that day, week, month, season, year etc.

3. the inevitable complication of rising urban temperatures, not just purely in terms of temperature rises, but dramatic changes in the distribution of temperatures throughout a given day. This is largely caused by the thermal properties of concrete and other building materials. Search the Internet for "Urban Heat Island Effect" or similar. I imagine similar problems arise with C02 measurements taken near urban areas and airports, but this is not likely a problem near Hawaii.

And another point: do not trust the Guardian, or the Independent, or New Scientist or any other popular media publication, for accurate scientific sumnations. If journalists knew a damn thing about science they would be getting far better pay actually doing scientific research, rather than working for partisan media publications.

Try "Science" or "Nature" instead.

Hope there arent any editing errors in this...

Cheers :-)

Re:More on sinks - NOW with Bill Moyers

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the guy profiled on NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climateqanda.html
He has been heating up sections of a meadow in Colorado for more than a decade. The heated sections are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than the sections without heaters.

And this page --http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatedebate.htm l --has a lot of interesting links on the topic....

Real solutions

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

So far I haven't seen any.

That's why I am not surprised at the heat this debate generates.

Okay, here's the real solution:

Everybody convert to the True Religion and does what God tells him or her about it.

Why doesn't it work? Well, there's always the difficulty of choosing the True Religion. Then there's always the difficulty of getting people to give more than lip service to any part of it other than their own favorite hobby doctrines.

And there's the issue that God, if God exists, seems to be quite content to let the average joker screw him/herself until reality hits.

So the real problem seems to be lack of patience. The problem will be solved one way or another.

In the meantime, I want to see something that can be done without making things worse:

Passive solar water heating seems to be good.

Windmills seem to be good, but I'm wondering about the hidden production costs. I'm not too worried about the effects on wind patterns, but I think there should be some simulations run. (Do we have the technology?)

Bicycles seem to be good.

Jobs close to home seem to be good, but there seem to be socio-political-advertising problems with those.

Telecommuting ought to be good, if we could get the semiconductor industry to slow down their pollution now that we have what should be enough power in the average desktop to support it.

Farming our own land seems like a great solution to the global warming, if only everyone would do it. Of course, some people think there are too many disadvantages to that, worried, I suppose, about the carbon dioxide, natural gas, and heat produced by septic tanks, composts pits, and cattle.

Unexplained???

[lmenke]

What is amusing about the articles title is that any variation in CO2 is unexplained. The existing models do not explain any of the CO2 levels, including methane, water vapor, etc. The assumption is that CO2 increases (including methane) are caused by humans. However, when levels decrease humans are not given the credit. This is a standard example of circular logic. Lorenz

It's in the phrasing

[warrax_666]

You said:

so of course levels are going to be higher now than they used to be.

Now, if you meant "levels are higher now than they would have been without our presence", then you might be "more" correct, but even then there is the possibility that humans putting out CO2 could in fact cause some sort of negative feedback effect where the "final" levels of CO2 wouldn't in fact be lower than they would otherwise have been. The point is: Without much more solid evidence of causation (correlation isn't even close to good enough if you want to "prove" a positive) there is no way to know, and using such faulty logic is dangerous and counterproductive. (You know you really have to watch out when words like 'obviously', 'clearly' and 'of course' are being thrown around. :))

It's not that I don't tend to intuitively agree with you that it seems likely that we are affecting CO2 levels (although I am far from certain that it's any more than a 'blip' in the grand scheme of things) -- I just don't know of any proof and admit as much.

I won't respond to the rest of your post which is basically alarmist rhetoric based on the false assumption that the mere potential for grave consequences of something we don't even know is happening requires us to Act Now.

Use the word "theory" correctly, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get definitions straight: theory means "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; 'theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses.'"

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[letxa2000]

Uh huh. The IPCC. The largest, most international group of politically-oriented people in the world. Yes, many are scientists. But IPCC is certainly not a model of scientific investigation and reporting. It is an international political organization with an agenda. They got together to prescribe a "solution," not to honestly evaluate whether or not there was really a problem. They already knew going in that the only question was what the recommendation would be. You don't organize a meeting that big with the potential control on international economies and then say, "Oops, we were wrong. There is no conclusive data yet."

And forgive me if I don't trust the people that have been massaging the data for 15 or 20 years since many of them depend on ongoing funding that would be in jeapordy if they were to massage the data a little more conservatively. Just like some people don't trust global warming skeptic scientists as pawns of some industry, I don't trust pro-global warming scientists when their potential source of investigative funding is at stake.

Rather than trying to fudge an inherently inaccurate and incomplete surface record, these scientists should focus on resolving any problems they have with the satellite record which is the only truly global temperature record we have. After all this is supposedly global warming. You're being naive if you think we're going to be able to adequately monitor it by some strategically placed thermometers in heat islands of urban sprawl and generally ignore the 75% of the earth's surface that is covered by water.

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[Phronesis]

The IPCC actually does discuss the uncertainties in depth and has an extensive bibliography. Even Richard Lindzen, one of the more prominent skeptics about greenhouse warming, says that "The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy." Lindzen complains that while the IPCC report is quite accurate, "The Summary for Policymakers is ... a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence."

I would also point out that even Lindzen agrees, in the document cited above and in his testimony to the US Senate, that "global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago," but he claims that we can't tell whether this temperature rise has anything to do with the rise in CO2 levels.

I also find it strange that you would assert that over the past 20 years the Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 governments would have cut funding for scientists who found that the world was not warming up ("many of them depend on ongoing funding that would be in jeapordy if they were to massage the data a little more conservatively"). I can see this charge against the Clinton/Gore administration, but for most of the last 20 years we've had conservative Republican administrations. Can you substantiate this claim?

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[Phronesis]

Two more things.

Rather than trying to fudge an inherently inaccurate and incomplete surface record, these scientists should focus on resolving any problems they have with the satellite record which is the only truly global temperature record we have.

The problem is that to distinguish anthropogenic warming from natural climate cycles, you need a very long climate record. We don't have satellite records from 100, 1000, or 10,000 years ago, so even if satellites unambiguously said that the world had warmed up significantly in the last 20 years, this information would not tell us whether the warming was part of a trend that correlates with CO2 concentrations or merely a coincidence.

For this reason, we use both instrumental records (which do suffer from the urban heat island effect you discuss) as well as indirect records (dendrochronology, hydrogen isotope ratios from ice cores, etc.).

You're being naive if you think we're going to be able to adequately monitor it by some strategically placed thermometers in heat islands of urban sprawl and generally ignore the 75% of the earth's surface that is covered by water.

The 75% of the earth's surface covered by water is measured, albeit incompletely, by water samples drawn by ships crossing the oceans. We have a few hundred years of data from this, but just as with urban heat islands, there are problems comparing old data with new (e.g., evaporative cooling of water sampled in canvas buckets on old sailing ships vs. measurements at subsurface water intakes on modern vessels).

Back under the bridge for you. . .

[Farley Mullet]

1. Pointless vitriol?

   Apparently you have a tenuous grasp of English in general and hyperbole in particular.

   Check.
2. Incoherent rhetoric?

   I wasn't disputing the CO2 or the heat. My point was that there is not enough data from which to draw a good conclusion. I was addressing a political debate.

   Check.
3. Ignorance of the facts that can only be willful?

   But then again, the sky is falling isn't it? It can't possibly be that hard to fix the climate.

   Check

.I could try to engage you on the issues, but, it seems to me that you're either a shill for the petrochemical industry (the bit about a "catastrophic solution" was a nice touch), terminally dumb, or a plain old troll. So any way you cut it, saying anything more would be a bit of a waste of time.

Re:Back under the bridge for you. . .

[HiLander4237]

I could try to engage you on the issues,

Nothing you've said makes the rest of us believe it's likely.

but, it seems to me that you're either a shill for the petrochemical industry (the bit about a "catastrophic solution" was a nice touch),

In your post, you advocate solving problems before having a good understanding of whether your solution is going to help anything. That's myopic at best, and downright dangerous at worst. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they've been coerced in some way by industry. I do, however, like your conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you on climate-related matters has a fringe view of science. It's delightfully eccentric.

terminally dumb,

I see you gave up on the whole "arguing reasonably" that you claim you yourself could do. By the way, you do realize that the use of the word "either" refers to one of exactly two choices, right?

or a plain old troll.

The voice of experience, I suppose.

So any way you cut it, saying anything more would be a bit of a waste of time.

Now, come on: if you actually believed that it would be a waste of time, you wouldn't have responded. By the way, your response doesn't actually attack any of the legitimate points brought up in the previous post. One might construe that you didn't understand them, but I'll presume you chose to troll instead.

CO2 and Global Warming

[djdbrand]

We have 500,000,000 years of data from ice cores that indicate co2 levels have either no or the opposite effect on global temperatures. This data carries more weight then the short term data collected today that is based on the assumption that co2 increases global temperatures. It is assumed by many that because of the correlation between increasing levels of co2 and global temperatures that there is causation. There are many different mechanisms at work and which ones are at work in our atmosphere are difficult to determine over the short term. Thousands of years of data are required to make accurate predictions about global climate changes over the long term. Please keep in mind that greed and power can also be involved in the need to scare people into rash action. The following is a non-profit organization that puts data out that shows there is a legitimate other side.

http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n19c2.h tm

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[letxa2000]

The IPCC actually does discuss the uncertainties in depth and has an extensive bibliography.

But did they actually read any of the material cited in the bibliography? And, more importantly, did the politicians who made policy recommendations read the bibliographic material or even the the full IPCC report?

I doubt it. And I can understand that. Most politicians don't have time to read hundreds of pages of dry climate information. They read the summaries and while it's been awhile since I've engaged in this discussion (and as a result I don't have links ready and I don't have time right now to dig them all up again) it has been my observation in the past that even the full report doesn't give adequate time to the reservations. They talk about the results of climate models and, last time I checked, essentially devote a single sentence that effectively says that the climate models aren't necessarily accurate and are "always improving." Considering the more the climate models improve the lower the global warming predictions become, basing policy decisions on these models is premature. And the IPCC full report addressing this absolutely paramount concern with a single sentence tells me just how much science there is to be found in the IPCC full report and how much politics.

If you can find otherwise please let me know. I'd be glad to be proven wrong. But in the past I did read a large portion of the full report and specifically scanned for comments on the accuracy of the models and was dismayed at how that whole topic was pretty much ignored.

I also find it strange that you would assert that over the past 20 years the Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 governments would have cut funding for scientists who found that the world was not warming up ("many of them depend on ongoing funding that would be in jeapordy if they were to massage the data a little more conservatively"). I can see this charge against the Clinton/Gore administration, but for most of the last 20 years we've had conservative Republican administrations. Can you substantiate this claim?

It's not that the government would cut funding for those that find that the world is not warming up. It's simply that the much academic research is government-funded and funds tend to not be forthcoming when you say nothing is happening. If a scientist says "We did this investigation and found that human-induced global warming is not happening" then he's not going to get any more funding. Not for any political reason but simply because if they've already said the global warming isn't happening, why give them more money to investigate global warming? Ongoing funds are insured by investigating the theory and either reaching alarming conclusions or leaving the investigation inconclusive to warrant more research.

It's like the idea of building a light-bulb that lasts forever. Not a good financial idea for the light-bulb makers because they'll make one sale and then they're done. Likewise scientists that conclude that human-induced global warming is not happening are eliminating their possibility of getting more global warming research funds in the future.

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[letxa2000]

We don't have satellite records from 100, 1000, or 10,000 years ago, so even if satellites unambiguously said that the world had warmed up significantly in the last 20 years, this information would not tell us whether the warming was part of a trend that correlates with CO2 concentrations or merely a coincidence.

Logiacl conclusion: We have insufficient data to make a rational recommendation. I don't subscribe to the belief that "Even if we're wrong about global warming, drastic cuts in CO2 production is the right thing to do anyway." The impact on humans of significant reduction in CO2 could be as drastic as the worst fears of global warming. We should not embark on major policy changes based on insufficient data.

For this reason, we use both instrumental records (which do suffer from the urban heat island effect you discuss) as well as indirect records (dendrochronology, hydrogen isotope ratios from ice cores, etc.).

My understanding is that the information taken from ice cores, etc. is significantly less alarming then what we would be made to believe from the instrumental record. And I believe that the effects of heat islands, etc. on the instrumental record are so severe and the impacts are impossible to know with certainty that the data should be pretty much thrown out. Certainly not used as a basis for recommending draconian CO2 reductions and rationing.

So we have a satellite record that is too short to be helpful and an instrument record that is too inaccurate to be helpful. We don't have enough information.

The 75% of the earth's surface covered by water is measured, albeit incompletely, by water samples drawn by ships crossing the oceans. We have a few hundred years of data from this, but just as with urban heat islands, there are problems comparing old data with new (e.g., evaporative cooling of water sampled in canvas buckets on old sailing ships vs. measurements at subsurface water intakes on modern vessels).

Of course we have samples from ships at see but they are incomplete and generally only cover the major shipping lanes. If you're lucky instead of missing 75% of the planet covered by water we're only missing 74%.

The War on the Environment

[MortgageMan]

I feel hugely compelled to point out that the Neo-Con smack for brains have failed to launch a pre-emptive strike against Global Warming...

--Richard

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[Phronesis]

I was talking about the climate records. There, there is a detailed discussion of the uncertainties about the urban heat island effect, other uncertainties, the disagreements between different records (satellites vs. surface; different geological records of ancient temperatures, etc). See, for instance, Box 2.1 in "The Scientific Basis" for good discussion of the heat island effect.

The 2001 report also has detailed discussion of model uncertainties. Chapter 8 is all about model evaluation and concludes with a section on what is and is not reliable about the models on a scale ranging from "well-established" to "speculative."

There are numerous graphs showing model calculations versus observed climatic data (see, for instance, figs. 8.15 and 8.19).

The authors of the scientific sections of the IPCC report are indeed real practicing scientists, many of them the best in the field, and they do seem to have read the literature quite comprehensively.

On self interest and scientists, it's amusing that you accuse them of exaggerating their certainty about global warming to keep the funds coming. A couple of years ago, Roger Pielke, Jr., and Daniel Sarewitz accused climate scientists of exaggerating their uncertainty about global warming on the grounds that if everyone accepted that warming was a real threat, politicians might divert funding away from research and toward action. Thus, Pielke and Sarewitz accuse climate scientists of accepting research funding as bribes for continuing to say that things are uncertain and further research is needed. P & S argue that honest climate scientists would say that we know all we need to know; further research is unlikely to resolve uncertainties in any useful way, so we should hang up the expensive research and start taking political action.

I don't buy either your idea that scientists are exaggerating fears of climate change to keep funding coming or Pielke and Sarewitz's idea that they are playing up the uncertainty to keep funding coming. I think they are being honest and recognize that even if they stopped doing climate change research there would still be a lot of well-funded opportunities at predicting ENSO events, droughts, tropical storm trends, etc. It's not as though natural climatic variability is economically or politically negligible.

Of Primary Importance...

[Genda]

Sadly we have presumed in many cases that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and global warming as a whole is a linear process. As we are now seeing, and could have easily predicted if we hadn't been desperately trying to justify our American SUVs or Chinese fossil fuel powered industrialization.

Permafrost represents nearly a third of the vegetative surface of the earth. It has locked up in it, as much or more CO2 than currently present in the atmosphere. At it's melting fast. All through northern latitudes the phenomenon of "Drunken Forests" is becoming all too common. These are forests rooted in permafrost, that is now suddenly melting and the trees are slowly falling down (the ones standing do so at drunken angles.)

Another potential horror, is the real possibility that changes in the temperature and salinity of water in the Atlantic, could cause it to suddenly and without warning belch up a catastrophic cloud of CO2. If this were to happen close to a populated shore, the results could be the death of tens even hundreds of thousands of people.

Huge CO2 sinks suddenly releasing their stored gases could amplify global warming (and associated feedbacks.) The results are still very hard to predict, but the best likelihood is that higher life on the planet would have a very bad time of it. We need to begin addressing this problem now, or it will address us in a extreme and permanent manner soon.

Genda

Strange representation...

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that NPR program too. The attempt to be fair was a bit underwhelming, and may have been deliberately sarcastic. Here's why:

First they interviewed a scientist, giving the standard scientific view. Then they said, "but some scientists disagree..." and proceded to interview a LAWYER [?!] glibly saying he knew lotsa scientists who thought [insert environmental catastrophe here] wasn't a problem.

They certainly could have done better by not playing along with the lawyer's pretense that his scientists existed. But to let a lawyer pretend to speak for a rumored scientific community--that was pretty facetious of them! Too bad the joke is probably lost on most of the public. :-(

Re:Satellite temperature measurements

[Phronesis]

Let me digress with a story about a different sort of decision. Several years ago, my son had a high fever, was vomiting, and had a sharp pain in his abdomen. I took him to the hospital. The doctor quickly told me that there was a good chance that he had appendicitis, but that there wasn't enough information know with any great certainty. He recommended immediate surgery despite his lack of data. I went along with his recommendation because and found that my son had a ruptured gangrenous appendix. If I had waited for enough information to be certain, my son would probably have died.

Similarly, we are facing decisions today about the environment where any reasonable scientist will say that we can't be very certain about the consequences of our choices.

If we put off reducing CO2 emissions and global warming turns out to be on the bad side of the range of estimates, we may be faced with thousands of years of environmental disaster.

On the other hand, if we prematurely cut CO2 emissions and global warming turns out to be on the benign side of the range of estimates, we will have condemned billions in the developing world to unnecessary poverty and disease that could have been helped with the money earned by faster industrialization.

For about ten years, I have taken the position that the focus on the climate record of the last century has received too much attention. If we step back from the details of the short-term temperature record and ask about long term climate futures, I see a different picture: Right now, we can be quite certain that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than 20% higher than it's been at any point in the previous 400,000 years and almost all of the increase in the last 15,000 years has occurred in the last 50 years, exactly as we would expect if the increase was solely due to burning fossil fuels. With less certainty, it appears that CO2 concentrations may be about 20% greater than they've been at any time in the past 22 million years.

While reentrant feedback loops in the climate make it difficult to sort chickens from eggs and conclusively demonstrate causality, there is a clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the past half-million years. The physical basis for a causal connection between CO2 concentrations and temperature is well-understood, although it's legitimate when critics point out that feedback effects can be large enough to completely overwhelm the primary forcing.

It's also true that our uncertainties about aerosol forcings are larger than the total effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to date (IPCC discusses this and clearly states the uncertainties). This means that we do not understand climate well enough to state with certainty what has caused the climate changes that have been observed in the last century. The balance of the evidence suggests to most scientists that CO2 emissions are responsible, but there is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree, and they do!

Where I come down with this uncertainty is as follows: Over the past 100 years, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the air by about 25%. If we continue the current trends of CO2 emissions for another 100 years, atmospheric CO2 at the end of this century will be several times its preindustrial value.

We don't have any reasonable climatological data from the past to tell us what the earth would be like with four times its current CO2 concentrations. There is good reason to worry that there could be severe climate disruptions. If there were, it would take thousands or years or more to bring CO2 levels down to their preindustrial values, so we would be stuck with a changed climate for a long time, even if we assume that there is no hysteresis in the climate system (events such as the Younger Dryas suggest, but do not prove, that there may well be hysteresis that would make it even harder to reverse the climate change).

If we are wrong and slow down industrial activity for several decades and then find out that

Science vs Plattitudes

[thelizman]

Thats all you've got? I'm sorry to say that none of those were ever inconceivable to men of learning and intellect.

The notion that man, whose collective energy output is 114 gigajoules (114 x 10^9) could ever significantly impact a system which contains 131 terrajoules (131.0 x 10^12 joules) of energy, is quite frankly ignorant. If the global climate were really so fragile that a thousandths of a percent of fluctuation would destabilize it, then we would have been wiped out by solar flares eons ago.

Knee jerk reactions to unsubstantiated problems are probably more dangerous than the problems the are intended to solve.

stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent -1 Goth