Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Humanity Responsible For Current Climate Change

Posted by Zonk on from the we-screw-things-up dept.

tehanu writes "Scientists working with Antarctic ice have found that the level of greenhouse gases is at the highest level in over half a million years. Carbon dioxide is 27% higher now than any other time over the last 650 000 years. Methane, an even stronger greenhouse gas is 130% higher. The period of time studied covers eight full glacial cycles including a time when the earth's position relative to the sun is the same as it is today. Other scientists have found that the annual rate at which the sea has risen since the industrial revolution is twice that of over the last 5000 years. It is predicted that by 2100 the sea level will be 40cm higher. These results provide strong evidence that human activity since the industrial revolution, rather than just natural processes, has strongly altered the world's climate. As one of the scientists involved in the research put it: 'The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.'"

49 of 775 comments (clear)

  1. No! God did it! by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Funny
    People have only been here a few thousand years, right? Intelligent design and all that.

    Any rise in temperature must be part of the Grand Design.

    Don't sweat it! (e.g. shit happens.)

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:No! God did it! by bigman2003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sadly, the best possible response we will see in America, is people putting some sort of 'Stop Global Warming' magnet on their SUV.

      I am a proponent of HUGE tax increases on gasoline. Push it up to the $6 level. People won't stop driving until it really hurts to do it.

      We really need to do something about cutting down on emissions. This is a serious problem, and our society is just moving further and futher towards making it worse.

      Look at the electronics industry- look at our computers, and how much energy they suck up. Blindly imagining that this problem won't affect us, is like putting our heads in the sand.

      But the other day I was looking at some 'Enviro-Logs' I bought. They are like Duraflame logs, but they are made from recycled 'waxed cardboard' (which they can't use for making new cardboard.)

      The label touted them as being environmentally friendly because they took the cardboard out of the waste stream and landfill. But is burning it even worse?

      This is a very very complex problem, and we Americans are the biggest consumers, and therefore the biggest offenders.

      Once again, I say tax the crap out of things. Make it hurt to buy...use that money to correct some of the wrongs that have already been done. Protect the forests, lower emissions, etc. etc.

      I'm not a tree-hugger, but I am serious about this.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    2. Re:No! God did it! by StarvingSE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah thats really smart. Make gas $6 a gallon so people already hurt by the poor economy the US is experiencing can be hurt even more. For the record, I am very environmentally minded, but the fact is that people will drive no matter what the price is. We pay around $2.50 avg around the country (not an exact figure, just estimating for sake of argument) and no one takes the bus to work. The main problem is that in many US cities there is no choice but to drive everywhere. Public transportation is seriously lacking, and I feel that should be top priority in any large metropolitan area. Make public transportation easy, cheap, and readily available, and people will gladly use it instead of paying high gas prices.

      And besides, we're going to run out of oil in the next 100 years anyway, and the earth will balance itself out and go back to equilibrium, and everyone will be happy (except for the oil companaies).

      --
      I got nothin'
    3. Re:No! God did it! by luder · · Score: 3, Funny

      You insensitive clod! Everybody knows it is because of the pirates!

    4. Re:No! God did it! by bigman2003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I lived in Germany for 3.5 years (you can probably guess why). And when I was there, gas was about what you quoted, except at the time is was in Deutschmarks- but it was about the same price. And that was 15 years ago.

      And when gas is that expensive...people FIND other ways to get around. You do it by necessity.

      American's won't change until this happens.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    5. Re:No! God did it! by frogstar_robot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Artic land rush...... now you know what the plan is.

      Antarctic land rush. The artic pole will be nothing but a chilly sea if the ice melts. Hardly any land mass up there to speak of. Antarctica has a continental landmass underneath it's cap.

    6. Re:No! God did it! by (negative+video) · · Score: 3, Informative
      Use real wood people, you're not hurting the environment by doing so, ...
      Log-in-a-fireplace burning produces extremely dirty smoke. I've heard, though, that the controlled wood pellet burners with catalytic converters are pretty clean.
    7. Re:No! God did it! by Daath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main problem is that in many US cities there is no choice but to drive everywhere.

      Sure. I can accept that. What I can't accept is the whine about gas prises, from people who drive cars that aren't really economic. I mean with 10 MPG or there abouts, you have no right to complain ;P
      Invest in a more economic car, that goes 50 MPG or more.

      For the record, I pay around USD $5.70 per gallon. And yes, I do whine about it too. Car prises in Denmark are insane though, so I can't afford to switch cars (mine only gets around 32 MPG)...

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
    8. Re:No! God did it! by IdleTime · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's not informative.

      There is a lot of land north of the Arctic circle, 99% of it is unpopulated. Arctic != 100% ice

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    9. Re:No! God did it! by mjbkinx · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Pretty much all over Europe prices are in the $5-6/gallon range, it seems to work well, i.e. you don't have to pay $6 for a loaf of bread as another poster claimed would happen if fuel prices were that high.
      It's true that particularly Germany has a higher population density than the US, and a decent public transport system. However, I wouldn't say people use public transport to save money -- a modern car would cost less in fuel, despite the high prices we have here. It's just that it's a comfortable way to travel if you want to go from city to city, i.e. if you're lucky enough to have a good connection to where you want to go. Some read a book, some work (or play) on their laptops. You can't do that while you drive. Public transport for shorter distances has the advantage that you don't need to find a parking space. For those who use it to get to work on a daily bases there are monthly tickets that make it affordable, and in some cities it has the advantage that special bus lanes go past the rush hour traffic jams. But as with trains, it depends on your personal situation whether it is a good option or not. Depending on where you live and where and when you want to go you might have to change (potentially crowded) busses, walk to the neares bus station in the rain, and so on. So, it really depends, and doesn't necessarily save you any money if you have a car anyway (however, it makes it possible to live without one, depending on personal circumstances).

      No, the main effect the higher prices really have isn't that people drive less or buy less cars (Germany even has more cars per capita than the US), but that consumers buy more efficient cars. Germans drive more than they used to, but use less fuel -- the average new car is down to 30mpg (link in German, sorry).
      I just read somewhere that 47% of new cars bought in western Europe have diesel engines, they use roughly 40% less fuel for the same power. Modern diesel engines don't have the disadvantages you might associate with them, i.e. they're not noisy, they accelerate quickly and so on. There are filters for particles.

      So, my conclusion is that instead of whining about high fuel prices (which aren't that high at all, compared to what it costs elsewhere), Americans should simply buy more efficient cars. I can understand that some people need cars to get around for their job, that they're needed for travel and all that, no problem. It's just that, personally, I'd buy an efficient car if I was in that situation, no matter what fuel costs. You don't even have to buy an expensive hybrid, modern diesels come pretty close.

    10. Re:No! God did it! by bluGill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last I checked there was only one car for sale in the US that got better than 50MPG: the Honda Insight, which is rated for a max of 2 people. That SUV (which gets closer to 20mpg, though I agree that is bad) will haul 6 people. Divide it out, and a per person when full. The SUV can also haul around a lot more cargo, which is handy from time to time.

      So if you need to haul a load even once in a while, haul a family once in a while, or need 4 wheel drive once in a while; the question is can you justify the second car as well. I did the math - it pays for me, but I drive 100 miles/day, and then I only can justify it for a cheap used car, not a new car. When my commute was half that it didn't pay.

      There are a couple cars that get in the 40mpg, but not many. There are laws of physics that make it really hard to get that high, without compromises that most people do not wish to make.

      My solution to high gas prices is to mi 50/50 ethanol/gas in my cars (My cars don't run right with more ethanol than that).

  2. Hmm by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I take issue with the conclusion of this submission headline, as there is plenty of evidence suggesting the possibility that we're not much of a contribution at all. I have yet to hear explanations for why temperatures actually DROPPED from the 1940s to the 1970s despite an increase in our use of automobiles and other gases. Not to mention that when you add the numbers up and take into account water vapor, mankind is only responsible for--wait for it--0.27% of the so-called greenhouse gases.

    So, as Penn & Teller put it in their Bullshit! episode on the matter, we're still gathering data. So stop jumping to conclusions!

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:Hmm by apsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hope you're still there - here's the explanation:

      the nowadays accepted interpreation [is] that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols

      Those particulates that the clean air act got rid of in the 80's and 90's, caused cooling up to the 70's. They also caused smog, acid rain, lots of health problems etc. so it's a good thing we got rid of them. But the aerosols masked the warming trend for a while. Pretty well understood in the models.

      --

      Energy: time to change the picture.

    2. Re:Hmm by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "A 30 year span is insignificant in terms of global climate TRENDS."

      Actually, you just made the argument against the conclusions of the study. The argument for humans causing global warming goes something like this:
      - The temperature is higher now than it's been in x years of records. (X here is usually in about 1000 years of measurements, though there's arguments about a few periods in there where it might have been warmer.)
      - The greenhouse gases are higher now that they've been in Y years. (Y = 650,000 years from this study.)
      - Humans have been creating a lot of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution started a couple of hundred years ago.
      - Aha! We must be causing it.

      That 30 years is insignificant over these time scales also means that 200 years or so is insignificant as well, which is the entire argument about us causing global warming. You can't claim 200 years is significant and 30 isn't whenn compared to these time-scales.

      There are many missing pieces from the argument so far to keep it from being a solid argument of some sort:

      (1) What is the time-correlation of the greenhouse gases. Fine, they're higher now than any time in the last 650,000 years. Did they keep within some normal fluctuations until about 200 years ago and then steeply climb, or did they start climbing 200,000 years ago, and are slowly leveling off? What's the pattern? If it's the former, one could correlate it to the industrial revolution and us. (Not necessarily causation, but higher correlation is more convincing.) If it's the latter, it essentially removes any use of the study as an argument for humans being the cause since we didn't produce greenhouse gases 200,000 years ago. This is highly important to the argument.

      For instance, when I moved away to university, I was taller than I had been in my previous 18 years. Therefore, university causes growth spurts. If I suddenly grew tall right after moving, perhaps it's true(but not necessarily). If I grew taller over years and was leveling off when I moved, it has nothing to do with it. The correlation over time with events is the most important part of the argument and we don't have it for gases.

      (2) We do have some of the correlation over time with events for temperature, and there is a rough correlation of temp with increased greenhouse gases, but not a firm one and there are correlations with other things (such as increased solar activity). If human-produced greenhouse gasses are the cause, what happened in the 30 years from 1940 to 1970. We can't claim to understand the causation of climate change over 200 years but can't understand causation over 30 years. Either we understand what affects climate or we don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      (3) How can such a small fraction of greenhouse gases, as produced by humans in comparison to naturally occuring, cause such large changes? Why is the climate so much more sensitive to these small amounts?

      There are probably more missing pieces. Incidently, I actually do believe that humans are having a bad effect on climate. I hate SUV's, waste, inefficiency, and so on. However, I also have a firm understanding of deductive reasoning and the scientific method and can't throw that out just because I believe something is true. The argument for human causation is so full of holes right now it isn't convincing. That doesn't make it wrong or that we shouldn't be trying to be more efficient and less polluting; but there's either insufficient evidence yet for the argument or it's not being presented properly.

    3. Re:Hmm by nathanh · · Score: 5, Informative

      CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emmissions at less than 1%

      The precise figure is around a 0.27% contribution from mankind.

      It's usually considered good form to cite the quote, so we can see who said it and what evidence they had for the claim. As it is, the power of google comes to the rescue and I find the original source for your above quote is Wikipedia::Global_warming_controversy which in turn links to Monte Hieb's personal website.

      Well, that's OK, a personal website isn't necessarily a bad source of information. We shouldn't be concerned that Mr Hieb has no education in climatology, isn't a scientist nor a doctor, doesn't have any peer reviewed papers, doesn't do research nor experiments, and isn't cited by anybody except the enthusiastic gunslingers of the "global warming is a myth" brigade. All of those details are irrelevant if Mr Hieb gets his facts right. Unfortunately he hasn't got his facts right either. If you google his name the first hit is somebody ripping apart Mr Hieb's claims. You immediately find out that Mr Hieb redefines existing scientific terminology. Tut tut, that's not a good sign.

      Here the authors redefine "global warming". While the term usually refers to human caused warming, they use the term to include natural changes as well. A similar redefinition has been used with other environmental problems such as ozone depletion and acid rain. ("Global warming" has been increasingly replaced by the more accurate and inclusive "climate change"). -- http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm

      That page goes on further to refute the "facts" asserted by Monte Hieb. Somebody once tried to get Mr Hieb's claims into other pages on Wikipedia but those attempts were ... uhhh... rejected. Here's a comment that accompanied one such rejection.

      But to turn to the GHG page, which is what this is really about. C says: objects and deletes all sources and documentation that state anything he disagrees with. This in turn is a ref to him trying to insert a dubious value of 95% for the greenhouse effect of water vapour, based upon this source: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenho use_data.html. That page isn't a source: its just some bods pet page. The numbers on it are wrong. All this has been, is being, discussed on the talk page of greenhouse gas. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_fo r_comment/William_M._Connolley

      That 95% figure (which is intrinsically linked to your 0.27% figure) isn't supported by the data. The best guess figures are between 60% and 70%. If you continue to google Mr Hieb's name you'll find that pattern repeated over and over; Mr Hieb uses incorrect values, redefines terminology and eventually arrives at incorrect conclusions. But who is Monte Hieb?

      Assessment: This example is the crux of the matter, IMO, because it reveals the source of Cortonin's information. The website referenced is the personal website of Monte Hieb. A quick review of Hieb's credentials reveals that he has worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner's Safety. He has done some geological survey work on fossils. There are extensive links from Free Republic's website to Hieb's. WMC refers to him as "just some bod," but cle

  3. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful


    This is an interesting turn of events...

    When the evidence was less than conclusive about either global warming in general or our role in it in particular, the administration roundly decried it, calling global warming a 'myth' and a 'fantasy'.

    When the evidence was conclusive about global warming in general, but inconclusive about our role in it, the administration switched to "well...perhaps it is real, but it's surely just a natural phenomenon...we can't be more than marginally responsible".

    And now that the evidence about both global warming in general and our role in it in particular is conclusive, the line will now be "oh well...water under the bridge. There's nothing we can do about it now".

    In other words...business in usual. It might be a good idea to sell that beachfront property and start shopping for property further north...particularly since you'll be hunting for your own food when the climate shift causes worldwide food shortages.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Meet the new boss...same as the old boss by nharmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, we know what happened the last time a few experts were taken at face value...No WMDs.

      "Scientific" studies are supposed to be criticised, repeated, disproven...and then when all else fails...accepted.

    2. Re:Meet the new boss...same as the old boss by Lifewish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Scientific" studies are supposed to be criticised, repeated, disproven...and then when all else fails...accepted.

      You're right. It's essential for scientific ideas to be challenged by the scientific community. On the other hand, what's happening here is the scientific community's consensus being challenged by the political community, which is insane.

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    3. Re:Meet the new boss...same as the old boss by Lurking+Zealot · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It might be a good idea to sell that beachfront property and start shopping for property further north
      I heard an interesting story on NPR this afternoon about a village in Alaska that is being threatened by storms. Historically the village was safe because by this time of year the ocean near the shore had frozen. In recent years (past decade?) the oecan is not freezing before the severe storms hit. As a result, the erosion is removing the sand that the village is settled on. The general trend appears to be supported by a report from the US Global Change Research Corportaion. which states in part
      All components of the cryosphere (the frozen portions of the Earth) in the Arctic are experiencing change, including snow cover, mountain and continental glaciers, permafrost, sea ice, and lake and river ice. For example, glaciers in Alaska, as throughout the Arctic, have retreated through most of the 20th century. Estimated losses in Alaskan glaciers are of the order of 30 feet in thickness over the past 40 years, even while some have gained thickness in their upper regions.
      And don't cherry pick that "gained thickness in their upper regions" part. My guess (I'm not a glacial hydrologist) is that there is a small gain at the top due to increased precipitation -- possibly also caused by warming. Bottom line is the the ice mass is decreasing. On the matter of erosion the USGRP report says
      In fact, there are already numerous ecosystem changes observed due to permafrost thawing. They include: ... increased coastal and riverine (along the banks of rivers) erosion
      Of course, being authored by an agency of the US goverment the report finds the silver lining
      In the longer term, longer ice-free seasons are likely to bring substantial benefits to marine transport and offshore operations in the petroleum industry
      Me. I think we've set in motion a huge experiment. We should do our best to minimize our impact, but being humans, we won't. The mass would rather swill another budwiser and flick the remote.
  4. Solar Activiity is at its highest levels since by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Galileo started recording sunspots. Mars has its polar caps showing sines of melting and pluto also shows signs of warming.

    It would be nice if all the reports about the environment didn't carry the chicken little byline.

    1. Re:Solar Activiity is at its highest levels since by e_lehman · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're a bit off on your timescales. The southern icecap on Mars is melting because it is spring there:

      From NASA:

      Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."

      Similarly, the warming on Pluto is also apparently seasonal (though its seasons are long, of course). From Space.com:

      Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled over the past 14 years, indicating a stark temperature rise, the researchers said. The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit.

      When scientists worry about global warming on earth, they're not just griping about the arrival of spring!

  5. Devil's Advocate position by xmas2003 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    While I personally agree there is some truth that we are affecting the planet on a global scale, let me play devil's advocate for a moment here. Assuming the data is good (a BIG assumption), how do we know this isn't part of some bigger natural geological cycle? Remember that continents/mountains move SLOWLY ... like millions of years. It may be that this is the natural ebb and flow of nature. And the "sea level" raising 40cm by 2100 makes one wonder about places like New Orleans.

    BTW, I usually run Firefox, but happened to open this up in Internet Exploder - all three URL's in the article had popups - you forget about those things when you predominantly use Firefox.

    P.S. I'm argueably contributing to global warming with my 20,000+ Christmas lights ... although at least I signed up for wind power.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  6. Bad news? by MutantHamster · · Score: 3, Funny
    "It is predicted that by 2100 the sea level will be 40cm higher."

    Awesome. That's 40 cm less I have to drive to get to the beach.

    --
    My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
  7. Even in the darkest hours, there is yet hope..... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well the Tech is out there to reverse this .

    We just need a Apollo program level of devotion to it .

    University of Wisconsin has a working 3HE reactor, he fuel is just the issue, the moon is the answer.

    Helium-3 on the moon, and the new finding of altering Hydrogen atoms molecular
    orbits in a manner unknown before and pointing to fundamental errors in physics/Calculus .

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,162 7424,00.html

    Keep in mind he has had some peer review on this before chucking it on the bone pile .

    The Algae that makes enormous amounts of oil for biodiesel and other uses also
    gives as a short term methodolgy vs. drilling for oil . It also burns cleaner .

            * Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m/km)
            * Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m/km)
            * Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m/km)
            * Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160 m/km)
            * Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (610 m/km) [2]
            * Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (10,000 to 20,000 m/km)

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

    There is yet Hope, but stray a little and you will fail to the ruin of us all - LOTR

    Ex-MislTech

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  8. Up by Fargo, Global Warming can't come too soon! by Robotbeat · · Score: 3, Funny

    I live in Minnesota, and it was about 8 degrees Fahrenheit (about -13.3 C) on Turkey Day morning, so I don't really give a hoot that all you suckers in Florida are gonna drown, winter is COLD up here, and I'm for as much global warming as we can push out of our gas-guzzling tanks-as-SUVs. I mean, I think there's a "Minnesotans for Global Warming" club somewhere, and I want to join! (We have recorded -60F (-51C) temperatures in MN like 10 years, and that ain't no stinking wind chill, either, so we have pretty harsh winters!)

    (In other news, sell any property you own near sea level.)

  9. Bigger picture by wombatmobile · · Score: 4, Funny

    Carbon dioxide is 27% higher now than any other time over the last 650 000 years.

    But the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

    Maybe the C02 level rises every million years or so, each time life evolves into things that make internal combustion engines. Then it falls for a while after each thermonuclear war.

    A graph of the last 3 million years?

  10. So, by Descalzo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.

    So what were those lousy smegheads doing to the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago? Stupid cavemen and their earth-raping!

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  11. Re:It doesn't matter how much evidence is found. by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Trying to talk sense into these people is like trying to argue with a Scientologist about psychiatry or with a Southern Baptist about evolution.

    "Sense" is neither one view or the other. If we develop ways to produce and consume energy that do not pollute the environment, the debate on whether global warming is caused by humans would be completely irrelevant.

    What bothers me is the folks who cannot accept that the answer is somewhere in between, it has to be a total disaster scenario or complete denial.

    Of the two news items that read "So and so has almost positively proven the cause of global warming" or "So and so has developed a way to reduce co2 emissions by 2.76%" - which one is more sensational, which one qualifies as "front page"? Which sceintist will get more funding and publicity - the one behind the former story or the latter? Yet which of has contributed more to society? That's problem with us people, hype-driven beings...

  12. Re:Good by reiggin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Bush didn't sign the Kyoto protocol... blahblahblah...

    And neither did Clinton. Oh, and no one on either side of Congress voted for it, either. Sorry for this temporary insertion of non-slanted facts. You can resume your regular misinformed spin now.

  13. who's to blame? by RussP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the thesis of this article is true -- and that's a big "if" -- then who is more to blame than anyone else for global warming? Why, it't the anti-nuclear "environmentalists," of course. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases -- none! Yet the U.S. gets half its electric power from coal. Folks, we burn three tons of coal per *second* in the U.S. alone, and the gaseous emissions kill an estimated 50,000 people per year.

    If indeed human activity is causing global warming, then we can solve this problem inteligently or stupidly. The intelligent solution starts with nuclear power. The stupid solution is to give up our mobility and regress to third world living conditions.

    If you oppose nuclear power, please educate yourself.

    --
    I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
    1. Re:who's to blame? by ndogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Environmentalism shouldn't be about saving the planet. It should be about saving ourselves. Maybe any climate change will be reversible, but it will most likely be reversible on geological timescales. Not human timescales. That's by far long enough for us to go extinct.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  14. Why is it so hard to believe? by Stalyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it so hard to believe that us humans are responsible for global warming? The Industrial Revolution brought about automated machinery which required energy and power. We decided to use fossil fuels like oil and coal. We burn these things and it releases carbon dioxide into the air. The more we produced the more people could be sustained, so there was a population boom. This meant more farm lands needed to be created so we cut down more trees. This also lead to more factories, more power stations, the need for more energy. We burned more fossil fuels hence more carbon dioxide.

    Why does it seem to some that humans can not bring about climate change? Our population keeps swelling, we keep burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees. Do you think we are unable to produce enough greenhouse gases? Is nature so vast and giant that humans seem to dwindle in strength? We humans are a part of nature. Locusts can devour forests. Why can't us humans ravage the earth?

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    1. Re:Why is it so hard to believe? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it so hard to believe that us humans are responsible for global warming?

      It's not. Therein lies the rub. Even if it the evidence is flimsy its not hard to believe. We can look at how much we waste, how much power we personally consume, and how much we have changed the world from how it was and think, "how could I not be responsible for destroying the Earth?" When the basic thought is so simple, but the true understanding is so complex, I think that we tend towards acceptance without burdening our limited understanding with actual proof.

      There are so many, many studies on it. Are they right? Could be so, but I've yet to see any direct proof, nor working (practically testable) models that demonstrate the principal. Without that, I always have my doubts - especially in the face of so much extrapolation.

      Of course, the converse is also true. I've yet to see any working models that demonstrate that we're not causing global warming. However, I'm holding the default view of "I don't know, and until I do I won't use the idea in any decision I make," which in this case is generally a ruling in favor of the idea that we're not responsible.

      It should be noted that I might be totally wrong here. I don't have an opinion on the veracity of any theory of cosmic origins or of evolution (or creationism), or even on the current "theory of everything" models for precisely the same reason - lack of a tested model and an abundance of extrapolation. I've noticed a lot of ./'ers seem to be so sure of their opinions on these subjects as to consider the opposing side ignorant, and deride them.

      I'm open to suggestions, of course. Why should I lower my standard of what constitutes reasonable proof to weigh evidence in favor of one view over another?

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  15. Re:Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    This is what I got out of your post:

    1. You had a discussion about this subject in the past week or so.
    2. You think you won the discussion.
    3. Your opponent was, in your opinion, unreasonable.
    4. He didn't appreciate your attitude.
    5. You didn't appreciate his attitude.
    6. People like him usually make their points by pointing out people and organizations supporting their view.
    7. Monte Hieb, who posts at geocraft.com, supports your view.
    8. Over the past 65 years temperatures have sometimes trended up and sometimes trended down.

    Did I get that right?

  16. Irony by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Funny

    What I find ironic is how often people who don't trust the fossil fuel industry, and claim not to believe anything they say, etc. have been taken in by the anti-nuclear FUD spread by the very people they claim to distrust.

    It's like some bad comedy routine.

    Joe Public: I don't trust you.
    Coal and Oil guy: I can understand that.
    Joe Public: Nothing you can say will make me trust you.
    Coal and Oil guy: I know just how you feel.
    Joe Public: You do?
    Coal and Oil guy: Sure. See that guy standing over there? The one with the pocket protector?
    Joe Public: What, Nuclear Guy? Sure, I see him.
    Coal and Oil guy: I don't trust him at all.
    Joe Public: Why not?
    Coal and Oil guy: He wants to kill all our babies and make giant insects and stuff.
    Joe Public: Really?
    Coal and Oil guy: Really. And he wants to make stuff that will kill people a bazillion years from now if they so much as think about it. That's why I don't trust him.
    Joe Public: Wow. Thanks for the warning. But this isn't going to make me trust you any more than I did before.
    Coal and Oil guy: I can understand that. Just so long as you don't trust him either.
    Joe Public: Or don't worry about that. That guy is scary!

    --MarkusQ

  17. Re:Links by blamanj · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know if I find that site particularly credible. For one thing, he claims that the Irish Potato Famine was caused by climate change, when in fact it was caused by a fungus.

    In addition, other sites suggest that water vapor accounts for much less of the greenhouse effect, 60% according to these folks, and the Wikipedia offers anywhere from 36% to 70%.

  18. Egads! by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you EVER have a job where you had to haul tools and material around? Where every job you get might be two counties over from where you live? The entire planet is NOT just people who only need to haul a laptop or some schoolbooks from the apartment to some convenient office or school. You are suggesting that some plumber or carpenter needs to take 18 trips on the bus just to get to work and back with all his tools, plus walk hauling a backpack of tools and lumber over his shoulder from wherever the bus stop is and the job site isn't? Or are you prepared for the price of about everything to go up like triple or more? That's the choices you have. That's what tripling the gas price would do, it ripples throughout our economy. All these people who actually build stuff and grow stuff and do stuff-actual wealth PRODUCING jobs-not wealth re arranging jobs or paper or electron shuffling jobs-have to drive, have to haul mass quantities of stuff,there is no other way around it, and if you up their prices, they will guaranteed "up yours". Like ordering stuff online and getting it delivered by UPS or Fedex? Think they will keep the same rates? how about snail mail? Trip on the plane to go see grammaw? All the stuff that has to get from factories or mines or farms to the processing plants and manufacturing plants then to the wholesalers then to the jobbers then to the retail outfits "downtown"? In the US anyway, 6 buck a gallon prices would cause a great depression to make the last one look like a charity give away.

    Perhaps you might need to think this reactionary tax through just a scosh more, follow the economic food chains around. And speaking of actual food chains, I live and work on a farm, you raise the fuel prices to triple what they are now, well get ready for 12$ chickens and 3$ a piece corn on the cob and 6$ loaves of bread at your local urban store. And because the costs of energy are closely related, how about tripling your winter heating bills now? When one fuel goes up in price, they ALL do basically.

    I think a better idea is what we are doing now, people switching to hybrids or the coming soon plug in hybrids, adding solar to their roofs, large wind generational projects going in, research into clean coal burning technologies, and etc.

    and..just for grins.. .what you got going at home now, how large is your personal solar array? Or anything similar? How much organic food do you produce with a hoe and shovel and carry to the local food coop or haul with your bicycle trailer and sell cheap?

    See? It's big problem, it's not all just cars and finger pointing. That just gets the finger pointed right back at ya.. That crap with cars is sorting itself out just fine now, people may be dumb but they aren't so dumb as to not notice fluctuations at the pump with mostly UP as the range and the general rise of "other" fuel prices like in their natgas bills and propane and whatnot. People ARE switching to better mileage and cleaner burning cars. check the stats, hybrids are the fastest growing market. And an SUV made it into the top 5 mileage vehicles sold in the US this year, the Escape hybrid. Clunky as it is and slow, the system is starting to work. We are talking overcoming inertial with 300 million people in the US and a lot of entrenched industries. This stuff takes time and a lot of individual effort as well as corporate effort and governmental incentives. . And the track record of governments passing laws and RAISING taxes to try and fix stuff is just mostly pure dismal. People fix stuff when it is practical, logical and do-able to do the fix and not much sooner. That's just how it works.

    We are a mobile society, we sunk our infrastructure bucks into roads designed for personal vehicles and trucks as the primary method of travel, and it just isn't practical to have full public transport that goes everywhere, it would cost dozens of trillions of dollars just to get started on it and even then it would never fit all situations..

    Want to make

  19. 27% of ALL CO2 not 0.27% by tehanu · · Score: 5, Informative

    A common comment I see here is:

    - humans only contribute 1% of the CO2.
    - hence a 27% increase is a 0.27% increase

    This is NOT what the studies show. It is 27% higher than ANY CO2 level in the past 650 000 years. This includes BOTH natural processes and man-made processes. It does not distinguish between the two sources. I've seen their graph. There is a nice cycle with greenhouses gases, and temperature with temperature slightly lagging behind C02 levels. This is the natural cycle that people talk a lot of. Who knows what causes it. Then suddenly, in recent times, the cycle is destroyed and there is a sudden upsurge in C02 levels near present times. It is very clearly anonomalous.

    Don't forget the 1% is someone's guess about how much mankind contributes.

  20. Re:Links by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was discussing the global warming issue just last Tuesday with someone who was very adamant that humans are responsible for everything.

    Are humans responsible for everything when it comes to Global Warming or the greenhouse effect? Of course not, don't be silly. And nobody who actually has a clue but is concerned about the issue claims that. The claim is that humans are responsible for a significant deviation in the expected natural lavels of global warming via the greenhouse effect.

    As I offered more and more opposing evidence suggesting that there is no definitive proof that mankind is responsible

    There isn't any "definitive proof" that humans are responsible for significant deviations in factors affecting global climate. Just like there isn't any "definitive proof" that evolution is correct, or that dark matter exists. What there is, is a weight of evidence toward the degree of impact of human factors that puts the burden of proof pretty squarely on those claiming humans are not responsible.

    What do we know? We know that in the past 200 years humans have produced large volumes of carbon dioxide and methane through various industrial processes. We now know that current levels of carbon dioxide and methane are the highest they've been for over 650,000 years. We know that global temperature correlates extremely closely with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over a range of 650,000 years. We know that atmospheric carbon dioxide traps heat, and can cause global warming. We know that there has been an acceleration in the rate or rise of global temperatures (beyond what would be expected coming out of the "little ice age" 400 years ago) that is apparently unprecendented for the last 2000 years or so.

    Are humans solely responsible for the current warming trend? No, we're coming out of small dip in global climate, so there was some warming anyway. You'll also find that solar variation accounts for around 30% or the observed warming (or at least that's what the IPCC reports claim), and other natural cycles are responsible for some as well. The fact remains that humans have produced a lot of carbon dioxide and methane in the last 200 years, that those gases do cause warming, and that the levels of those gases are unprecendented to the last 650,000 years. Humans are providing a significant forcing compared to natural fluctuations, it would be surprising if that didn't have an impact.

    Jedidiah.

    --
    Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
  21. How about this? by Goonie · · Score: 3, Informative
    This article quotes figures from the US government suggesting that you can produce 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel on 500,000 acres of land. That works out to about 15,000 gallons per acre, per year. The Wikipedia article (which is actually well-referenced, but doesn't include references for those specific figures) was right. Why can algae do so well? Because it grows really, really fast, and a huge fraction of the plant is actually oil.

    However, it's not as simple as that; the technology hasn't been developed to actually farm the stuff on a commercial scale, but there are people working on that. The first test deployments are by these guys, who are using the exhaust systems from conventionally-fired power to provide nutrients for the algae and prevent the release of CO2 and NOx into the atmosphere.

    But yes, in the future you might well be able to grow all the fuel for your car in your backyard.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  22. This reminds me of a certain speech... by NeuroManson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    By the same guys who largely deny there's any such thing as global warming: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.", in regards to Iraq's nonexistant weapons of mass destruction.

    Well we don't want the smoking gun to be beachfront property in Utah. Even now, those same cretins who claim no proof of global warming, are thinking up ways to spin a fast buck from the disappearing arctic ice caps.

    Hell, for all we know, maybe all the excess CO2 is coming from right wingers chanting denial.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  23. No gradual increase by tehanu · · Score: 4, Informative

    It doesn't gradually increase. As I said in other posts, the results show a clear cycle in greenhouse gas levels and temperatures. This is the natural cycle. Then close to the present time, there is a massive almost delta-function like spike in the greenhouse gas levels that elevate the gas levels far beyond any other point in the graph. It's so sharp it's practically vertical. And the delta function occurs in all three gases measured (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide). There are no similar events in any of the other results from the last 650 000 years. There are other spikes but they are a magnitude smaller and occur over a longer time scale.

  24. If you're really interested by MannyOHara · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're really interested in what people who know what they're talking about on this issue have to say do the research. One place already mentioned by other posters is http://www.realclimate.org/ and another is http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/begbroke/Display/page /Climate.Basics.html which is the Oxford University site Climate Basics. RealClimate includes information on pretty much every objection that some of the people here have posted. They also explain a lot of the misinformation that's out there and also take suggestions on subjects to post about. It's definitely interesting to see here how many technically knowledgable people aren't really scientifically literate.

  25. I am baffled by Ogemaniac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of taxing gasoline, they should increase registration fees, tax unnecessary supersized vehicles with supersized engines and offer registration fee reductions for low emission, high efficiency, well-maintained, etc. vehicles down to (or even below) current rates. This way, people with average cars could work their way around the registration hikes/taxes by keeping their vehicles in perfect working order and by opting for more fuel-efficient and low-emission vehicles in the future. Many places already do things along those lines, some even go as far as offering subventions and tax deductions for hybrids. Taxing gasoline would do all the things you suggest, much more simply, much more fairly, and much more effectively. Why have the government have a billion-and-two regulations for which vehicle gets what tax or registration fee, when you can just tax gasoline, which forces people to pay in direct proportion to how much they pollute? Your proposed system is completely arbitrary - someone who drives a decently fuel-effecient vehicle hundreds of miles per week pays nothing, while someone who owns the "wrong" vehicle may drive only fifty miles per week but pays through the @$$, even though he or she is polluting far less.

    If you are concerned about the poor, the situation can be handled with a fuel credit equal to the average value that people put in each year. For example, a typical person driving 12k miles per year at 20 mpg uses 600 gallons. Let's say we implement a $1/gallon tax, but give a $600 tax rebate. This is approximately tax neutral, but slams gas hogs and rewards those are frugal. It encourages everyone, rich and poor alike, to conserve. It also does not harm the poor. as most will find a way to come out ahead, and the gas hogs who don't are SOL.

    A gasoline tax is quite close to economically efficient, and fairly taxes everyone in direct proportion to the problem they create. It is both fair and effective. Arbitrary regulations and cut-offs, such as you suggest, are neither.

  26. The usual climate propaganda. by Shadez666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fact that the earth hasn't seen levels like this in half a million years is like stating that it will never snow because the last three days has been 20 degrees celcius. Half a million year is nothing on a timescale measured in billions of years. What is interesting in the article however is that we see a shift from blaming carbon dioxide to blaming methane. This is done because a lot of evidence has been accumulated that contradict the doomsday scenarios of climate change caused by CO2. This is basically another article that is aimed at increasing funding for research into a change that is quite natural and has occurred over and over again for a long long time.

  27. Re:College grads working @McD's chose the wrong ma by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I dunno man, I think we are a poorer society without our philosophers. I was looking back at the archives at my uni, and they had old records from philosophers., that families used to sit around the phonogram and listen to. I suspect we'd be a lot more thoughtful society if people still revered philosophers like they used to.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  28. Re:It doesn't matter how much evidence is found. by dubl-u · · Score: 3, Funny

    So what if we are exitinct? Who cares?

    After you, pal.

  29. 0.004% of human body is iron by tehanu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your calculations show that 0.01% of the atmosphere is CO2. Hence you argue, it is impossible for a 27% increase in the CO2 levels to affect anything. 0.004% of the human body is iron. So the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 250 times the percentage of iron in the human body. http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-202929 Using your reasoning, I guess iron has absolutely no effect on the human body and is just there as filler eh? 20grams is 0.03% of the weight of a 60kg man. Yet, the lethal human dose for arsenic is 20g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic 50mg is 0.000083% the weight of a 60kg man. Yet, the lethal human dose for hydrogen cyanide is 50mg. If it is inhaled, concentrations of 300 parts per million is all that is needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide

  30. Re:Links by RoLi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Global warming--a closer look at the numbers

    Ewww, that's just another "folk science" website. It essentially puts together some numbers and lulls people into judging them with their gut and not with their brain.

    Or to put it in another way: It's irrelevant wether your gut thinks that man-made amounts of CO2 are too small to affect the climate. That's now the way you do science. In science you use the brain and not the gut. Fact is that during thousands of years rises in CO2-concentration were followed by rises in temperature. Fact is that in the last decades rises in CO2-concentration were followed by rises in temperature.

    Fact is also that man puts lots of CO2 into the atmosphere while reducing the vegetation that absorbs CO2.

    You say: "I offered more and more opposing evidence" but you don't post any. All the anti-global-warming websites are just like anti-evolution websites: They attack some details, come up with outdated or just plain wrong numbers and most importantly they don't offer any explanation at all.

    Essentially the anti-global-warming position is that it's just a coincidence that we have the highest CO2-concentration and highest temperatures in hundreds of thousands of years. Which is no explanation at all. To say that some cycle that "we don't understand" is responsible is just like saying that God did it (like the anti-evolutionists) or that it's just a coincidence that the highest temperatures fall in the period of the industrial revolution. The anti-global-warming people provide exactly zero evidence for their "cycle"-theory, their whole theory is based on belief, not fact - and wishful thinking (that we don't have to change anything) of course.

    On top of all that the most stupid point of all is: The "We don't understand it perfectly, so let's just do what we want" - argument. Sane people would say that you have to be extra-careful if you don't understand what concequences your actions have. Only a complete moron thinks that lack of understanding is a reason to mess even more with things.