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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[goldstein]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

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...

[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...

[cylcyl]

In other news, Bush signs Kyoto Accord and cancels 2004 elections to "abide by international treaties"

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..

[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..

[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..

[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.

The Day after Tomorrow

[freedom_india]

why do i get an uneasy feeling that the movie The Day After Tomorrow is coming alive...?

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.

*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.

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.

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

[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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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 :-)

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

[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?

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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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.

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

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: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?

Global Cooling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we were in a period of Global Cooling?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

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...

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!

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

[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.

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

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: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: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.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Geological evidense shows that most of the life on the planet is dead.

Do we join them early?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

[Phil Wilkins]

Somewhere between zip, and fuck-all.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Junk science it is...

[Vintermann]

Tim Lambert has a good article on your source.

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.

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.

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!

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...
.

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?

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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: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.