Mass Extinctions from Global Warming?

uncleO writes "The current issue of Scientific American has an interesting article, Impact from the Deep, about the possible causes for the five major global extinctions. It contends that only the most recent one was caused by a 'dinosaur killer' asteroid impact. Evidence suggests that the others were caused by 'great bubbles of toxic H2S gas erupting into the atmosphere' from the oceans due to anoxia." From the article: "The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm...climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm...to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century."

Comments

Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[fyngyrz]

The only extinction I really expect to see is that of the reputations of "scientists" who harp on CO2 emissions when CO2 is a very small part of the overall picture; Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.

We have every reason to reduce emissions. I'm absolutely pro-emission-reduction; cleaner air is better for every living thing and that's a perfectly good justification to swing me. However, bogus, over-hyped faux "science" just serves to give the opponents somewhere to stand and take a swing at the "scientists."

The fact is, we've been warmer, and we've been colder, and CO2 is not the be-all, end-all index of why it is cold or hot. For instance, just let a major volcano erupt and you'll see a temperature swing that'll get your attention. Or let methane generation get completely out of hand, that'll put CO2 in perspective for you.

Aside from all that, we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will. Barring asteroid impacts, of course.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, yeah. Let's continue pumping out CO2 as fast as we can possibly dig up the oil and coal,
because it is out of our control and we'll cope anyway.

Oh, and ridiculing science is always fun. I'm sure you must know more about the subject than
all of them put together, which is what makes it so funny.

God forbid we should actually change our habits or do something that may take a single cent
off our net profit, until there is 100%, undeniable evidence that we are destroying the planet.
Anyone who thinks we should is a dirty tree hugging hippy who isn't making any money out of it
anyway.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ericartman]

Well said, thank you. Loved the "tree hugging hippy" part. Ecartman

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Clirion]

Did you actually read what he did say? We have every reason to reduce emissions. I'm absolutely pro-emission-reduction; cleaner air is better for every living thing and that's a perfectly good justification to swing me. Seems to me he may actually want to reduce the emissions, just the hype around it is bad.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Daniel Franklin]

Are you a "scientist"?

Perhaps you should read some of the literature. Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is, by a considerable margin, the most significant. Methane (and others) are far more potent... there just isn't as much, so their effect is smaller.

The fact is, global temperatures are strongly correlated with CO2 concentration. That's a mathematical fact, recorded in the ice of Antarctica. CO2 concentrations are increasing at an unprecedented rate. This is a real cause for concern. Glaciers are shrinking... major chunks of Antarctica are just melting away. I don't doubt that we can survive. However, unless we do something *now* about all the crap we are pumping into the atmosphere (primarily CO2, but also methane and others) we are going to see significant rises in sea levels within our lifetime.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Alef]

Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.

Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas per molecule. But that doesn't mean it has a greater impact, since there is much less methane being released into the atmosphere.

As a funny side note: a significant amount (more than a third) of the anthropogenic methane emissions are coming from agriculture -- farting livestock basically.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ccarson]

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) The sun's activity has increased by approx. 10% in the last 15 years. In other words, it's getting hotter.
4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html)
6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html)? What about the American dust bowl in the early 1930's? Was that caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[notnAP]

I wish I had mod points right now...

The reply made so many arguments against the original post that had nothing to the original poster's arguments it should be mod'd Off Topic.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Bongo]

The fact is, global temperatures are strongly correlated with CO2 concentration. That's a mathematical fact, recorded in the ice of Antarctica.

But in those records the CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 800 years. So which causes which? Climatologists answer this by claiming that some unknown process starts the warming, and then, 800 years later, CO2 comes in and acts as a feedback to cause further warming. That's a rather murky explanation.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is a long and slow process. You cannot knee-jerk it into working for you, as so many people want to believe. It has taken science 77 years just to prove that breast really isn't best (it's just equal). Something as simple to study as that takes 77 years to get right, you better believe something as complicated and with so many more uncontrollable factors as the environment will take much longer.

The question is, are we willing to risk total destruction of our economy and pre-industrial revolution living standards over what amounts to little more than a scientific theory? We're not talking about a theory that has concretely provable (and now, again, disprovable) components like Einstein's theory of relativity -- we're talking multiple theories that, while in the general sense show a consensus, in the specific sense show several different paths to take and have no specific way to prove them right now other than to take the plunge and see what happens.

I, for one, would rather take the cautious route and wait for more concrete, proven, and accurate information. The economy isn't a laser light beam that you can turn on and off at will. Turning it off (which is what would be required to reduce emissions to the point that most of the more environmentally-evagelistic scientists wish) will result in drastic changes not only to things like lifestyle, but also drastic changes to our standards of health and hunger.

I, for one, believe there is a much better middle ground than "no more CO2 emissions". But, unfortunately, as long as the extremists are able to shout the loudest, we will continue to be unable to find the middle ground.

This really is not much more different than religion, if you think about it. Consider that to the right you would have extremist christians and catholics, people who would, at some point in time, find a way to get rid of anyone who wasn't white. And to the left you have extremist muslims that would be happy to blow up anyone that isn't arabic. In the middle you have people who are whatever religion their parents were and that go to church once a month out of a sense of duty, and some agnostics that don't care so much. Your ultra-right christians would be like your Exxons of the world that just want it all at any cost. Your ultra-left muslims would be like your greenpeaces of the world that just want everyone to have nothing at any cost. Everyone else wants a life of balance but can't get it as long as the other two keep fighting each other.

Example 1: We could easily power everything we use today with nuclear power, at a cost to the economy, if implemented slowly, that would be negligible. The end result would even likely be positive. But we can't have that because ultra-left environmental groups like the Sierra Club think that nuclear power will kill us all. The truth is it's the safest power we've invented yet.

Example 2: We could give people a perfect mass transit system, again, at a cost that would, if implemented at a reasonable pace, be very low. And, clearly, the end result is positive. But if we did that ultra-right oil companies like Shell would tell us our economy will collapse and we'll all die. The truth is that more mass transit helps cities become safer, more tightly-knit communities and redistributes the wealth away from large corporations naturally by positively encouraging local economy over remote economies WITHOUT the nasty look of "WE HATE WAL*MART MAKE THEM LEAVE".

Example 3: We could work on both of the above at a pace that doesn't get people pissed off, that encourages a healthy economy, and it would be of great benefit. But we can't do that because insano ultra-nutball doomsdayer scientists-that-have-the-PhD-but-not-the-scientifi c-method will tell us it's too slow and why the hell aren't we dead already? We need to stop doing anything at all and freeze to death already, dammit!

The ultimate answer, of course, lies within both of the above ideas, but neither will ever be fully

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Coccolithophores. They act as a temporary sink in the ocean. As large amounts of them die, they release CO2 into the atmosphere.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[lixee]

Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.

Given that 10% of farts contain methane, I believe you have a point.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Elkboy]

2.) Scientists do new measurements on old sources. We don't just rely on old measurements.

3.) Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.

5.) Jupiter, the gas giant, which is so much like the earth? As for Mars, it's interesting how just a few snaps from space can make you think, while years and years of direct measurements and hundreds of thousands of years of proxy data from earth means nothing.

Noone is denying that natural cycles exist. But there is no theory to explain the observed climate changes based on natural cycles alone. They work on time scales of thousands of years, while we're seeing change on a scale of just decades or centuries. What natural cycles do show us, however, is that an increase in CO2 concentration means higher temperatures. That is a fact, just as the observed spike in CO2 concentration is a fact. The data also shows that natural CO2 fluctuations did have a strong effect on ice ages and warm periods, and now humans have increased CO2 levels to historical highs.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[khallow]

God forbid we should actually change our habits or do something that may take a single cent off our net profit, until there is 100%, undeniable evidence that we are destroying the planet.

Translation: I don't understand the harm that poorly justified and thought out carbon reduction measures based on insufficient scientific data can do both to society and to my cause and rather than educating myself, I'll belittle anyone who isn't sufficiently aggressive on carbon emission reduction instead.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. Here's my take on what's going on. We are "doing something", namely we're studying global warming both now and in the past. The more we know, the more effectively we can act, the better the justification will be to the public, and the less likely it is for other forces to derail whatever is needed. We also have been developing the technologies to replace fossil fuels.

Further, it's not clear to me what future emission and absorption rates of CO2 will be. Growing to 900 ppm means a great deal of increase in the consumption of fossil fuels over a century. That's possible, but it also appears that fossil fuel prices will naturally increase on their own due to depletion of existing sources. The human race might not be able to sustain its current CO2 emission rates. You can't count on that to happen without more knowledge, but it brings up an important point. We don't know that global warming will become a genuine problem.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[MollyB]

Are you really providing insight here? You start with a supposedly-humorous absurd premise, then use it as a springboard to what sounds suspiciously like "talking points" all wrapped up in pseudoscientific prose.

Outside of our insane insistence on business-as-usual, we fail to see that we are, by continuation of current engineering practices, conducting a planet-wide experiment with no escaping the unknown consequences. How does that fit with your plodding cadence into a reasonable future?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Elkboy]

Realclimate.org explains it — basically, there are other factors besides CO2 that affect global temperature. CO2 is released when warming starts and drives the majority of the later warming. 800 years is a small part of the warming cycles and all this lag shows us is that historically, global warming has been triggered by other factors. There's no doubt that increased CO2 traps more heat and it's a fact that CO2 concentrations are at historical highs due to human emissions.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

The possible existance of natural causes of global warming doesn't exclude the possible concurrent existance of human causes of global warming. If both are real, we're merely double as bad off.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

Dude, you've used basically the same paragraph for at least 3 previous posts.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Jugalator]

The only extinction I really expect to see is that of the reputations of "scientists" who harp on CO2 emissions when CO2 is a very small part of the overall picture; Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.

Right now yes, but what's being discussed is the CO2 levels at these extinctions and how we may get there one day, along with giving an estimate. The article is not about "oh wow, we're going to die from CO2 level tomorrow" like you seem to imply. If we're going to start seeing more serious effects from this in the next century, it only makes sense to start adapting now while it would be far easier than by then. We're already complaining it's too hard, after all, so imagine where we'll be in the coming few decades.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[4D6963]

we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will.

No we haven't. The sixth extinction has started a few centuries ago and there's hardly anything we've done to cope with that, and more and more species are disappearing and there's hardly anything we can do to it. And whatever we do now we're in for a ride to the land of troubles, because as the unfreezing of permafrost and the acidification of the ocean due to its higher concentration in carbon release gigatons of CO2, these new gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to the very unfreezing of permafrost and acidification of oceans, in other words even if we totally stopped emiting CO2 or methane if you like, the global warming would go on on its own.

You see what we gotta cope with is not simply the direct warming effect due to our emissions, what we rather have to cope with is our environment's kind of self-destruction process

just let a major volcano erupt and you'll see a temperature swing that'll get your attention

Oh man how I love to prove people wrong. Volcanoes actually cool down the atmosphere because of the aerosols they spray in the air. That's because of a volcanic eruption that we had a year without a summer

Or let methane generation get completely out of hand, that'll put CO2 in perspective for you.

As much as methane can have a global warming effect, I think there's quite a difference between the volume of CO2 released and the volume of methane, both naturally and from our emissions, which makes CO2 a more important protagonist.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Knossos]

I agree with a lot you are saying here, however my biggest concerns with powering our countries with nuclear power would be: 1) Where does all the radiactive waste get put? Here in Britain we're already having difficulty picking suitable sites for nuclear waste disposal. Infact, our government has ordered that sites be found multiple times and ignored all proposals anyway. Perhaps that just wouldnt be the case for America, you've got plenty of desert to store your deadly chemicals. I can see there being a lot of problems for countries too small to have any non-populated areas for waste disposal. 2) Terrorism. I don't pretend to know how effective a 747 crashing into a nuclear facility would be. But at the moment I would assume it could trigger a meltdown/explosion/distribution of nuclear material over a wide radius. (Someone with knowledge of this subject please reply to this). All my hopes lie in the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Knossos]

Damn it, sorry. Forgot to put line breaks in there. Here it is with line breaks:

I agree with a lot you are saying here, however my biggest concerns with powering our countries with nuclear power would be:

1) Where does all the radiactive waste get put? Here in Britain we're already having difficulty picking suitable sites for nuclear waste disposal. Infact, our government has ordered that sites be found multiple times and ignored all proposals anyway.

Perhaps that just wouldnt be the case for America, you've got plenty of desert to store your deadly chemicals. I can see there being a lot of problems for countries too small to have any non-populated areas for waste disposal.

2) Terrorism. I don't pretend to know how effective a 747 crashing into a nuclear facility would be. But at the moment I would assume it could trigger a meltdown/explosion/distribution of nuclear material over a wide radius. (Someone with knowledge of this subject please reply to this).

All my hopes lie in the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[rbarreira]

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

Have you heard about this?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Xiroth]

Depends on the living thing, actually. Higher CO2 levels would be good for most life which relies on photosynthesis, for example - which in the end means just about all of it, because almost everything that doesn't rely on photosynthesis directly relies on it indirectly. There is little evidence to suggest that increased levels of CO2 has significant adverse effects on life which relies on aerobic respiration either - it acts pretty much as a neutral participant, like nitrogen (unlike clearly destructive pollutants, such as CO).

However, global warming is bad for humans because of the instability it would create in the climate globally, as well as the obvious effects of the rising sea levels. The environment doesn't need our help in this, and this should be a humanist movement rather than an environmental one - all of the significant reasons to prevent global warming are to do with saving ourselves.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ccarson]

3.) Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.

That's incorrect. See here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html

And for the record, a minor correction on my part, the increase in the Sun's activity isn't 10% in 15 years but rather 1.5-2.0% in 30 years. Regardless, my point is it's getting warmer which may explain why the Earth is also warmer.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't so funny when governments (particularly New Zealand) started proposing a "fart tax" to charge farmers for the methane emissions of their herd. It threatened to do many of the smaller farmers out of business.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[fyngyrz]

Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.

There have been some really exceptional flares recently, X-class and basically darned near off the scale (X22(!), in 2001 if memory serves.) We've been lucky enough to miss a direct hit from the worst of them, but clearly, old sol is having a bit of a temper tantrum, at least when you consider the narrow environmental window we can survive within. As a ham radio operator, I've been carefully watching, and been directly affected by, the 11-ish year solar cycle for the last fifty years, and I can tell you that the atmosphere's behavior today in terms of propagation is not even remotely similar to the way it was when I first began paying attention. This is essentially a direct the result of solar activity, and of little else, as near as anyone has been able to figure out. So I'm inclined to be doubtful when anyone says that solar input to the planet isn't changing, based on my own observations, for which I have logs dating back to the late fifties.

But there is no theory to explain the observed climate changes based on natural cycles alone.

This does not mean that we are not seeing a natural cycle. There is no validated theory connecting quantum and macro level activity, either, but that doesn't mean it isn't connected. There is no theory that definitively explains how a "big bang" could come about, yet it may be the case, and so on. The bottom line is, nature doesn't give a hoot for our theories, it does what it does despite what we believe. Theories are our best shot at trying to understand what is going on. But in many cases -- how brains work, what intelligence means, interesting details about gravity, and yes, climate, theory is not really very well nailed down.

The fact that in the geological record, CO2 increases lag warming periods by quite a bit puts at least some reasonable doubt on it as a causative agent, per se. Dust, on the other hand, is a known causative agent (see 1816, AKA the "year without a summer" for a seminal example.) It may well be that particulates are a far greater villain in the end. Certainly the more recent records (last millennium or so) favors this outlook.

Look, it is perfectly reasonable to argue for reduction of emissions. We have lots of right here, right now, reasons to so argue. Acid rain. Particulate levels of various unfriendly materials. Radioactivity from burning coal. Simple visibility beyond a mile or so in urban areas. Why not stick with what we actually know instead of creating a cult of "CO2 is the Evil Heat God" worshipers out of what is really pretty doubtful (and ass backwards in terms of causality) theory? Maybe a hundred years from now we'll have a handle on climate. Maybe (though I personally doubt it) on weather as well. But clearly, we do not today, and it seems quite ridiculous to get in a froth over such doubtful science.

And then there's the whole "politically correct" factor; there is no question that speaking against the climate change faction is not any way to get funding, to get published, or even to get invited to a party. That's got a very bad smell when it applies to science. We're supposed to make predictions from the data, not match the data to our predictions, no matter what the outside influences are. I fear climate science has done very poorly in this regard. From strident predictions of an "immanent ice age" to "we're all gonna fry!" within the space of a few decades is a real bell-ringer. It seems to me that these folks need to spend a little more time looking at what is happening before we should pay them a whole lot of attention in terms of them having the definitive scoop on what's going to happen... or not.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of these scientists study the climate as their primary job, and have been for many years, they'll have PhDs in climatology.

What do you have?

I'd stop and think about what you're saying about "scientists" if I were you. Idiot.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Bongo]

Realclimate.org explains it -- basically, there are other factors besides CO2 that affect global temperature. CO2 is released when warming starts and drives the majority of the later warming. 800 years is a small part of the warming cycles and all this lag shows us is that historically, global warming has been triggered by other factors. There's no doubt that increased CO2 traps more heat and it's a fact that CO2 concentrations are at historical highs due to human emissions.

They "explain" it using a hypothesis. And yes, the 800 year lag doesn't disprove that CO2 traps heat, but then, their hypothesis doesn't prove that it traps all the heat needed for that further 4200 year warming. Instead, consider a simpler hypothesis, namely that whatever caused the initial 800 year warming, also caused most of the subsequent 4200 year warming. Otherwise, why else would temperatures eventually drop while CO2 remained high?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ZoneGray]

Well, of course we won't dig up all the coal and burn all the oil. Unfortunately, the "scientist" made the expedient assumption that usage would continue to increase unabated.

Had he spoken to an economist, he would have learned that once demand starts to exceed new discoveries, prices will increase to the point that other energy sources will become more useful. Has nothing to do with CO2, just simple economics. We'll never burn all the oil because the last 100 years' worth will become too precious.

And had he spoken to an accountant, he'd have been told to cross-check his math; in opther words, how much raw material would be needed to burn at what level of inefficiency to produce that much carbon dioxide?

Speaking of science, how come nobody complains that we're using up all the oxygen? I mean, it takes O2 to make CO2, right? Where does is come from? Why doesn't anybody ever talk about that?

And when the weatherman comes on to tell you how arm it will be, why does he tell you about the clouds in the sky, and not the CO2 in the air? I mean, it's not perfectly distributed throughout the atmosphere, and I'm sure it moves around. Shouldn't it be warmer on days when there's a little more CO2 locally? But they never even mention it.

The title of scientist does not immunize somebody from being full of shit.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[fyngyrz]

Without going into a great deal of detail, let me provide a couple of pointers you can use to begin hunting stuff up on the net.

First, with regard to storage of nuclear waste. Passivated glass block storage solves all the storage problems. The waste is distributed in the block, the block will last longer than the waste's dangerous lifespan, the production of the block is easy and the stored materials will neither erode, progress chemically, or distribute themselves through the environment any other way. The technology is here now, and all it takes is using it to resolve the problem. In other words, money. The only down side is that once in said glass block, the "waste" is really waste, that is, we can't use it for anything else. This may not be optimum.

Second, with regard to accidents, modern reactor designs don't have those same kinds of problems. Neither do smaller, low-ish power reactors. For instance, look up pebble bed reactors. Good design is important.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Max von H.]

What about the American dust bowl in the early 1930's? Was that caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens?

That was man made, according to this wikipedia article:

"The Dust Bowl was the result of a series of dust storms in the central United States and Canada from 1934 to 1939, caused by decades of inappropriate farming techniques, with buffalo herds that fertilized the soil displaced by wheat farming, followed by a severe drought. The fertile soil of the Great Plains was exposed through removal of grass during plowing. During the drought, the soil dried out, became dust, and blew away eastwards, mostly in large black clouds. At times, the clouds blackened the sky all the way to Chicago, and much of the soil was completely lost into the Atlantic Ocean."

Get your facts straight, puhleeeaaase! Western civilization and productivist agriculture hold a nasty record in destroying the environment on a wide scale. You can't destroy entire ecosystems without suffering consequenses, short-term and long-term.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Bing Tsher E]

Consider that to the right you would have extremist christians and catholics, people who would, at some point in time, find a way to get rid of anyone who wasn't white.

You live in a really weird fantasy world. Apparently you're a white middle class suburbanite type who doesn't know of the huge 'brown' population of Roman Catholics to the south of the United States.

It's reassuring to know my government is working at a reasonable pace to fix these issues

Government really isn't very good at 'fixing' anything. Goverment power is really a 'last resort' force that should be kept, as much as possible, out of business.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

farting livestock basically.

Actually, burping is a greater source, but doesn't create as much merriment!

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[thrillseeker]

wasn't so funny when governments (particularly New Zealand) started proposing a "fart tax"

People get the government they deserve.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[DannyO152]

I thought the dust bowl was a consequence of man's changing the environment. Prairie sod was broken up for cultivation, and when a natural cyclical decline in rainfall occurred, the soil, now exposed and broken up, blew away.

Let's suppose a large component of what's being observed today is natural: does it make sense to not address our activities that accelerate the consequences? Or, do you need a scientific study to empirically show that a stitch in time saves nine?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[thrillseeker]

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets?

Goerge Bush, dumbass! Don't you read slashdot's parroting of the highly science-educated just-the-facts-ma'am we-have-no-agenda press?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[fyngyrz]

No we haven't

I said "cope", I didn't say "resolve" or "solve". You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Oh man how I love to prove people wrong. Volcanoes actually cool down the atmosphere because of the aerosols they spray in the air. That's because of a volcanic eruption that we had a year without a summer

Well, then again — you'll need to pay considerably better attention. I said "you'll see a temperature swing", I didn't say "you'll see warming." Further, if you'll read the rest of my posts, I made specific reference to this. Maybe you should wipe the foam from your lips, take a deep breath, and see if you can figure out what I actually wrote means, as opposed to what you imagine I might have said.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo. I agree with all that you have said here, and we need people like you to run for office and get those clowns in the Republican and Demicrats out.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Like the governments of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Knossos]

Thanks for the info, would mod you up if I could :(

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[robertmacelvain]

NATURAL SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING. In the year 1905, Nobel physicist, Albert Einstein, published his E=mc EQUATION, which opened the door to THE WORLD OF THE PROTON GENIE, the door to all of the abundant energy that Earth will ever need. But, nobody looked or listened except the Energy Cartel, which stood to loose its enormous wealth and power if Einstein's EQUATION should ever become implemented. Many have attempted to implement Einstein's EQUATION, but even the most promising successful efforts are routinely thwarted. In brief review, "E=mc" provides the basis for extracting and fusing PROTONS from ordinary, pure water, which will ultimately make everybody on Earth so idly rich and content from the benefits of this clean, virtually-free, and inexhaustible energy supply that nobody should ever again have to worry about pollution, war, or poverty, and Mother Nature will once again regain total control of any Climate Changes. The Atomic Doomsday Clock reads, "7 minutes until Doomsday, and counting!" Is it too late? Or, will some ordinary, individual Tinkerer (maybe just an average high school student) rise to the occasion, connect the dots, and construct a simple physical demonstration of Einstein's EQUATION so that the entire World Population can become enlightened to the prospect of a new future of peace, contentment, and prosperity? Anything less will fail to uncork the PROTON GENIE for the benefit of mankind because "The Special Energy Interests" have sufficient resources to block any individual efforts to provide Cheap Power. Please encourage your correspondents to link to this blog, and help spread Einstein's great-inspired VISION, "A Free-Energy Paradise On Earth." http://howtosavecivilization.blogspot.com/

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Dun Malg]

Ice cores show atmospheric gas content, not temperature.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with both points, I think it is folly for us to put curbs on our productivity when we are so close to achieving full-blown nanotechnology.

We could attempt to make our emissions neutral at this point. It would be prohibitively costly, and the net result would be that far more people will die before we achieve nanotechnology (at which point, nobody will need to die ever again; that scares some people).

So from a purely pragmatic standpoint, we're less than 20 years away from a nanotech world. Curbing our productivity may put us 40 years away. If we can reverse all the damage we've done in 5 years (pulled from thin air, because once we've achieved the singularity the computers will start producing solutions faster and faster, building the next generation of faster computers themselves, and doing this at a pace much quicker than humans ever did -- my actual guess is it'll take less than a year to "repair" the atmosphere), then putting curbs on our emissions means we'll still have a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica for 45 years, 20 years longer than we would if we achieved nanotech first.

This same argument can be applied to almost everything, such as space elevator development. Absolute control over matter (nanotech) will lead to process improvements of an exponential scale in every field in existence, and will create some fields that currently seem like fantasy.

People who espouse the position of "carbon neutral" appear to have their hearts in the right place (except, of course, for those who will profit from the public taking this bait!). However, correctly-placed hearts will not bring the dead back to life, or ease the sufferring of the survivors. Ensuring that those deaths never have to take place, to me at least, seems that it should be a higher priority.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[jrumney]

What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years

Since soon after the start of the industrial revolution, and the introduction of the motor car. And that is your evidence that human CO2 production has no effect on the climate?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[NockPoint]

The above post is a troll.

Well, of course we won't dig up all the coal and burn all the oil.

Fossil fuel reserves are for economically producable oil and coal. There is roughly enough economically producable coal to take the CO2 level to very roughly 2400 ppm from the current 380 ppm. There is lots more fossil carbon that isn't economically producable, at least with current technologies. Like oil shales.

..how come nobody complains that we're using up all the oxygen?

Because most of the rest of us can do math. To take the CO2 level up by 2000 ppm will indeed bring the O2 level down by 2000 ppm. Or 2 parts per thousand. Or from about 20.9% to about 20.7%. Complete non-issue.

--

Error 696. Missing sig.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Firethorn]

Speaking of science, how come nobody complains that we're using up all the oxygen? I mean, it takes O2 to make CO2, right? Where does is come from? Why doesn't anybody ever talk about that?

Enquiring minds would like to know. Seeing as how I require oxygen to continue living, shouldn't that be a concern as well?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[mspohr]

Aside from all that, we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will. Barring asteroid impacts, of course.

I think you may be a bit naive here. Sure, most of us can compensate for a day that's a bit warmer or colder or wetter than normal and that is all that climate change has given us so far... However, the climate change that is implied by 1000 ppm CO2 is much different in degree (pun intended). How do you cope with ocean levels that rise to inundate most coastal cities? How do you cope when the climate changes bring drought or the temperature changes so much that agriculture collapses? It's really hard to cope with not having food.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Concerned Onlooker]

How do you cope with ocean levels that rise to inundate most coastal cities?

That's easy! Just get the Army Corps of engineers to build a levy.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoting that article: "In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s." I still don't see how you get 1.5-2% in 30 years.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[contrar1an]

The point is: the dust-bowl-causing drought was natural. If it occurred today, it would be used by the global warming community to "prove" global warming.

I personally like the other posts I've seen here that say emmissions are bad even without invoking global warming. Smog sucks. All those other chemicals (Carbon Monoxide, sulfuric acid, etc.) in exhaust fumes suck too.

I'm also very sceptical of anyone that claims to know any temerature earlier than the mid 20th century (when there are records of direct measurements). I don't doubt that its possible to infer approximate temperatures. But, we're talking about a rise of average temperatures by a fraction of a degree C over decades. It's difficult enough to measure an actual temperature to that precision.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[OnyxIR]

In short you are a Transhuman, Immortalist, Extropian
You are the very model of a Singularitarian.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ajs]

First off, excellent post, and thank you.

I just wanted to follow up on one bit:

Look, it is perfectly reasonable to argue for reduction of emissions. We have lots of right here, right now, reasons to so argue. Acid rain. Particulate levels of various unfriendly materials. Radioactivity from burning coal. Simple visibility beyond a mile or so in urban areas.

This is where classic risk management comes in, a topic sadly ignored by most of the current round of environmentalists. Topics with long-range impact and highly variable outcomes (global warming, nuclear waste) are hot-buttons, but companies that are polluting the third world to an extent where immediate and large-scale deaths result (Coca-Cola and Union Carbide, for example, not to mention the Chinese government) get almost no attention. All of the focus right now is on the emission of CO2. Sulphur and other toxins which have greater impact on the environment in the short term are nearly ignored.

In fact, most of the problems that you list have very little to do with CO2, and current plans to reduce CO2 emissions would have little impact on them.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[danratherfan]

Out of curiosity, are you a climate scientist?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[geekboxjockey]

True, My professor in my "History of Life" class gave us a very clear picture of how we have been able to construct a pattern on how the warming and cooling cycles are correlated with the earth's orbit, wobble of axis etc. (Milankovitch Cyclicity). We saw a great chart illustrating where predictions put us, and where we are thanks to CO2 from fossil fuels. Currently CO2 levels are going up exponentially compared to the predctions that were made based on a verified pattern of these cycles, (in fact if remember well there should actually be a slump in CO2 levels, not a rise at this point in time).

P.S.
Apparently the parent poster ignored the fact that regardless how much CO2 we are producing, it has been a *!HUGE!* factor in how the world/life has evolved. Messing with something so influential in evolution isn't going to be rubbed out by a couple of studies and a magical solution, wake the **** up people.

P.P.S.
As far as changes in sea levels, we have been told that it might rise as much as 50-100 meters in the next century, perhaps even our lifetimes. To put that in perspective we could lose a large amount of coastal land to the rising levels, book your trips to Venice now!!!

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[AoT]

I must say, this is a wonderful expansion of the older versions of anti-global warming arguments. Let's boil it down to what you're really saying.

Science is a long and slow process. You cannot knee-jerk it into working for you, as so many people want to believe. It has taken science 77 years just to prove that breast really isn't best (it's just equal). Something as simple to study as that takes 77 years to get right, you better believe something as complicated and with so many more uncontrollable factors as the environment will take much longer.

Yes, the environment is a complex system and can be quite difficult to understand. I'm a bit confused about the "breast isn't best" comment. I assume you mean the recent study that showed that breast feeding didn't contribute to intellegence levels, which is fine, but it does contribute to the immune system.

The question is, are we willing to risk total destruction of our economy and pre-industrial revolution living standards over what amounts to little more than a scientific theory? We're not talking about a theory that has concretely provable (and now, again, disprovable) components like Einstein's theory of relativity -- we're talking multiple theories that, while in the general sense show a consensus, in the specific sense show several different paths to take and have no specific way to prove them right now other than to take the plunge and see what happens.

Ah, here comes the scare factor. I can flip this around and ask whether we are willing to bet our living standards on continuing things the way they are now on the assumption that things will remain the same? Do we expect our world to support continued growth for an indefinite time? We're talking about multiple assumptions that seem reasonable but have no evidence at all that things will remain the same, in fact we have evidence to the opposite.

I, for one, would rather take the cautious route and wait for more concrete, proven, and accurate information. The economy isn't a laser light beam that you can turn on and off at will. Turning it off (which is what would be required to reduce emissions to the point that most of the more environmentally-evagelistic scientists wish) will result in drastic changes not only to things like lifestyle, but also drastic changes to our standards of health and hunger.

I, for one, believe there is a much better middle ground than "no more CO2 emissions". But, unfortunately, as long as the extremists are able to shout the loudest, we will continue to be unable to find the middle ground.

Again, this isn't what you're saying. What you're saying is that you would like hard evidence that what you think is wrong, and yet you fail to present evidence that your view is correct.

This really is not much more different than religion, if you think about it. Consider that to the right you would have extremist christians and catholics, people who would, at some point in time, find a way to get rid of anyone who wasn't white. And to the left you have extremist muslims that would be happy to blow up anyone that isn't arabic. In the middle you have people who are whatever religion their parents were and that go to church once a month out of a sense of duty, and some agnostics that don't care so much. Your ultra-right christians would be like your Exxons of the world that just want it all at any cost. Your ultra-left muslims would be like your greenpeaces of the world that just want everyone to have nothing at any cost. Everyone else wants a life of balance but can't get it as long as the other two keep fighting each other.

No, it is completely different than religion. Religion has no basis in evidence, religion is based on faith.

Example 1: We could easily power everything we use today with nuclear power, at a cost to the economy, if implemented slowly, that would be negligible. The end result would even likely be positive. But we can't have that because ultra-left environmental groups like the Sierra Club

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[mysticgoat]

The question is, are we willing to risk total destruction of our economy and pre-industrial revolution living standards over what amounts to little more than a scientific theory?

Tee-hee! Hope you get the +5 for "Funny" for that one!

The questions for policy makers-- which includes the voting public in the effective democracies-- are:

1. WRT studies of mass extinction dynamics:
   1. Should follow-up studies receive more fiscal support from government?
   2. If so, should the funds come from reducing funding for other research, reducing funding for other government activities, or increasing taxation?
   3. If not, should government identify and implement ways to encourage private funding for such studies?
      .
2. WRT modifying the current dependency on fossil fuels:
   The economic costs of continuing this pattern of increasing dependency of the last century are pretty obvious at this point: we will hit peak oil production soon if we haven't already; agriculture in advanced nations is seriously skewed where more of the energy for producing food is coming from petrochemicals (especially diesel fuel) than is coming from photosynthesis; the petrochemical world economy is socially destabilizing to many of the producing nations, giving rise to international terrorism, etc, etc. Even without the green arguments, the case for getting cured of the fossil fuel addiction is obvious to any unbiased observer.
   So the questions are:
   1. Should government put more funding into developing green power generation technologies like wind mills and wave generators?
   2. Should government put more funding into high stakes power generation technologies like fusion reactors, clean fission reactors, conversion of stockpiles of nuclear weapons to fuel, power generation from space elevators, etc?
   3. To what degree should government encourage conservation measures like increased use of mass transit, bicycle commuting, population migration from suburbias to city centers, and so forth?
   4. Does conversion to a hydrogen based transportation industry trade local improvements in environmental quality for greater degradation of the global environment?
   5. What can we realistically expect from a Secretary of State who once had a 129,000 ton oil tanker of Bahamian registry named after her, and who has the political clout to get the boat renamed from the Condoleezza Rice to the Altair Voyager when it suited her political ambitions? (Just throwing that out to see if you're awake)

There are plenty more questions that could be asked. But whether we should risk the total destruction of our current economy isn't a question worth trying to answer-- it's just plain silly. When the oil laden supertanker you are on is drifting toward the rocks, the crew shouldn't question whether it's a good idea to change course. The questions that need to be asked now are which way should we point this boat, and how the hell do we start the damn engine?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[qwp]

Oh, western culture is so much worse than eastern culture, with their freaking eastern desert landscape!

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Elkboy]

"They "explain" it using a hypothesis."

And you question it with a hypothesis. Seems fair to me.

"Otherwise, why else would temperatures eventually drop while CO2 remained high?"

Because there are cooling effects that aren't connected to CO2 concentration? CO2 likely doesn't disappear overnight either, so a lag in concentration levels while CO2 trapping processes start is to be expected. How's that for a simple explanation?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Elkboy]

Are solar flares and that type of activity the same as solar irradiance? Seems like an important distinction.

"Look, it is perfectly reasonable to argue for reduction of emissions. We have lots of right here, right now, reasons to so argue. Acid rain. Particulate levels of various unfriendly materials. Radioactivity from burning coal. Simple visibility beyond a mile or so in urban areas."

Don't forget increaseing acidity in the oceans due to more CO2 dissolving in the water.

"...speaking against the climate change faction is not any way to get funding..."

Oh, I'm sure a friendly oil company will step up with some cash.

"From strident predictions of an "immanent ice age" to "we're all gonna fry!" within the space of a few decades is a real bell-ringer. It seems to me that these folks need to spend a little more time looking at what is happening before we should pay them a whole lot of attention in terms of them having the definitive scoop on what's going to happen... or not."

I wonder how many of these kind of seemingly contradictory statements the world heard at any other time there were great controversy around a quickly advancing field of science. When Einstein and friends introduced modern physics I'm sure you had people saying one thing one day and another the next, to the bafflement of the public. As for waiting, I'm not comfortable with that. If 50 scientists say your house is perfectly safe and 50 scientists say it'll likely to collapse, would you wait until you were 100% certain or would you perhaps take some precautionary steps? The support for global warming isn't just 50% of scientists either. We can't turn out to be right about global warming, go "oops" and make everything right in 50 years. We have to start acting on imperfect knowledge, and considering what we risk losing and also what we stand to win, I say it's time to act.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Elkboy]

Here's a newer study from the World Radiation Center that shows that solar irradiance has been constant.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker."

Whilst there might be an increase in charged particles this will not affect photons, the mediator of solar light and heat radiation. If magnetic fields had such a strong effect on photons you would be able to see it by waving a bar magnet around between your eyes and the sun.

"What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html)?"

The recent minimum was in the mid 19th century and temperatures have been rising since, so it is entirely reasonable for glaciers to have been shrinking for this long.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Alioth]

If only people were asking 'where do we put all the waste from fossil fuel burning'. We just let it off right into the atmosphere where it does FAR more damage than nuclear waste, which can be contained in a very small well controlled area. Nuclear waste is a miniscule problem compared to the fossil fuel waste problem we're quite happy to ignore.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[tttonyyy]

Passivated glass block storage solves all the storage problems. The waste is distributed in the block, the block will last longer than the waste's dangerous lifespan, the production of the block is easy and the stored materials will neither erode, progress chemically, or distribute themselves through the environment any other way. The technology is here now, and all it takes is using it to resolve the problem. In other words, money. The only down side is that once in said glass block, the "waste" is really waste, that is, we can't use it for anything else. This may not be optimum.

Optimum or not, we're not going to run out of Uranium any time soon - few people realise that it's more common than gold/silver/tungsten. There's an awful lot of it in the world (and currently most of it is exported from Australia!)

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>From strident predictions of an "immanent ice age" to "we're all gonna fry!" within the space of a few decades

Someone took the time to assemble a bibliography of climate change literature from the 70s with reference to predictions of cooling. In the scientific literature, as contrasted with Newsweek, the closest thing was a paper that pointed out the current interglacial could end in a few thousand years, or maybe even a few hundred. The overwhelming bulk reached the totally accurate conclusion that they didn't know enough to make a prediction.

The hard data on solar output from satellite measurements goes back fifteen years and is kinda-sorta constant over that period. Much earlier, and you're relying on horribly indirect proxy measurements like radionuclides. There are a lot of uncertainties about trends in solar output, although some climatologists think it could account for 10-30% of the temperature rise we've seen.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love armchair science. It's an interesting experience to watch someone have a pre-determined conclusion (existing global warming research must be flawed) and then cherry-pick information from various fields ("Jupiter's warming up too!") to support that conclusion. They make the cutest little pictures, like jigsaw puzzles with pieces taken from different boxes and forced together because "it seems to me that I'm right, right?"

The worst is when they don't realize how disingenuous they're being, which I believe is the case with you. Ignorance of ignorance is the pits.

You bring up the inability to rely on temperature readings from the early 1900s, despite the mercury thermometer having been invented 200 years prior. This ignores the various techniques used to model climate change in the past, such as those discussed here, and it ignores the fact that recorded temperatures line up with predicted temperatures, an important part of a little known art called science.

You say the sun's activity has increased by 10% in the last 15 years, which is just plain wrong. You correct yourself later on to say 1.5-2% in the last 30 years, but offer no science as to how that increase in activity affects to the temperature of the earth. It's just a correlative model, and it makes sense to you, and there's no way other scientists could have thought to include that in their models, so before we go believing all their research we should stop and really consider that maybe all those greenhouses people have built work because the sun's getting hotter, not because they're greenhouses, right? Right.

You then bring up the crown jewel of armchair science: I work in an unrelated field, but I once took a science class and we learned simplistic models of complex topics that bear tangential relation to the science I'm debunking. Oh, and I have no proof. But it makes sense to me.

Your final point is that other planets are experiencing temperature variation in the same direction as Earth's. Of course, you discount that Mars has no magnetic field and a different atmospheric makeup, Jupiter has a massive magnetic field, generates huge amounts of energy, and is a gas giant, not rocky, planet. Of course, it seems perfectly rational to you that we should compare the climate of a planet whose largest storm is 400 years old to Earth's, whose longest and largest storms last about two weeks.

Armchair science is ridiculous, nonsense, and prevalent because it's so easy to be wrong and so very hard to be right. Armchair science breeds ideas like creationism, intelligent design, and young-Earth theories. To the moderators that modded the parent up, please take a moment to think critically and realize that you are promoting lazy thinking and reinforcing the idea that it's perfectly OK to disregard years of work by thousands of people without ever getting out of your chair, just because something can sound sensible.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[suzerain]

How do you cope with ocean levels that rise to inundate most coastal cities?

Hmmm...maybe "move the fucking cities"? Already, New Orleans has lost half of its population. There is no logical reason we have to live there, or anywhere else, you know...we just did, and it became a tradition, and so on. But already half of that population has moved elsewhere, and the rest of it could, too.

Anyway, we have already passed the oil peak. There is reasonable data to suggest that even if we burn every last drop of oil, and coal, and so on, that we won't get to the magic CO2 level just on the basis of that. In truth, it looks to me like man's contribution to this CO2 rise is minimal...like tossing a few extra grounds of coffee into your coffee maker in the morning. Sure, it makes the coffee stronger, but by how much? This climate change is happening, it has happened before at least four times we can measure through ice core samples, and it will happen again in another 700,000 years.

And we won't burn all the oil anyway...As the supply wanes, there will be massive wars over the remaining energy, and we will have a nuclear war long before we actually extract it. Besides, much of it is probably inextractable anyway. So rest easy. :)

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Kagura]

(1.0005^30)-1 = 0.0151092592172751061619534613011, or just a little over 1.5% increase over 30 years based on a constant .05% increase over each year.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Kagura]

Out of curiosity, are you a climate scientist?

Thanks for your input into the discussion, danratherfan! This is definitely the best argument against another person's long and reasoned post I have seen yet!

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[dragons_flight]

See this figure for a breakdown of the sources of greenhouse gases in the year 2000.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[catman]

Read again - it says .05 % per DECADE, not per year. Still off by a factor of 10.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Dasher42]

Actually, western agriculture has been shaped by experience with Europe's very rich, deep, and forgiving soil, and when Europeans went elsewhere, Africa especially, pushing their methods on the locals, the results were very short-lived. Africa is a scene of desertification while Europe survives, and this is a major reason why.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[eclectro]

The fact is, global temperatures are strongly correlated with CO2 concentration. That's a mathematical fact, recorded in the ice of Antarctica.

Yes, but does netcraft confirm it?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[HiThere]

I'm not totally convinced that "passivated glass brick" is the optimum waste disposal. It's certainly, however, better than what we do with coal (dump it into the atmosphere). I'm also not convinced that it's feasible to safely bury CO2. Some of those disposals have failure modes that are quite frightening.

To me an optimal disposal method for radio waste would packetize it in a way that would allow it to be recovered if that became economically viable. (Say, for use in a fast-breeder.) But you also want it dispersed so that it didn't undergo "mini-chains" that caused it to burn itself up too quickly. Small blobs in flat sheets separated by about a foot (of plaster? cement?) sounds good. The sheets could be as large as is convenient to handle. Some PVC mimic would be a good choice for what to make them out of. That way they could be loosely rolled for transport. (Unless someone things it worthwhile to build a cadmium spiral cylinder to store them in. Or to transport them flat separated by cadmium sheets. Not likely. Just keep them separated, and make sure that no one sheet will go critical even if you roll it tightly--and then ensure that it is rolled loosely (with styrofoam spacers?. (That should be easy. This is waste, not fuel.)

The thing is, while the stuff is encased in plastic it's only dangerous to folk that are near it. It's not explosive. So you need to keep it cool enough to not melt the plastic...but you've already used it as throughly as is reasonably economic, so it's not super hot thermally.

OTOH, if you just want it to go away and never return, then passivated glass bricks are hard to beat. You could even use them to pre-heat water for a steam plant for the first decade or so. (I'm presuming that the passivation includes something like sealing the bricks in paraffin so that water can't leach through... if you plan for that, then you don't need to worry about it's happening accidentally. Then put the bricks in a plastic bag before you dump them in the water to heat it, and all should be well.)

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[hamburger lady]

realclimate's description makes sense; volcanoes produce a relatively small amount of CO2 compared to human activities. yet we know that CO2 does have a strong greenhouse effect. if CO2 rose on it's own to initiate warming, natural warming cycles would be more abrupt as the system would be very sensitive to even small rises in CO2.

every time a volcano would erupt, a warming trend would be started.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Shadowlore]

Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.

Nice try. By taking a small extract you make a large conclusion. A conclusion that is false. Given that the proponents of the anthropogenice global warming hypothesis nearly all indicate the start of the period to predate 1940, your selection of that period is invalid and overly selective.

The fact is that over the last several centuries there have been significant changes in TSI.

To whit one study that produced a 1200 year history of TSI based on a large variety of known data sources and effects concluded:
"solar output was significantly reduced between 1450 and 1850 AD, but slightly higher or similar to the present value during a period centered around 1200 AD."

We are currently in what is known as "The Modern Maximum". In the event the name didn't give you a hint it means there is more TSI reaching the Earth due to a variety of conditions to include solar wind effects. Research done using the records regarding the sun's activities over the past the past 1800 years shows a very strong correlation, and likely a causative one, between solar minimums an decreased temperatures.

Given that these histories are being compared to non-Terrestrial planetary temperature changes and like correlations are being found, this is strongly suggestive that the causative theory of solar cycles to global climate variations is sound. After all, there can be no anthropogenic effects on planets we do not inhabit or have industrial activity for.

This is the chief reason that solar forcing theory is the strongest theory. It is nearly the only one that can be carried to other planets that also experience thermal seaons. As such it can be either positively shown or positively disproved. As such one would think that true scientists interested in the truth about climate change would actively seek to study it, as opposed to simply ignoring the non-Terrestrial global warming ocurring in the solar system. Perhaps the answer to the question of why they do not is found in the question itself.

The problem for them is that the so-called environmentalism movement has hitched itself to GW. Without it they feel they do not have the moral authority to sway opinions and policy in the direction they want it to go. GW has become the fear stick. There are many, many valid reasons to reduce pollution, emissions, etc.. Yet these are ignored in favor of GW. This puts a large incentive to make sure the anthropogenic GW hypothesis survives: to it be disproved means they lose their "power".

An additional indication that it is ideology that drives this group is this group's avoidance of "smaller" changes. In particular changes that make significant reductions in consumption and emissions. In each of these cases the changes are "non-invasive". By which I mean that they do not force people to drive different cars, abandon their current ones, or make radical changes to their lifestyle. Indeed, in the majority of them there is no forcing or mandates at all. In some it is a reduction of current mandates regarding fuel and energy consumption and production that lead to improvements.

When the activists fail to even acknowledge these options and indeed even argue against them, it is indicative of the motivation and ideology that drives the movement. Namely that the alleged goals are not the actual goals at all.

As far as some studies that will help you learn about "who says" AND "What they say", here are some references from a few of the aforementioned studies:

Baliunas, S. and Jastrow, R. 1990. Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars. Nature 348: 520-522.

Bard, E., Raisbeck, G., Yiou, F. and Jouzel, J. 1997. Solar modulation of cosmogenic nuclide production over the last millennium: comparison between 14C and 10Be records. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 150: 453-462.

Bard, E., Raisbeck, G., Yiou, F.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

.., we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway.

To an extent, yes. Assuming a mass extinction event occurred, I have no doubt SOME would survive. Probably not you or me, unless you have a bunker and supplies that can house you and your family and those your offspring produce.

What you call 'Fearmongering', I call a natural concern. Question is, are you running around with your hands up in the air screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!".

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ccarson]

You're absolutely right. I hate it when I forget to move the decimal point. I stand corrected.

For the sake of my point, let's say the Sun isn't getting any hotter. It's widely accepted that the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. In fact, it's widely accepted that this is a natural occurrence every 1,000,000 to 200,000 years (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) or so where evidence can be found by the ferrous metal domain alignments in old geological rocks.

The point is, the Earth's radiation shield is weaker so what's to stop the Sun's radiation from entering the atmosphere more easily/readily?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[shma]

There is no validated theory connecting quantum and macro level activity, either, but that doesn't mean it isn't connected

There is no need for such a theory because quantum mechanics applies in macroscopic situations as well.You can easily show that for systems where the scales are macroscopic the quantum equations reduce to their classical counterparts (mathematically, you just take the limit of h --> 0). I suggest you look at Ehrenfest's theorem, which gives back the newton's laws.

There is no theory that definitively explains how a "big bang" could come about

Actually, there is. It's called inflation, and is generally accepted as describing what actually happened in the early universe.

And then there's the whole "politically correct" factor; there is no question that speaking against the climate change faction is not any way to get funding, to get published, or even to get invited to a party.

Why is it I always see this argument brought up? Do you really think that oil companies and republican think tanks aren't paying as well universities? That the only way to make a living as a climate scientist is to tow some kind of party line? That there's some secret pact among 2000 scientists to lie about climate chage? To what end? For what reason? What do they have to gain? They could make a lot more playing for the other side.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[edwardpickman]

I realize that Slashdot is pronuke and speaking out against it is begging for a troll but you might want to do some research on the subject. There are vast areas already badly contaminated not from reactors but from fuel production and other nuclear research. Hanford is about to become one of the worst ecological disasters this country has ever seen. It didn't happen suddenly it came on over many years and the clean up was a botched disaster. I still remember hearing the term "National Sacrific Zones" for the first time. It was in the late 80s when some moron thought we should declare the badly contaminated sites National Sacrific Zones, the land gave it's life for it's country. Nuclear energy is extremely expense because we get to pay the cost of the clean up. Can we possibly consider clean safe solutions? Nuclear is percieved as clean and safe when history would beg to differ. We've been told for nearly sixty years we'll find ways of cleaning up the mess but that has yet to happen. There are still hundreds of badly contaminated sites with no ETA on a clean up. Tell you what. Lets meet halfway. Clean up the mess that is already out there before you make more then we can talk. Let's fix one problem before we make more. Conservation could make up more than nuclear has ever contributed. Focus on the cheap simple solutions before we go making more waste we have to deal with. This attitude of it won't be a problem until after I'm dead is destroying the planet. In less than two hundred years of industrialization we have made a mess of the planet. How in the hell can civilization survive another 1,000 or 10,000 years at this rate? Oh our kids will fix it? How sure are you they'll be able to? Modern humans have been around for less than two hundred thousand years. The changes we are causing are so profound that by the time the planet manages to correct our screw ups there won't be any humans. I don't mean they will all be dead they will have evolved into something else. All large animals are likely to die off in the next hundred years or so. I'm talking most animals over the size of a deer. Within a few hundred years it might be animals bigger than a dog. If it wasn't for conservation most large animals would be dead already. It will take millions of years for large animals to reevolve. Our CO2 levels are on the way to matching those 65 million years ago leading to temperatures that will create conditions that large animals can't survive, drastically less food and large animals have trouble cooling themselves due to retained heat caused by their mass. This isn't end of the world stuff, the world is going to be fine, but the planet we all grew up with is fading fast and we are the cause. We have to stop doing things that can't be undone. The soil is badly depleated, the oceans are dying out at an alarming rate. Glaciers are disappearing faster than anyone thought possible. I firmly believe nothing will be done until we start loosing the coastal cities but by them it'll be too late. Once again this isn't fantasy time it's happened before and it'll happen again. Normally it takes thousands of years to happen but we are bringing it on in a few hundred. Forget everything else, look at coastal property. There is tens of trillions in property that will be lost if we even loose just the Greenland ice pack. Isn't it worth a few hundred billion to prevent that? We're spending more on the bloody war in Iraq than it would take to reverse our course. Within our lifetimes global warming will become the most important issue in the world but it'll be too late then. It should be the most important now. Just don't compound the problem but trying to replace it with another problem. Even ice cold Plutonium is a toxic metal, it's never safe! That is a myth.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your entire argument has been so thoroughly demilished that you would be better off abandoning your current user account and creating a new one, if you intend to continue to comment on the dialy global warming posts.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Elkboy]

I didn't pick the short time period to lie to anyone, and as far as I understand neither did the scientists from whom I got the information. They mean that since solar irradiation has been constant since 1940 and we've still experieced the highest CO2 and temperature rises since then, the relevance of solar irradiance could very well be small. They make much better arguments over at realclimate.org than this however, so I suggest you go there and read what the actuual scientists have to say.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[fyngyrz]

There is no need for such a theory

...funny how hard they're trying to come up with one, them. :)

Actually, there is. It's called inflation,

I said "come about": That means, the conditions that led to it, not how it progressed once it was under way.

Why is it I always see this argument brought up?

I suspect you see it because it is a valid argument.

tow(sic) some kind of party line

"toe"

Do you really think that oil companies and republican think tanks aren't paying as well universities?... To what end? For what reason? What do they have to gain?

Tenure, funding, pride of place at cocktail parties, self-respect. They're human, you know. Your argument of funding from oil companies is pitiful. No serious scientist wants that; that's a good way to have, for instance, some dweeb on slashdot (or some politico in Washington) to point at your research and say "see, it's OBVIOUSLY biased!"

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ccarson]

Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward,

The worst is when they don't realize how disingenuous they're being, which I believe is the case with you. Ignorance of ignorance is the pits.

Disingenuous? I assure you sir that I meant and believe what I've said above. What's disingenuous is that you attack me personally and sign your name as Anonymous Coward. Actually, that's more ironic than anything.

You bring up the inability to rely on temperature readings from the early 1900s, despite the mercury thermometer having been invented 200 years prior

If you think Ezekiel's mercury thermometer reading back in 1903 is a good source of data, I think you're crazy. What I'm saying is there are more accurate technologies, such as semiconductors and wavelength analysis, that are available today which can be counted on as a good way of more accurately measuring temperature.

but offer no science as to how that increase in activity affects to the temperature of the earth. It's just a correlative model, and it makes sense to you, and there's no way other scientists could have thought to include that in their models

Ok, here it is in a nut shell. Particles are affected by magnetic fields. There was a famous experiment done by two scientists named Stern and Gerlach (source: http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/low/eng/exp-st ern-gerlach.html) where they effected the velocity of particles based magnetic fields induced on them. The Earth's magnetic field acts in a similar way to protect us from the Sun's particles. I'm saying that a natural decrease in the Earth's magnetic field is possibly allowing more particles/radiation into our atmosphere thus attributing to global warming.

I work in an unrelated field, but I once took a science class and we learned simplistic models of complex topics that bear tangential relation to the science I'm debunking

I'm not sure I see your point. For the record, I'm an Electrical Engineer where I studied energy and the very topic we're discussing here. To say I'm not qualified to comment on how energy may be affecting the Earth is silly. Besides, I have a right just like everyone else to speak my mind and you or anyone else won't silence me.

Your final point is that other planets are experiencing temperature variation in the same direction as Earth's. Of course, you discount that Mars has no magnetic field and a different atmospheric makeup, Jupiter has a massive magnetic field, generates huge amounts of energy, and is a gas giant, not rocky, planet

All I'm saying is that when other planets are experiencing climate changes like our planet is, don't you think that maybe nature just does this sort of thing? In other words, if Jupiter and Mars' climate are changing, is it so weird that ours is also?

Armchair science breeds ideas like creationism, intelligent design, and young-Earth theories. To the moderators that modded the parent up, please take a moment to think critically and realize that you are promoting lazy thinking and reinforcing the idea that it's perfectly OK to disregard years of work by thousands of people without ever getting out of your chair, just because something can sound sensible.

Huh? I'd like to make a suggestion for you now Mr. Anonymous Coward. Instead of anonymously putting other people down because you don't like what they're saying, next time engage in a debate and counter with your own ideas instead. I wish you well Mr. Anonymous Coward. Hopefully we can have a cup of coffee sometime.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[bakoolguy2]

Here's a bit of a science experiment I once tried:

1. Put a bunch of ice cubes in a cup.
2. Watch as they melt.
3. Note that the water level in the cup doesn't change.
4. Ponder meaning of melting glaciers...

I always wondered about this fact that the level doesn't rise. I hope somebody can explain to me how exactly melting glaciers raises the sea level by any significant amount.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[IMustBeNewHere]

Ice cores show atmospheric gas content, not temperature.

From that Wikipedia page:

Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in global temperature reconstruction.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[danratherfan]

1) That didn't answer my question. 2) That was not an argument. Well done sarcasm, Kagura! Thank you for your input into the discussion!

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[AoT]

Now try the same experiment and use water saturated with sea salt, you will find that the level does rise.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[shma]

...funny how hard they're trying to come up with one, them. :)

They aren't, as far as I know. Perhaps you're thinking of theories which attempt to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. These are theories that are problematic at high energies and small length scales, not macroscopic scales. Like I said, quantum mechanics works perfectly well at the macroscopic scale.

I said "come about": That means, the conditions that led to it (big bang), not how it progressed once it was under way.

Perhaps you haven't studied this, but inflation does not only solve the problems of Big Bang theory (and in case you didn't know, the prediction of all of space reducing to a point at zero-time is understood to be false, a result of the failure of general relativity at high energies), but does correctly bring about a universe which resembles that of a FRW universe at early time.

I suspect you see it because it is a valid argument.

I see it only as an attempt to portray scientists as being as corrupt as the politicians and businessmen who try and put their pseudo-science out into the public and pass it off as real science for their own economic benefit.

Tenure, funding, pride of place at cocktail parties, self-respect...Your argument of funding from oil companies is pitiful. No serious scientist wants that.

No serious scientist would consider 'pride of place at cocktail parties' to be a deciding factor in what they research either. Maybe you are unaware of how much scientists are paid, but they could earn much more in any other position. most do it for the love of research, and no SERIOUS scientist would consider 'going with the herd' on any issue. They're convinced of climate change because they recognize that the results of their experiments are scientifically sound.

You caught me on 'tow' though. Seriously, though, who expected its origins to be from a foot race?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[KonoWatakushi]

Waste is not an issue, especially with designs like the Integral Fast Reactor. It not only produces much less waste, but that waste is itself much safer. Beyond that, the design is highly efficient, and passively safe. Like the PBR, a meltdown is not possible.

The pebble bed reactor design is actually rather old though, and only solves the safety issue; it is not a sustainable source of energy. The IFR is the obvious solution for our long term energy needs. It is also the best way to curb emissions and pollution, through eliminating coal plants and enabling electric vehicles.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well bad experimental setup. Try this, stack a glass full of icecubes. Then fill 3/4 of the glass up with water, so some icecubes are above the waterline. Wait for the icecubes to melt -> your glass will overflow. You are correct the ice which flows in the water will not change the sealevel. Unfortunatly Greenland and Antarctica have fast amounts of land based glaciers, i.e. the ice is not floating in the water but are sitting on solid land. If these melt they will increase the sealevel.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ccarson]

Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward,

I appreciate your concern regarding my argument but I have to respectfully disagree. I'll take your suggestion under advisement but I'll probably keep my current user account. I am but only human and as you know from your misspellings (i.e. 'demilished', 'dialy') above we sometimes make mistakes.

Good luck to you Mr. Coward. I wish you the best.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Stephan Schulz]

4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker.

Apart from the fact that the magnetic field may have decreased 10% in the last 150 years, not that last 10 years (we are in fact due for another pole reversal in the geologically speaking "near" future), where did you learn that magnetic fields on the order of magnitude of the Earth's field have any influence on the passage of electromagnetic radiation? This is complete nonsense, and if your studies happened at a university, hand in your diploma and demand your tuition back.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested in becoming a corporate shill, what pay scale can I expect and what are the job conditions like?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I said "lazy thinking," I meant exactly the kind of thinking that makes you reply to me cherry-picked point by point, then try to discount everything I said on the basis that it was said anonymously. Bravo on that count. You're proof in the making.

Your point about Ezekiel's thermometer is without much credit. The early 1900s weren't the dark ages you think. More accurate equipment today counts the temperature in a greater number of decimal places. It doesn't invalidate the temperatures recorded then or invalidate the corroborating evidence. It's you saying that you don't trust it, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Then you talk about magnetic fields and particles again without any evidence. It's a correlative model, like I said, and you're saying "it makes sense to me" without doing any research. This is the basis of armchair science: a simple answer that sounds reasonable on its surface that only you have ever thought of completely discounts the mountains of research and factual evidence that indicates otherwise.

Then you say "I'm not sure I see your point. I'm an electrical engineer and that required me to study global warming." Right. I was confused there for a minute, thanks for clearing that up.

The best was you hanging onto your planetary correlation theory. You picked out two planets, Mars and Jupiter, that are both experiencing higher temperatures. You neglect to mention that each necessarily must be (a) warming, (b) cooling, or (c) staying the same, whether they are approaching the sun in their orbital paths or not, what the temperatures are for each of the remaining planets (if Neptune and Saturn are getting colder, what then?), and that accurate historical data for the temperature of the planets does not exist as it does for Earth. It all comes back to something sounding sensible to you, so what's the point of researching it? So to answer your question: no, it isn't weird that Earth is warming up. It's entirely sensible from the mounds of evidence on the known contributors to global warming.

You wrap it up by trying to dismiss me for not having a Slashdot account. If the best you can do is say "You can't believe this man! His name is Anon Cow, but MY name is John Smith! You can trust John Smith!" while sitting anonymously at the other end of the Internet, then your reasoning is so far gone that you truly ARE ignorant of your own ignorance. Engage in debate? My own ideas? My ideas aren't up for debate as I'm not the one claiming they're true. You made claims. You used spurious logic to back it up. I called you on it, showed that what you were doing was the definition of armchair science, and you took the opportunity not to prove yourself right, not to provide evidence, and not to show that what you were doing was legitimate critical thinking, but instead to trot out the same lazy thinking.

So I ask you, then, please present evidence beyond "it sure does sound like it could make sense!" Otherwise, leave the science to the people that care to find out if their hypotheses are true and go back to your Lay-Z-Boy.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Dark_MadMax666]

1) Where does all the radiactive waste get put?

Regardless how problematic nuclear waste from reactors might be ( and BTW it is not - with full nuclear fuel cycle), you should put it into perspective -TODAY coal power plants throw more nuclear waste straight in the air than all nuclear power plants do . that is not counting other non radioactive waste coal puts in the air . All those factors combined kill millions of people each year -more than nuclear power ever done in the whole history ,and that's counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well

  I would prefer most dirty and bad nuclear power plants , which meltdown in Chernobyl like accidents each 10 years -that is still more safe and healthy than what we currently do.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[cul8r]

Antarctica is a land mass... a significant portion of Antarctic ice is not 'floating', but built-up over land.

Try your experiment again... only this time with only 40% of the ice displaced (60% supported by the glass edge).

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[RedWizzard]

People get the government they deserve.

That's naive in the extreme. Virtually all current democracies are party-based systems which means that you are always choosing between groups of policies. There are often also very few viable choices - usually only two or three so you are often choosing the lesser of two evils.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Alioth]

Sigh. The old ice age canard. That was whipped up by the popular media and NEVER had any scientific credence behind it.

We know that CO2 helps the earth retain solar energy - it is absolutely indisputable. It is also absolutely indisputable that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere retains more heat energy. And we've also observed a significant increase in CO2 over the last 50 years. Get your head out of the sand - perhaps you're denying CO2 traps energy despite the concrete scientific evidence because you drive an SUV and are trying to salve your conscience by making exuses that you think there is actually a serious scientific debate that carbon dioxide is not a 'greenhouse gas'.

It is as incontrovertable as night follows day that a higher CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere means more energy retained. It's like putting a lid on a pot of water on a gas stove - things will warm up faster.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[RedWizzard]

From your link:

The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.

Your own source doesn't agree with you.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ccarson]

This is a good explanation of how the Earth's magnetic field influences particles from the Sun and it's from a University:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/magn etic.html

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

That article is a crock of shit.

Citing Wikipedia as an authoritative source, tsk tsk tsk...

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[RedWizzard]

5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html) 6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html)

Both of these are pretty flimsy. In both cases you've taken a regional warming trend and extrapolated it to an entire planet. You can do the same with Earth: temperatures at the south pole have been declining over recent years so by your logic we must be experiencing global cooling. There's a counterpoint to the theory that Mars is experiencing global warming here.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Xybot]

Yeah totally agree with parent, methane is really a much bigger danger. Personally I'm very concerned with the enormous methane hydrate deposits at the North Pole and Siberia which are currently kept in check by the ice caps and permafrost. We need to know more about the stability of these deposits because if they start to outgas not only will we see some quite horrendous local extiction events, but the warming could accelerate substantially in a positive feedback cycle.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[yusing]

Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is, by a considerable margin, the most significant.

Apart from water vapor itself, of course (which is -possibly- three times more important than CO2):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#The _greenhouse_gases

*Whether* our activities are a contributing factor isn't in question,only extent; the question is 1) whether we have the time and power to change our activities to minimize our contribution; 2) whether we can agree on appropriate actions in time to choose them rationally instead of having them thrust upon us by fate.

The rest is out of our hands.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[boingo82]

It has taken science 77 years just to prove that breast really isn't best (it's just equal).

That was a poor example, and a false one to boot. What we have is ONE recent study which says that breastmilk does not contribute to a significantly higher IQ. It is well proven that breastmilk DOES contribute to healthy immune and digestive systems.
Anyway, this recent study - which does not corroborate with previous breastmilk-intelligence studies - means little anyway, as IQ is a poor measure of overall intelligence. Even the recent study found that breastfed babies were smarter - but it wasn't necessarily the breastmilk that was the cause. Breastmilk was actually another symptom - as it turned out that intelligent, educated mothers tended to breastfeed more often.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[simpl3x]

I agree with you, but would like to add a couple to the list. Desertification and biodiversity are really important issues, both of which are pretty much direct results of poor resource usage.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[FirstOne]

Pebble beds have significant problems to overcome.

They have problems with full sphere jams and collisions between pellets (compromising their integrity).
Several of the world's worst nuclear incidents involved the oxidation (burning) of a Graphite moderator.
Care to guess what type of moderator pebble bed reactors use?

====

In general, land based Nuclear reactors are ALL WAYS considered to be a primary target by any enemy combatant.

They are fixed, easy to destroy (with a minimal nuke) targets with a high collateral damage multiplier.
(Concentration of medium decay rate isotopes, (incorporated into the food chain), equal to 100's of nuclear weapons.)

Operational Utility scale reactors(1GWe/3GWt) have even larger concentrations of those isotopes(==1000's of N-weapons).
A significant release of these isotopes will remove a large area of land from human and/or agricultural usage for 100's of years.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't life on Mars or Jupiter and perhaps soon there will be none here either. I've yet to recieve an answer to the questions "What makes you think humans deserve to survive. If a higher intelligence exists, what makes you think they will allow the human virus to escape this solar system."

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[1u3hr]

1. Put a bunch of ice cubes in a cup.
2. Watch as they melt.
3. Note that the water level in the cup doesn't change.
4. Ponder meaning of melting glaciers...

I always wondered about this fact that the level doesn't rise. I hope somebody can explain to me how exactly melting glaciers raises the sea level by any significant amount.

Floating ice, like at the north pole, yes, that won't change the sea level if it melts. Glaciers, like in Greenland and Antarctica, are on land. So when they melt they'll run into the ocean and that will increase the sea level, by several metres -- the ice in Antarctica is a few kilometres thick.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[1u3hr]

And then there's the whole "politically correct" factor; there is no question that speaking against the climate change faction is not any way to get funding, to get published, or even to get invited to a party.

Bullshit. Any scientists who could make a case against climate change have no problem getting funding.

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

And that's just the money that is out in the open. If I was as conspiracy minded as you, I'd suspect ten or a hundred times as much was funnelled to the "cause" indirectly. Electing the current US government of former oil executives for one thing.

As for reputation, if you can disprove a popular theory, you get noticed, published and funded. You'll certainly get attacked in turn, but if you've got the facts, you'll prevail. But of course, they don't argue in the scientific journals, they go to the media which "reports the controversy", playing the same game as the tobacco companies did for decades in denying the health risks of smoking; as the creationists do now.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[fyngyrz]

Out of curiosity, are you a climate scientist?

Seems like it deserves an answer. No. I am a different kind of scientist; I'm an AI researcher working on tying emotional and other "tones" to memory. I employ several other PhD's in that pursuit. I also own and manage several businesses: A literary agency, a software company, a martial arts studio (I'm an instructor there), a recording studio (musician and recording engineer), and a lingerie (stockings) store. So you might say I'm somewhat diversified.

I have a broad interest in science, bleeding edge and otherwise, and I try to pay attention.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

What did Coca-Cola do?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[WhiplashII]

So, in the mean time, I'll be out there telling people how we have evidence that human activity is heading the world towards mass extinction while you simply say that we don't have enough evidence to prove the opposite false.

Unfortunately, people will continue to ignore you if you choose this path. The burden of proof is on the party requesting change away from the status quo. Large changes require large proofs.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[AoT]

I know that practically speaking you're right. I think people rely far to much or their immediate perception of the world for any meaningful change to happen on this issue in time to make a significant impact. But, in an intellectual, or psuedo-intellectual as the case may be, debate one must provide evidence beyond "they don't have enough evidence". Which, incidentally, is the exact same line the Intellegent Design folks use against Evolution.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[jcr]

Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is, by a considerable margin, the most significant.

Except for water vapor, you mean.

-jcr

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[running on empty]

The West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are land based and above sea level. The amount of water locked in the Greenland ice sheet is enough to raise global sea levels 7 meters (23 feet), West Antarctic 5 meters (16.4 feet). The rate of melting is what is at issue here--how fast is sea level rising?

In '95, 90 cubic kilomters of water came off of Greenland; the same measurements in 2005 showed 220 cubic kilomters. Between 1994 and 1996, the rate of melting increased 250% (Nature, 9/20/2006)--current rate of ice loss is at 248 cubic kilomters/year. Additionally, the rate at which the ice sheet is moving towards the sea has doubled in the past 10 years (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, Science 2/17/2006). (Further backup science: Chen et al, Science 8/25/2006).

At the current rate of melting these ice sheets won't disappear for another 1,500+ years from now. The problem is that this melting is happening at a rate that is increasing exponentially. Nobody knows the calculus of the current rate, and what it means for how fast sea level will rise. This is especially true in light of the fact that humans pump some 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

This isn't fearmongering, this is science.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Stephan Schulz]

This is a good explanation of how the Earth's magnetic field influences particles from the Sun and it's from a University: [...]

...and it talks about charged particles. While the sun also emits charged particles, this is entirely irrelevant for the heat transfer, which is done via electromagnetic radiation ("light"). While light has aspects of a particle stream, the particles, photons are uncharged and entirely unaffected by the Earth's magnetic fields.

There is some remote speculation that solar wind ions act as condensation nuklei and increase cloud cover. But this is a) not generally accepted and b) would increase albedo and hence lower temperature.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[testadicazzo]

Wow, it's such a stupid post I have to comment on it. There is so much room for curbing our waste and emissions without impacting nanotechnology research at all... Nanotech research isn't producing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses... thankfully it's modded to 0

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, show me an ice core that formed with a temperature of 30 degrees C (that's 86 degrees F).

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[MickDownUnder]

My question is did either of you read it ? Or were you just too busy getting your slashdot post in on it to get your ignorant comments modded up ? This article is not a harp on global emissions... it's simply an interesting theory for explaining previous mass extinctions that have occurred. A theory that links global warming to previous mass extinctions. The point of the article is the linking of global warming to a catastrophic event that can cause a sudden mass extinction, not the mechanism by which global warming occurred.... so this whole C02/methane rant is completely irrelevant to the contents of the article. Plus you are both making out that this article is about current global warming when in fact it really only featured in one section of one page of a five page paper. I think Slashdot needs to do something to stem the urge for people to rush to post. There shouldn't be any moderation reward for rushing an ill thought, uninformed comment to a thread. In fact it seems taking the time to put some forethought into a post gets you penalised. Perhaps moderators should be forced first to view newest first, or maybe rather than new posts coming in with no mod points they should receive a rating equivalent to the current average of all the posts made so far.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Khazunga]

This is especially true in light of the fact that humans pump some 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

This isn't fearmongering, this is science.

It's fearmonguering disguised as science, as the quote of 6 billion tons (woo, large number) clearly shows. 6 billion tons is not a large number on the scale we are talking about. Backhand calculations: Assume a growing tree captures 100kg of carbon per year for ten years (a dry weight of 1ton is small for a tree). To absorb all the CO2 we pump, we'd need 6E9/100/10=6e6 new trees per year. Six million new trees on the planet per year is peanuts. New growths without human intervention probably cover that already.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are bad for photosynthesizers for a number of reasons:

a) acidification through CO2 adsorption onto minerals (particularly in the ocean and soil) via molecular diffusion. Surf makes for a large and actively mixing surface area... Structures built from calcium carbonate are dissolved (there are a number of important calcifying photoautotrophs); ion transport mechanisms are stressed because of a change to the concentration gradient (coccolithophores suffer from this, and they are among the most abundant ocean photosynthesizers). Few sea organisms adapt to increases in carbonic acid in their environment; forests are regularly sterilized by volcanic CO2 emissions that increases ground level CO2 and consequently soil CO2 and decreases soil pH.

b) parallel evolution has resulted in a number of important enzymes that have binding affinity for both O2 and CO2 depending on relative concentrations. While RuBisCO is the most obvious of these in Calvin Cycle organisms (like plants), it is not the only one; others act as limiting factors on carbon fixing by RuBisCO often by keeping Mg+ ions from the RuBisCO's active site or influencing the rapditiy of the formation of the carbamate. This is often done to preserve particular enzyme conformations under environmental stress (most notably temperature) the organism's ancestors survived, and can be counterproductive in the current environment.

There is little evidence to suggest that increased levels of CO2 has significant adverse effects on life which relies on aerobic respiration

In animals with haemoglobins or analogues, there are similar binding affinities for both CO2 and molecular oxygen under various conditions including the relative concentrations of the two. Greenhouses containing plants which survive 1% concentrations of CO2 for several hours can be entirely freed of animal pests. However, it also can destroy useful soil animals and bacteria, including a few symbiotic species which fix nitrogen...

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anthony]

Not quite corect. You can infer temperature/sea level from stable oxygen isotope ratios. Lighter isotopes are fractionated preferentially.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[BigDogCH]

Information: That is an excellent point, except there is one problem....the tree you plant uses sunlight as the energy source to fix the c02. The plants that are now shaded by the tree are not not recieving that same amount of sunlight, thus fix less c02 themselves. The net c02 fixation actually can go down when you plant a tree. Also, trees can actually emit more carbon than they intake during some phases of their life.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, just a concerned citizen. Clearly this depends on the type of tree, and the environment in which you plant it. Do you know of a location which is currently not already growing plants, where you can plant 6 million trees?

Result: Trees are not the answer....though the idea should be investigated. Could we GM a tree that consumes vast quantities of c02?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[mikael]

The problem in the UK isn't with finding containers to store the radioactive waste - we're currently using rusty bins on outside concrete courtyards covered under plastic sheeting to store our radioactive waste.

The problem is trying to find somewhere underground to put the stuff. Every time there's a proposal to convert a disused mine-shaft, protesters will always raise the issue of groundwater contamination, geological fault lines, maintenance, monitoring and security. Not forgetting safety and security for transportation which will have to be by road (since air transport is out of the question, and rural railway lines are being dismantled). Having large containers with police escorts travelling on rural roads on a regular basis tends to upset local homeowners so just proposing a single site will invoke a request for a public inquiry on the selection of the transportation route.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[jav1231]

"To me an optimal disposal method for radio waste would packetize it in a way that would allow it to be recovered if that became economically viable."

Cool! And if it didn't become viable, being packetized we could > /dev/null and be done with it!

I assure you, I could NOT help myself...

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[cbacba]

Seems like good old h2o vapor is the most significant green house 'gas' by far.

Of course since global warming is merely one of the latest leftist/socialist power grab political scams one must be extremely cautious of the 'reputable' sources and their 'research' since for them, truth is whatever promotes their agenda.

Since it's been hotter here and colder here - without benefit of man or man's technology, one must conclude that it will be colder and hotter again, regardless of whether man is present on earth or not.

According to those ice records, we're long overdue for the next ice age. Perhaps if the dustmite on the elephant's back is really controlling the direction of the elephant, maybe our continued pollution will forestall the pending ice age for a few more years or more likely, a few more minutes.

Meanwhile, maybe Terminex can save the day. Since we're not even number 2 as the combined biomass factor on planet earth (including our technology), maybe they can help reduce the odds a bit. Or maybe algor and friends can get bacteria to sign on to the kyoto accords to cut down on their environmental impact. From what I hear, they're worse than the termites in the overall scheme of things.

There's nothing like creating a major disaster to fend off future imagined problems, or even real pending ones. It's sorta like crushing your toe with a sledge hammer to distract you from a tooth ache. Actually, it's more like committing suicide to avoid the prospects of a possible future cancer.

Solar power causes global warming.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[bakoolguy2]

Won't increasing global temperatures increase rate of evaporation, thus counterbalancing the effect of melting ice?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[CreatureComfort]

Did you even bother to read TFA before firing off your anti-global warming rant? Oh, this is /., I should know better than to ask that question.

However, had you done so, you would have seen that the issue projected here, from very reputable scientific sources, has nothing whatsoever to do with dealing with temperature swings. What this analysis does is show that with an increase of CO2 to around 1000ppm (approximately 3 times what we see today) there is significantly lower percentage of oxygen to dissolve into the oceans. That is simple math and chemistry, something I think even you should be capable of. With the accompanying tempurature increase, even a minor one, also decreasing the ability of oxygen to dissolve into the oceans, there is significant evidence that the oceans became highly anoxic. Once again this is verifiable scientific fact that has been a long standing puzzle to paleontologists studying the extinction events. This led to large blooms of H2S producing bacteria, verified by the relatively recent ability to use gas chromatography on small fossils. Following the projected amount of H2S that would have been produced by the amount of algea necessary for the amount of fossils, and following the rise/drop of carbon ratios from other data sources around the extinction events, he makes a pretty good case for large scale Hydrogen Sulphide emmisions from the ocean being the cause of the majority of the recorded extinctions.

Now, like you, I think that humanity would have no trouble adapting and surviving to even the most extreme tempurature shift projected. Yes, a lot of humanity would suffer, and a lot of pretty beach houses would disappear, but that is not species threatening. However, huge clouds of Hydrogen Sulphide being released from an anoxic ocean harboring little to no life other than extremophile bacteria is something that I think even our species as a whole might have a bit of difficulty coming to terms with. This is also the first report on "global warming" that was made from largly true science based evidence, rather than projections from highly questionable climate models, that I have seen. You can also throw in the vast amounts of methane held frozen in the deep ocean. How much of an oceanic temperature shift would be required to melt and release enough of that to also affect the temperature and aid in the increse is H2S bacteria?

What I will be interested in seeing in a followup is the analysis of other non-extinction event periods to see if there are any other times recorded where CO2 reached the 1000ppm event, without the accompanying evidence of H2S or extinctions.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the job of climatologists to consider things like natural cycles and what forcing effect CO2 has on climate vs. natural (usually short-term) fluctuation. New studies that refine their understanding have only reinforced previous evidence that the amplified greenhouse effect and it's feedbacks are primary. As for the argument that the temperature record isn't long enough, we also have multiple proxies that give an indication of climate back thousands of years (one of the points made here in response to that line of argument).
You say the sun is "getting hotter", but total solar irradiance has declined slightly over the last few years. Yes, it had been at a higher level, particularly in the late 20th century, but the change was apparently nowhere near enough to account for the trend. You can "believe" magnetic flux has increased radiation receipt, but where are the peer-reviewed studies indicating this, and that it's sufficient to explain a significant part of the multi-decadal change?
Regarding climate change on other planets, you can't really compare conditions on Earth with those of Jupiter and Mars, where there are other major factors at work other than solar irradiance, including orbital mechanics, and on Mars, higher temperature sensitivity due to the thin atmosphere and lack of oceans. Some detail on the Mars example here.
If memory serves, past regional fluctuation in Greenland was linked to a similar change in heat distribution as was largely responsible for 1930's warming in the U.S (an episode that was not as significant globally: http://globalwarmingtruth.org/anomalymaps.html). The magnitude of the current change not only appears greater, but it's also accompanied by a rapid worldwide glacial retreat. Confusing regional fluctuation with a protracted global trend is a common mistake - sometimes made purposely by fossil-funded doubt shops. This makes me wonder where you've been doing most of your research on the topic. As does your question about ice ages. You seem to be assuming climatologists think humans are the only influence on Earth's climate. It's pretty well understood that milankovitch cycles related to Earth's orbit are the initial forcing for glacial-interglacial cycles, and that this forcing is subtle and occurs over millennia.
What we have now is a significant long-term climate forcing (a carbon cycle imbalance), and an anomalous interglacial warming trend that's in it's early stages. Feedbacks and the oceanic distribution of extra heat over decades mean we aren't even seeing the full effect of recent emissions. The fact that we're still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at such a high rate, and risking the release of more CO2 and methane from warming, is something worth paying attention to.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[running on empty]

Greenland and Antarctic ice, when it melts at the rate it is melting, practically speaking, is gone forever. The melting enlargens crevasses, increases the disintegration of the ice, and lubricates the ice sheet over the ground it sits on.

One study that global warming deniers point to in their claims that gw doesn't exist is one published in Science, i believe, that shows that there has been an increase in precipitation on the Greenland ice sheet which is increasing the thickness of the sheet itself.

This argument falls apart when this particular study is examined as part of the overall climate picture. All of the climate prediction computer modeling predicts short-term increases in precipitation in some geographical areas. The Greenland ice sheet is breaking up at the edges. The sheet is sliding towards the sea at twice the rate it was 10 years ago. The exponential increase in the rate of ice melt is creating much more runoff than the increase in the thickness of the sheet due to increased snowfall on top of it.

There may very well be increased evaporation secondary to increased average temperatures, but this won't simpy counterbalance the loss of ice. It would be one more symptom of the larger problem--more water vapor in the atmosphere means more greenhouse effect (water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas), causing further warming from solar radiation, creating more ice melt.

Instead of counterbalance, what we have is a positive feedback cycle, an exacerbation of the ice melt which creates further warming. This type of positve feedback is happening in other ways, too, such as the albedo effect: snow and ice reflect 90% of solar radiation back out into the atmosphere, whereas liquid water absorbs 90% of that energy. As more ice melts, there is less white ice to reflect the sun, and more dark water (and exposed rock/soil) to absorb it. This further melts the ice and further creates more water and further warms the oceans. Another example of a positive feedback cycle happening is the permafrost melting in the arctic areas like Alaska and scandinavia: as temperatures rise, ground that has been frozen since the last ice age, some 10,000 years, is melting. The resulting organic matter in the ground is releasing ever increasing amounts of methane. methane is a greenhouse gas much more powerful than CO2. So the result is more warming from solar radiation, more permafrost melting, and so on.

In my readings I have yet to come across a negative feedback cycle or any substantial counterbalancing going on.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[running on empty]

You assume that there is an overall increase in the number of trees worldwide. Sadly, the opposite is happening. Rainforests, the densest areas of trees around the world, are disappearing rapidly. Forests act as carbon sinks, as you state, taking carbon out of the atmosphere and holding it in their structure. When trees burn or otherwise decay, the carbon is released back into the environment. The overall loss of trees around the world has to be calculated into the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere, not absorbed from it. This is another reason why the Earth is out of balance, there is a much greater release of carbon than absorption, both directly from human sources (coal, oil, gas) and indirectly from human activity (deforestation, positive feedback cycles).

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[10Ghz]

"I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years."

As much as those scientist who claim that Earth is getting warmer due to Co2-emissions? Yeah, I didn't think so either. And besides: what makes your amateur-research (or are you a meteorologist or something similar?) better than their professional research? Or is this a case of "I Googled for it, therefore I'm an expert on this field!"?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Khazunga]

Information: That is an excellent point, except there is one problem....the tree you plant uses sunlight as the energy source to fix the c02. The plants that are now shaded by the tree are not not recieving that same amount of sunlight, thus fix less c02 themselves. The net c02 fixation actually can go down when you plant a tree. Also, trees can actually emit more carbon than they intake during some phases of their life.

This does not affect my calculation. My base number was the plant mass. Wood is mostly carbon and water, so I assume the dry weight of the tree is mostly carbon (extracted from the atmosphere).

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Khazunga]

You assume that there is an overall increase in the number of trees worldwide.

No I don't. It's not important how many trees are there worldwide. It's important how many trees are growing. A stable grown up tree fixates only enough carbon to repair itself. A growing tree fixates a lot more carbon. This implies that we need to have six million new growing trees any given year. The paper industry probably already covers that number.

Dead trees don't release their carbon into the atmosphere, so I need not account for that CO2. It does go into the environment, but is mostly inserted into the food chain (bacteria, fungus, various animals).

Burnt trees do release CO2, but that is already accounted for. My country had a huge fire in last year's summer, and that has affected our quota in international CO2 production agreements.

Anyhow, my point is that the HUGE number that environmentalists wage about worldwide CO2 production is really within a planetary scale. Events that affect the whole planet have huge numbers by their very nature, so people should not be scared by six or nine digit figures. It's possible to do fearmongering based on science, and extremists do so everyday.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[BigDogCH]

I see! That makes more sence! Thanks!

So, it doesn't affect your calculation, but it does show that they are possibly not the complete and accurate picture. Also, when the tree dies, wouldn't the carbon simply return to the environment? The tree would decompose, thus releasing most of the c02.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ZoneGray]

"To take the CO2 level up by 2000 ppm will indeed bring the O2 level down by 2000 ppm.... Complete non-issue."

That's the best science you can come up with? If so, perhaps you should stick to shouting down infidels and calling them trolls.

But seriously, why would the change in O2 level be a non-issue, but the change in CO2 level would lead to catastrophe? Am I a troll for asking these questions?

And what's the difference between the thermodymanic effects of oxygen molecules vs. CO2 molecules? twenty years of global warming "science" and I've never seen this addressed. On the ther hand, I've seen at least four or five different explanations of how CO2 will supposedly lead to catastrophe. Some say it's the same insulating effect as a blanket, some say it has to do with reflected/refracted light off the molecules, some say it has to do with infrared vs ultrviolet transmission. You'd think these folks would at least talk to each other to get the story straight.

I'm not worried about global warming, and not really worried about the medicine they're prescribing to cure it. But I'm horrified that people uncritically accept the "science" that's peddled by the politicians.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ajs]

Here's a few BBC links. These stories don't play big in the U.S. press.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/309689 3.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/312651 9.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/314937 9.stm

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[MagicMike]

> On the ther hand, I've seen at least four or five different explanations of how CO2 will
> supposedly lead to catastrophe. Some say it's the same insulating effect as a blanket, some
> say it has to do with reflected/refracted light off the molecules, some say it has to do
> with infrared vs ultrviolet transmission. You'd think these folks would at least talk to
> each other to get the story straight.

Wait, what if CO2 reflects infrared light differently than ultraviolet light, due to different reflection/refraction properties, and causes it to have a blanket-like insulating effect?

Put another way, what if the "four or five" "different" explanations you read were simply the same explanation at varying levels of detail?

Please, hit the books, and stop hand-waving.

I recognize politics wants to interject since so much policy depends on the science, but we should at least endeavor to keep the science at the heart of it as clean as possible, being the nerds that we are.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[mfrank]

Actually, we *should* be in an ice age, based on the cycles of orbital perturbations. Thing is, though, the global warming thing has been going on a bit longer than the last century. The invention of agriculture modified climate. Scientific American had an article about it a year or two ago.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not modded to 0. It's posted AC.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[running on empty]

Then we need more growing trees to offset the 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 we've created. Whatever the amount of CO2 humans are producing, 6 or 9-figure, it is too much for the planet's carbon-absorption systems to process.

You seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter that we put as much CO2 into the air as we do, that the 6 or 9 digit CO2 emissions figure is consistent with the planet's scale, so we shouldn't be concerned about it.

Should I not be concerned that our oceans are 0.1 pH units more acidic due to this CO2 rise? Or that 440 million board-feet of pine trees in North America were killed by the Mountain Pine Beetle last year because winter temperatures were insufficiently cold to keep the bug in check? Or that the waterways in my local area have, on average, 50% less water in them than they should have and that we've had drought for 5 of the last 6 years?

People's voices are becoming louder and more shrill (what you call "fearmongering") as the worsening reality of our situation is being pooh-poohed by others, especially those in power. The situation is only going to get worse. What sort of change will it take for you to be afraid?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[catman]

Well, the Earth's magnetic field shields against charged particles, to be sure - but such a weak field has very little effect on electromagnetic waves, such as visible light, ultraviolet and infrared, and the total energy supplied to the magneto- and
atmosphere via charged particles is negligible compared to the EM irradiation. No source for the latter assertion, though, but if it had not been so, auroras would probably be a lot more spectacular :-)

Still no cigar.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Khazunga]

You seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter that we put as much CO2 into the air as we do, that the 6 or 9 digit CO2 emissions figure is consistent with the planet's scale, so we shouldn't be concerned about it.

That's exactly it. Whenever we strongly reduce CO2 production, the earth will recover its regular levels within a century.

What sort of change will it take for you to be afraid?

In a short answer: none. We have much much larger problems at hand. Oil is already past the Hubbert Peak. This will force us to find an alternative source, and all current alternatives have zero CO2 emissions. While it sounds ridiculously simple, this time around we were plain lucky. There weren't enough fossil fuel reserves for us to destroy the earth.

Note that I'm not ignoring coal. Although there is lots of coal, the emergence of cheaper energy alternatives should render coal economically inefficient. My personal bet for the energy of the future is Nuclear Fusion, which should be available in no more than fifty years.

Environmentalists would do a lot better to concentrate their efforts into preventing a nuclear war. G.W. Bush with its Iraq invasion while allowing North Korea to do what it pleases is doing its best to launch WWIII.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[running on empty]

We've already burned enough oil to change the world dramatically, we have yet to see the full effects of 380 ppm CO2, and I believe it is going to get really ugly in many if not all places around the world within 20 years.

I wish I could share your optimism about GW and coal not being a problem.

I hope you'll read www.realclimate.org, a blog run by climatologists on the science of GW. I find it informative, well referenced, and professional in approach. If you have a similar reference(s) for me, I'd love to gain a little of your optimism.

Good luck.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[coopex]

Volcanos also release a quite a lot of ash that has a signifigant cooling effect, see Year_Without_a_Summer

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[coopex]

Except that H2O is also a greenhouse gas...

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[running on empty]

Not much science out there to back up your perspective.

I'm wondering where you're from and why you have the perspective you do. If you aren't getting it from a scientific source, why are you propogating it?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[ZoneGray]

>> the same explanation at varying levels of detail?

Well, possible with some of them, but some are wildly divergent, or use different thermodynamic hypotheses to describe them.

>> reflects infrared light differently than ultraviolet light

That's the most plausible explanation, but the levels of CO2 elevation that are claimed (UN IPCC) is that of every ten thousand molecules in the atmosphere, ONE molecule is now CO2 instead of some other gas. They're worried that it might increase to two molecules out of every ten thousand over the next several decades.

Now, it's been 30+ years since I forgot how to do the math on those reflection/refraction effects, but really, one or two molecules out of ten thousand is supposed to send us into some sort of environmental death spiral? And why does nobody discuss a possible increase/decrease in Oxygen, and the possible effects of that... they'd seem to be equally important as the CO2 changes, but they're never discussed. Would adding or removing 100PPM of Oxygen from the atmosphere have a positive or negative effect on temperatures? Does anybody even know? Why the focus on CO2? It certainly seems politcally expedient, but it raises red flags to the properly skeptical scientist.

The entire theory rests on so-called positive feedbacks, which posit that small changes in one part of the ecosystem will become amplified as their effects pass through. To believe in such positive feedbacks requires suspension scientific skepticism, and a belief that somehow, some way, through a million years of volcanoes, meteors, and periods with CO2 levels far in excess of current ones, these positive feedbacks have apparently never been triggered. In fact, the very existence of the earth (and the fact that it has supported human life for more than a million years, most of it without heat or A/C), tends to convince me that ecosystems, by their very nature, are made up of complemetary negative feedbacks, and that postive feedbacks do not exist beyond a local level, end even there, they're necessarily temporary. The most obvious of the negative feedbacks, of course, are the oceans, which respond to warmth by evaporating more, thus creating more clouds, which in turn reduce temperatures, keeeping temperatures fairly stable. Doesn't that just make sense? Doesn't that help to explain how the climate has remained livable for the last million years or so?

Instead, we have people following a "science" that fervently believes in an inherently unstable earth, and in the refractive power of one molecule out of ten thousand, but is skeptical of clouds.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Khazunga]

Not much science out there to back up your perspective.

How come? What I have done is exactly science. Developing a theory, or a model, based on past data. Nothing in the past data counterproves my theory, so it is scientifically sane.

As for my background, I'm an engineer. Why I am propagating my ideas? It's what people do. They come up with ideas. Some of them might defy your view of the universe. Deal with it...

If you wish to counter my theory, attack the base numbers, don't make trollish vague assertions that "this is not science".

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Khazunga]

We've already burned enough oil to change the world dramatically, we have yet to see the full effects of 380 ppm CO2, and I believe it is going to get really ugly in many if not all places around the world within 20 years.

After your last post, I think I should back up my number that earth will recover within a century. It's quite simple, really: Based on the rates published by realclimate.org, now we produce about twice the CO2 that is recycled by Nature. We've been doing this since the early XX century/late XIX. Assuming a linear growth in CO2 production during the last, say 150 years, if we switch fuel source during the next 50 years, the total time we've industrially produced CO2 is 200 years. The total volume of excess CO2 produced should be naturally absorbed in 100 years, as can be easily proved by observation of the area of the two graphs (CO2 production and CO2 absorption).

I'm purposedly ignoring that for a long time since the industrial revolution, we've produced no CO2 excess at all...

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[running on empty]

One difficulty with your thoughts is the positive feedback cycles we've seen increase recently, primarily the albedo effect and the melting permafrost and resulting release of methane. Greenland ice melt has increased exponentially and there is no check on the further melting at a faster and faster rate, even if CO2 stays at 380 ppm. This isn't linear--not much of climate change is linear. Indeed, human CO2 production is rising exponentially--the equivalent of one 1,000 megawatt coal-burning power plant is going on line in China each week.

it doesn't much matter if the CO2 we produce is absorbed by natural processes in 100 years if we're not around to see it. Even if we were to transition to your theoretical zero-carbon emitting energy source by 2015 (a very short time-frame given the stage of development of zero-carbon energy as well as our reliance on fossil fuels in every aspect of our economy), the American breadbasket will dry up and blow away, much like what is happening in Australia right now, long before a natural correction of the carbon cycle.

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[Khazunga]

it doesn't much matter if the CO2 we produce is absorbed by natural processes in 100 years if we're not around to see it. Even if we were to transition to your theoretical zero-carbon emitting energy source by 2015 (a very short time-frame given the stage of development of zero-carbon energy as well as our reliance on fossil fuels in every aspect of our economy), the American breadbasket will dry up and blow away, much like what is happening in Australia right now, long before a natural correction of the carbon cycle.

Great line of thought. Discussing is a lot better than waving large numbers or just plain accusing people.

I have one problem with your scenario. Isn't it way too pessimistic? You are effectively stating that if we cut CO2 production to zero in ten years, we are still doomed. Environmentalists everywhere are fighting for reduction in CO2 production, not total cutout. We will never ever have zero CO2 production in ten years. If what you say is true, then we're already doomed aren't we?

Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[running on empty]

Yes, I'm scared. Not so much for me but for my two young sons. After understanding the size of the problem, it's hard not to be pessimistic and downright depressed. But the only alternative to submission is working as hard as we can to reduce our carbon emissions. The question is whether we can mobilize enough change before socio-politico-economic collapse secondary to climate change, or the effects of gw itself kill us. A foundational question to this line of reasoning is "how fast are we moving towards doom?"--something nobody knows, but we are certainly rushing towards it at an ever faster pace.

There are a lot of people in the US who still simply don't understand the gravity of the issue. I believe that there is an element of fear to understanding gw, just by virtue of the size of the problem. this comprehension is the first step for many people to come on board to supporting the solutions. It has been uplifting to see more people getting involved over the past year.

Maybe you're right to have such an optimistic perspective--it keeps people's heads in a problem solving mode (if not simply sane) in the face of impending doom. However, i think it makes the solution efforts hollow not to be straight and open about the effects we're seeing and the modeled predictions. Without people understanding the problem, there won't be sufficient collective motivation (or resources) devoted to solving it.

I read a quote somewhere that talk about a problem should be 90% solutions and only 10% problem, not the other way around.

bad news for North Face

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm putting my money in swimwear companies and sunscreen. The glass is always half full for me. Mary Sunshine

Re:bad news for North Face

[jcr]

I'm looking at buying farmland in Canada and Antarctica. ;-)

-jcr

Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[SRA8]

Give up people. Commercia interests are too powerful to care about Global Warming. Heck, they cant manage to fix things that will affect us in 10 to 20 yrs (social security, balooning health care.) Who cares about something truly long term? Please correct me if i'm wrong, but I do think that we're screwed on this one...

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Jules IV]

Totally agree, thats the ultimate challenge for mankind: a long effort toward better living, understanding and enviromental survival.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[nickallen]

Commercial interests are driven by consumers so if we all act together we can help change this. It makes little sense to completely blame commercial entities for the situation. A company will try to maximise profits and if that means being more environmentally friendly because that is what consumers want then that is exactly what they will do. Unfortunately, few companies are rewarded by their customers for being environmentally friendly. This requires good education about the issues and ideas on what we can all do to help change this. I'm hopeful that this can change - for example, if I see a product that has carbon neutral emissions I would buy that over one that isn't and I walk or cycle instead of taking the car for the majority of my journeys. There are many small things we can all do that would make a huge difference if everyone tried. I think we're more likely to make a significant difference this way than to rely on the governments to enforce behaviour by law - it is obvious that they are doing too little and too late...

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[LaughingCoder]

Commercia[l] interests are too powerful to care about Global Warming.

This attitude drives me crazy. If a large number of consumers start demanding greener products, some "commercial interest" will supply them. They will do this to gain an advantage over their competitors or a foothold in an entrenched market. Witness hybrid cars. They command a significant price premium over gas-only, yet there are waiting lists to buy them. Most financial analysts say they don't pay back that premium, even at $4/gallon for gas. But yet many people buy them anyhow - because they believe in the cause. And I'm sure they are very profitable as well (that nasty p-word). Those profits help the "commercial interests" to re-invest in even better models and progress is made. What is not helpful is reams of well-meaning government regulations which mostly serve to suffocate innovation, while at the same time, usually having unintended consequences that are more damaging than the problem they were attempting to address.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[love2hateMS]

Err.. don't you think these mysterious, nefarious, greedy "commercial interests" have some stake in protecting the planet? ie. If the planet is engulfed in flames, or C02, or giant termites from space, how are these nasty businesses going to make money?

Global climate change is a fact-- human-induced global climate change is an utterly unproven pile of steaming hysteria.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Sunburnt]

"Err.. don't you think these mysterious, nefarious, greedy 'commercial interests' have some stake in protecting the planet? ie. If the planet is engulfed in flames, or C02, or giant termites from space, how are these nasty businesses going to make money?"

Valid question, but inapplicable to actual corporate practice. Any corporation's board has a more immediate "stake" in maximizing share value, assuming they want to keep their six or seven figure salaries. They do, unsurprisingly, and so whatever interest a corporation might have in the consequences of human-induced global climate change is dwarfed by the profit motive. Simple microeconomics.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[1u3hr]

Err.. don't you think these mysterious, nefarious, greedy "commercial interests" have some stake in protecting the planet? ie. If the planet is engulfed in flames, or C02, or giant termites from space, how are these nasty businesses going to make money?

The owners will already have made their money, and move to gated communities in Aspen, Alaska, Antarctica or wherever while the rest of us fry.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[mutterc]

don't you think these mysterious, nefarious, greedy "commercial interests" have some stake in protecting the planet?

Of course not. Protecting the planet is way too long-term of a project. Better to have good numbers this quarter, no matter how bad for the company / industry / economy / planet later.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[SRA8]

This is exactly my point. Unfortunately, decisions for corporations are made on a quarter-by-quarter basis. At best, two or three year foresight is used by companies like MSFT who have long product cycles. Politicians use [length of term]-length decisions. How do we get the Establishment to think long term? Hasnt worked for Social Security in the US. We know FOR A FACT that Social Security WILL run out in 2024, but we havent done anything about that.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Anonymous Coward]

Your example of hybrid cars is severely flawed. What percentage of people actually own hybrid cars? To reduce emissions by a significant amount, a *majority* would need to own them, but instead, most consumers go for the more "profitable" non-hybrids. A few people who feel guilty about the environment are not enough to turn the tide. This is why we need regulaion - there are some issues in society where everyone acting selfishly results in a worse solution than everyone acting together. Look up the Prisoner's Dilemma sometime.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Bing Tsher E]

And any scientific body has a more immediate 'stake' in procuring tenure, keeping their research funding, and maintaining things 'the way they are.' So whatever interest a scientific community might have in the consequences of a human-induced rollback of industrial society is dwarfed by whatever the orthodox 'scientific' hierarchy has grabbed onto as the popular theory of the moment. And at the moment it seems to be orthodox to remain insular and pose the issue as if there's no room for dialogue, just for mandates to be issued against the 'bad Daddy Warbucks industrialists' and other 'profit mongers.'

It's like the only people who stuck around and remained on campus were the people who actually believed the bullshit on the leaflets passed around on the mall. Everybody else moved on in life.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Belial6]

I look at hybrids, and see a class of vehicle that doesn't get close to the gas milage of either my 1989 Geo Metro, or my 1999 Suzuki Swift. Now the hybrids being built are larger than these cars, but as far as I can tell there isn't a vehicle produced today that gets a real world 50 mpg.

Hybrid owners can chime in if they have different expreience than what I have heard reported on their real world gas milage.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[ChrisMaple]

Social security is driven by political pandering. Health care costs are driven by advancing medical technology (which is expensive) and detaching medical service payments from medical service reception (employer-paid insurance, which has been caused in part by the tax code). In short, malicious and stupid politicians combined with a malicious and stupid electorate are responsible for most of those two problems.

The political approach to pollution has had an effect, possibly but not certainly a net good effect. The hypothesis that global warming is mostly man-made, and that global warming is a bad thing, is unproved. The media and pseudo-environmentalists are stirring up a storm against supposed human causes of global warming, with the predictable result that gullible people and political panderers are paying attention and starting to cause damage to business through the political system.

The idea that "Commercia [sic] interests are too powerful to care about Global Warming" is silly. Persons who qualify as "commercial intersts" are as affected by global warming as anyone; power has nothing to do with it. They are far more likely to be rational about a problem because they lose money if they're wrong. Being wrong seldom affects politicians, they just have to be popular.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Sunburnt]

"And any scientific body has a more immediate 'stake' in procuring tenure, keeping their research funding, and maintaining things 'the way they are.'"

Indeed, which is why the big money in climate research comes from producing studies purporting to show a lack of causal connection between hydrocarbon consumption and global warming at the behest of oil firm lobbyists and PR firms. This gets harder as time goes by, of course, because the evidence supports a causal connection. Evidence, I notice, which you have made no effort to address, instead launching an ad hominem attack against your perceptions of academia. Climate research is not what produces the screeds you stereotype, but shoddy science journalism that ignorant peple generally confuse with scientific practice.

"It's like the only people who stuck around and remained on campus were the people who actually believed the bullshit on the leaflets passed around on the mall. Everybody else moved on in life."

By "moved on in life," you appear to mean "adopted a strident tone of anti-intellectualism and applied it to science they couldn't be arsed to actually study, conflicting as it did with their personal convictions." If this is the case, I must sadly agree.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[noidentity]

Witness hybrid cars. They command a significant price premium over gas-only, yet there are waiting lists to buy them.

The myth that hybrid cars run on something other than exclusively gasoline really irks me (I think only now are some coming out that actually allow external recharging). Repeat after me: a hybrid car is nothing more than a more efficient gasoline-powered vehicle, that is, it gets higher MPG/KPL. It will not run on any other fuel unless it has some other fuel port, like an AC cord to plug in at home overnight.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving habits affect actual gas mileage heavily.

The EPA rates a 1989 Metro as getting 39 MPG combined. You have been able to strech that to 50 MPG because of your driving habits. Congratulations. The EPA rates a 2006 Prius as getting 55 MPG combined. There are people who have been able to stretch their Priuses all the way up to 80 MPG. In other words, don't compare the milage you get on your Metro to the EPA rating of another vehicle or the mileage someone else gets on it -- compare EPA ratings, or compare the milage you get when driving both vehicles the same way.

Also, there's more to emissions than C02 and gas mileage -- there is also CO, NOx, NMOCs, and so on. The Prius exceeds the SULEV (Super Low Emissions Vehicle) EPA standards. The Metro does not even come close (especially after 17 years), and is probably especially bad at engine startup compared to the Prius.

And of course the Prius does all this as a larger car (112 cubic feet vs the Metro's 92). There are smaller hybrids that perform even better, like the Honda Insight.

I know it's fun to think that you had this all figured out in 1989 and everyone else is an idiot for thinking the newer cars are better. But sometimes, technology really does advance.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Bing Tsher E]

By "moved on in life," you appear to mean "adopted a strident tone of anti-intellectualism and applied it to science they couldn't be arsed to actually study, conflicting as it did with their personal convictions."

No, I meant that they get a job and move out into the real world.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[myowntrueself]

In a democracy, nothing can be planned, no plan can be carried out, which takes longer than the electoral cycle.

Democracy *imposes* a short-term view on civilisation.

Corporations can afford to take a longer term view; they don't come and go every 4-8 years.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Insurance companies are commercial interests.

Insurance companies are very interested in whether climate change will result in more frequent or more severe hurricanes/wildfires/floods. If they conclude that it will, expect serious pressure from them to change policy.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Commercia[l] interests are too powerful to care about Global Warming.

> This attitude drives me crazy. If a large number of consumers start demanding greener products,
> some "commercial interest" will supply them.

Sorry to be cynical, but I believe it's practiacally a given that any solution which begins with "if everybody just did [xyz]..." is hopeless.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Sunburnt]

A real world which, apparently, is immune to scientific study. Lazy scientists, not having jobs and all. Or does this just apply to the scientists whose conclusions you find distasteful?

Don't worry about answering; it's a rhetorical question, as I'm sure you're philosophically consistent enough to reject all the works of an institution as apparently corrupt as modern scientific endeavor.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Alioth]

You know - there's a minimum age at which you can be President of the USA. I think this isn't quite right as set now.

I think there should be a maximum age.

I think the ages at which you are allowed to be President should be only between 30 and 40. That way, you will probably live to face the consequences of your decisions. Presidents in their 70s can do anything they want because they are unlikely to live long enough to face the consequences. Even Dubya is too old to ever face the consequences.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[LaughingCoder]

Sorry to be cynical, but I believe it's practiacally a given that any solution which begins with "if everybody just did [xyz]..." is hopeless.

I agree. Which is why I said "If a large number of ..." rather than "everybody". It is impossible to get *everybody* to do anything. However, a large number is a completely different matter. The fact is, most energy-consuming markets (autos, aircraft, home heating, shipping) are so large that 5% of that market is a really big niche worthy of much investment.

Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful

[Bing Tsher E]

Science is a process, not an institution.

It's hopless to continue the discussion if you can't see that.

i wouldn't worry,

[joe 155]

these events occured such a long time ago that the whole make up of the world was sufficiently different that I think it would be strange to be worrying about it now. I also wonder if these events might have exhausted themselves naturally.

Still, it's 100 years away at least, by which time I'll be living on mars ; )

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[Jules IV]

Sorry to be bad news, but i really doubt we will ever live on Mars,its an utopia. We might get some minerals and riches (some rare metals and alloys maybye) but there will never be any life or civilization on this planet, it will probably be exploited by robots. It has seized its volcanic activities for a long time, so the 'core' of the planet died several thousand of years ago, so there is no hope of having a planet with any atmosphere, and since the magnetic core is not existing at all, the gamma radiation levels will always be unfavorable to any settlement of human colony. So, to our knowledge, there is only one planet on which life is possible, its earth, lets try to manage it cleverly for a while, since there is no escape from it.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, the way chemical reactions, and gases and equilibrium and such work may have changed since then. Studying these things is very significant. Saying there's no point studying it is just like saying there's no point studying anything.

Ok, maybe you'll be living on mars, but there will be my kids' kids here that I'm concerned about. I realise you weren't serious, but being serious this is of course why we are screwed -- the people with the power to do something can't think past their 4 year terms. Never vote for governments that say they want to cut taxes each year. They're going to run us into the ground in more ways than one before their through, but if all goes according to their un-thought-out plans, it will be the next government's fault. And even if the problems take two terms to occur and they're back in power they'll just blame it on the previour term government. It's all a game, and we're the spectators. If we want to live, and our kids to live, we have to move out of the spectator arena and start getting involved. Reading beyond the pre-election party hype and thinking of the long-term impact of their policies, and voting for those long as well as shorter term interests is the only thing that will save us. On a mass level, we deserve the government we have since we elected them, and therefore if the planet is run into the ground and kills us then we did it to ourselves.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, it's 100 years away at least, by which time I'll be living on mars ; )

Actually, the end of the next century is more like 200 hundred years away, rather than just 100 years. Of course, I didn't read the article, so you could still be right.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[Alef]

Still, it's 100 years away at least, by which time I'll be living on mars ; )

We'd have to screw up pretty badly before it is easier to terraform Mars into a habitable planet than to restore Earth.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[gEvil (beta)]

That's something that I love about the whole terraforming argument. So many people out there believe that we'll be able to produce drastic rapid climate change on another planet and that it will completely stabilize itself the moment we snap our fingers and say "stop." We're only barely beginning to understand the climate of the planet we've inhabited for 2 million years. What makes you guys think we'll be able to go somewhere else with variables that we don't even know about and effect changes we can't make happen here?

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[4D6963]

so the 'core' of the planet died several thousand of years ago

lol, I love how people have such an aweful representation of geological scales. Like this old lady who said that where she lived ocean was there a few hundred of years ago when it was really in the Jurassic (about 180 million years ago according to my geological map of France). The core of the planet died most likely (i didn't check) a few hundred million years ago, or even a few billion years ago.

so there is no hope of having a planet with any atmosphere

I didn't get that, what does the atmosphere have to do with volcanic activities or the planet's core? Mars already has and atmosphere by the way, although it's substentially thiner than ours, if we wanted to make it more earth-like we could, but it would take hundreds of years.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[Anonymous Coward]

...if we wanted to make it more earth-like we could, but it would take hundreds of years.

Just curious, which geologic time scale are you using here? Is this the one you mentioned (e.g., the real one), or is this the grandparent's/old lady's?

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[4D6963]

which geologic time scale are you using here?

ha. ha. loser, that was weak. We're not even talking about a geological phenomena. Scenarios of terraforming are usually all about hundreds of thousands of years.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[Jules IV]

sorry for the millions of years i forgot, but it takes more than an atmosphere to make it earth like, see for venus or jupiter, though they have atmosphere, they will never be inhabitable. Mars, given its inactivity (core), does not generate a magnetic shield to protect life from the gamma radiations. So totally pointless to terraform unless we develop radiation shielding technology from scratch.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[shking]

Still, it's 100 years away at least, by which time I'll be living on mars ; )

Nope. You'll be dead.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[Elkboy]

Dead... on Mars!

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[khallow]

Mars, given its inactivity (core), does not generate a magnetic shield to protect life from the gamma radiations.

Even with its thin atmosphere, Mars provides ample protection from gamma rays and most other harmful EM frequencies above UV frequencies. The real problem is short ultraviolet which comes straight through. Due to the absence of unbound oxygen in the atmosphere, there is no equivalent of the ozone layer on Earth. There's decent protection against cosmic rays too.

So totally pointless to terraform unless we develop radiation shielding technology from scratch.

Dirt is radiation shielding technology. So is glass and a number of other things. Plus, we can always use lifeforms that have a strong resistance to radiation to initiate any terraforming.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[maraist]

Moreover, to what end? Unclaimed real-estate? Maybe it could be the next middle east. The real promised land?

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[BlackSabbath]

Someone PLEASE mod parent up as insightful.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, we all know there is a large alien whatchamacallit on Mars that will create an instant atmosphere.

Sheesh.

Re:i wouldn't worry,

[pionzypher]

Not to mention that the lack of a global magnetic field allows erosion of Mars' atmosphere. Without something to prevent that, the planning of a longterm terraforming solution on the red planet is a waste of time.

One wonders

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Which side is right ...

Environmentalists :
-> CO2 will cause mass extinctions
but also
-> gsms cause brain cancer (show me one single case ...)
-> against nuclear power, the easiest and most economically viable option to stopping global warning

Everybody else
-> There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true)
-> Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)

So what do we do ? There is one viable option to reduce oil dependancy : nuclear power. So the debate really is coming down to :
-> Massive amounts of relatively harmless (in small quantities) CO2 + tar + ... or minute quantities of very very harmful nuclear waste

The alternatives are, at best, in development
-> fusion : currently not possible, in development
-> solar power : too expensive, currently massive quantities of oil are needed to create solar panels, research ongoing
-> wind : unreliable, will place extreme demands on distribution net, and effects unknown
-> sea wave power : currently not possible, in development

(obviously we will still need oil for chemical industry etc, but nuclear power could cut oil needs 30-40%, and thus cut our dependancy on the middle east)

Imho the environmentalist option to be against both oil and nuclear power is not going anywhere, it's just not helpful. You can call all you want for the moon to come down, but regardless it's just not going to happen. Also, you cannot turn of all energy in the country for 5 years until an alternative is developed. It needs to be here now, working and functional, and proven. Obviously you cannot turn over the country to something like wind power.

Re:One wonders

[meringuoid]

Which side is right ... Environmentalists : -> CO2 will cause mass extinctions but also -> gsms cause brain cancer (show me one single case ...) -> against nuclear power, the easiest and most economically viable option to stopping global warning

You think you have to actually pick a side, and sign up to a complete party line? Do that and you don't think at all.

Re:One wonders

[drsmithy]

There is one viable option to reduce oil dependancy : nuclear power.

Nuclear power (especially on its own) isn't going to do much to reduce oil dependency. It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives.

Re:One wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

nuclear power, the easiest and most economically viable option to stopping global warning
Check your sources ! WIndpower is cheaper, Nuclear power only seems cheaper because Nuclear energy is subsidized heavily (a LOT more than green energy), and they don't count the cost of building and destroying the nuclear power plants. (I BEG you to check this)

Re:One wonders

[Alef]

Environmentalists :
-> CO2 will cause mass extinctions but also
-> gsms cause brain cancer (show me one single case ...)
-> against nuclear power, the easiest and most economically viable option to stopping global warning

Everybody else
-> There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true)
-> Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)

You are trolling. First you label everyone believing that human induced global climate change is really happening as "the environmentalists" in an attempt to discredit that opinion, ascribing it to a relatively small number of extremists. Then you put a bunch other opinions in the mouths of these people to make them sound irrational and stupid.

All this when in reality the vast majority of researchers and people (at least outside the US) find that there are strong reasons to think that we are causing global warming, and that the consequences likely are devastating for a large portion of the Earth.

Re:One wonders

[zecg]

Environmentalists :
-> CO2 will cause mass extinctions

Now, this is reading it very unscientifically. Just how did you produce "will"?

Everybody else
-> There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true)
-> Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)

Read up on CO2 and global warming. The projections for the future are not 100% certain, but there IS enough evidence that it's harmful to change policy and it DOES cause problems. Try reading at least the MOST obvious and easily accessible sources before you get all insightful on us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Danger ous_global_warming
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/index.html

Re:One wonders

[pinkocommie]

Greenpeace founder supports nukes.. Watch The Inconvenient Truth, one of the salient points of the movie was we can make changes today, now that will in time have tangible effects, switching from coal to nuclear for example (also fyi coal also is highly radioactive , minute quantities of radioactivity x tons n tons of coal). Another equally important point with hydrocarbons worth billions if not trillions of dollars in the ground there is sufficient business for people to do anything possible to stem erosion in market share (cue the CO2 is life ad's) The bottom line is regardless of our 'understanding' of us being the causative agents or not, the CO2 levels are rising and this in turn will have adverse effects. Even if this were a result of polar bears farting if we can work to offset the excess to minimize impact, would that not be a sound move? Also regarding what we can do? cut down on power usage, energy saving appliances, the whole thread on slashdot and elsewhere on minimizing idle mode power consumption, energy efficient cars hybrid electric etc, flourescent lightbulbs etc etc. Bottom line there is no significant downside that i'm aware of to conservation and switching from hydrocarbons to the maximal extent possible, then why not do it?

Re:One wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

Links would be helpful.

Re:One wonders

[RoLi]

Environmentalists: [..] gsms cause brain cancer (show me one single case ...)

First of all, "environmentalists" are not a single block of people but there are many different opinions. Second, the mobile phone hysteria was bred by esoterics, not environmentalists and even though there might be some overlap, those are different groups. Third, this hysteria is pretty much over already, so you are not knocking down a strawman - it's already knocked down. 4: Even if "environmentalists" said that, being wrong on one thing doesn't make you wrong on everything.

There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true)

Actually there is sufficient evidence and a large part of the world DID already change it's policy. Germany is leading in wind power and Sweden wants to be independent of oil within some years. Many other countries do similar things to attack the problem.

Also, do you remember the problem with the ozone-layer? A world-wide effort by most countries (that time including the USA) dealt with the problem and it worked amazingly well. Today the ozone-layer is almost back to normal.

Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)

There is already a mountain of evidence that it does cause problems, but even if you ignore all that, messing around with something you are dependent on and you don't fully understand is pretty stupid, don't you agree? I think we should use a very conservative approach to environmental issues BECAUSE we don't fully understand it. To say it's "not a problem" because we don't understand it doesn't make the slightest sense at all.

Imho the environmentalist option to be against both oil and nuclear power is not going anywhere, it's just not helpful. You can call all you want for the moon to come down, but regardless it's just not going to happen. Also, you cannot turn of all energy in the country for 5 years until an alternative is developed. It needs to be here now, working and functional, and proven. Obviously you cannot turn over the country to something like wind power.

Things that can be done easily, without new technology and with modest investment:

• insolate the houses better to safe heating
• Use stone instead of wood houses so you no longer need air-conditioning (heavy stone houses don't heat up so quickly)
• Yeah I know, it's a terrible suggestion, but using smaller cars would safe a lot too. There is no need to move 3 tons to transport a 70kg human

BTW, wind power is already covering 4,3% of Germany's electricity (per 2005) and will cover 10% or more by 2020. The USA with a much lower population density could cover a much higher percentage than that.

Having said all that, I'm not really worried about global warming because the very same people who want to "safe the economy" by wasting oil will run the economy right into the ground as soon as Saudi-Arabia hits peak oil. (probably before 2010, but even if they can hold out longer it's merely a question of when, not if)

Re:One wonders

[DarthChris]

...the environmentalist option to be against both oil and nuclear power...

Whilst I agree that it's stupid to be against both options (radioactivity is even less understood, especially at low doses), I think you're making a harsh stereotype here.

Finally: I've said this before, but perhaps was misunderstood:
-If we don't cut our carbon emissions (because we think we don't need to) and then turn out to be wrong, we may well end up like Venus.
-If we do cut them, we reduce our use of oil (which is in finite supply, as parent pointed out) and probably cut our costs (by energy efficieny stuff, my Mum works in that). Should we then turn out to be incorrect (i.e. CO2 isn't quite as bad as some of the doomsday predictions), we haven't really lost anything, but have gained quite a bit. Unfortunately, this is largely dependant on industry, and as the parent observed, convincing them may be difficult.
In short, either we will screw the atmosphere up with CO2, or we won't. Some people will inevitably pick sides and be wrong. In a matter with such potentially far-reaching implications, which way would you rather be wrong?

Re:One wonders

[mustafap]

>the environmentalists" in an attempt to discredit that opinion

Do yo ulive in a country where being an environmentalist is a bad thing? god help you, I hope it's a small country.

Re:One wonders

[Alef]

Do yo ulive in a country where being an environmentalist is a bad thing? god help you, I hope it's a small country.

Quite the opposite, actually. However, it seemed the OP was hoping the term would bring negative connotations. At least with his definition of environmentalism. In your case he clearly failed.

Re:One wonders

[Kjella]

You think you have to actually pick a side, and sign up to a complete party line? Do that and you don't think at all.

Come election day, and you have very little choice but to do so. In the US, any issue which isn't split clearly down the Democrat/Republican line and people fall down on both sides is completely lost. I'm not saying that you'll find a party program that'll completely match your preferences here either, but with 7 parties in parliament you're pretty sure to find something that'll be at least a partial match. The break down pretty muchy like this: Far left, left, right, far right, christians, environmentalists, rural interests. And the smaller parties really do have an influence when building coalitions and the like, making sure that their key issues are covered. While it has its downsides, such as blame distribution I feel that it adds a lot more dynamics to the politics. It doesn't take much for a party to take a rather decent fall in the polls as people switch to adjacent parties, giving clear signals that "We don't like what you're doing right now" within the same block or going to a block-neutral party. After all, there's only a really few big issues that'll make people switch their policy completely (and with two parties, they naturally become pretty much opposites).

Re:One wonders

[jimicus]

No, but if electricity is cheap enough compared with oil, then the demand for eletrically powered things (rather than oil powered) will shoot up - I'm thinking heating systems, vehicles, that sort of stuff.

Problem is, to appeal to the mass market it's got to be cheape enough once you've factored in the extra cost of buying an electric vehicle - but as demand increases the existing problems with making electric and hybrid electric vehicles which can perform to a similar standard as petrol powered ones will slowly melt away.

Re:One wonders

[Elkboy]

"Also, do you remember the problem with the ozone-layer? A world-wide effort by most countries (that time including the USA) dealt with the problem and it worked amazingly well. Today the ozone-layer is almost back to normal."

Unfortunately, the Antarctic ozone hole will take many decades to close and before the ozone levels reach the levels before the depletion began. But it is a significant triumph of international cooperation and foresight to overcome a global problem.

"Things that can be done easily, without new technology and with modest investment:"

Don't forget low energy lightbulbs. Switching all your lightbulbs isn't a major investment or hassle for an individual, but the energy savings if everyone did it would be huge.

Re:One wonders

[cliffski]

Forget nuclear, have you not considreed energy efficiency? I reckon 90% of people I know use incandescent lightbulbs, probably 90% leave their PC monitor on at work overnight, 90% of them drive to the local shops rather than walk, 90% of them probably have the TV on standby over night (plus the phone charger, the video, the DVD, the set top box, the hi-fi and the home PC).
Energy efficiency is never mentioned, but we can save energy AND our own hard earned cash this way.I never understand why businesses dont invest in tech that auto shutdowns everyones PCs and monitors after 7PM.
And why does my PC have such a ludricous power supply anyway, especially when im just surfing, do I really need it all?

Re:One wonders

[SirWinston]

> Nuclear power (especially on its own) isn't going to do much to reduce oil dependency.
> It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives.

First, we in the U.S. burn large amounts of fossil fuels (coal, oil derivatives etc) for electricity--precisely because unlike Europe we haven't built new nuclear power plants in decades.

Second, the ubiquity of cheap nuclear-generated electricity would easily have a ripple effect on other areas of infrastructure, phasing in electric capacitance charging stations to slowly displace gas pumps as electric cars replace petrol guzzlers.

All-electric retrofits of existing gas/electric hybrids are so impressive that cars designed from the start as all-electric would be phenomenal; today's battery tech makes this feasible, unlike the early days with the EV1. Add large capacitors like the ones mentioned in a recent /. article in to the equation, and performance, range, and recharge time can be improved.

An abundance of cheap nuclear-generated electricity would change everything. Cutting back on fossil fuel use and resultant greenhouse gasses would merely be the tip of the iceberg--imagine if energy eventually became an order of magnitude cheaper due to a real effort to create a nuclear infrastructure, the ripples that could have. In IT alone the effects would be huge--one of the largest ongoing costs to companies like Google, for example, is the big energy bill its countless servers and cooling solutions generate. A nuclear infrastructure generating more and cheaper energy could boost the whole economy in the long term.

Re:One wonders

[MtViewGuy]

fusion : currently not possible, in development

I agree due to the huge technical challenges to contain the heated plasma of deuterium and tritium gas to get fusion.

solar power : too expensive, currently massive quantities of oil are needed to create solar panels, research ongoing

Now more viable than you think. Thanks to nanotechnology breakthroughs we could see production cost of solar panels drop dramatically in the next 5-7 years.

wind : unreliable, will place extreme demands on distribution net, and effects unknown

Then why are multiple companies putting up 1-5 MW giant wind turbines all over the US Midwest?

sea wave power : currently not possible, in development

Recent breakthroughs in capturing sea wave motion to convert to electricity could make it possible to put up large numbers of such generators along the Pacific and Atlantic coastlines of the USA within the next 20-25 years.

By the way, the development of lower-cost supercapacitors using nanotechnology that could store large amounts of electricity in a relatively small space could make solar and wind power even more viable, since they could be used to store electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines and release the power at night time and in low wind conditions.

Re:One wonders

[4D6963]

It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives

Riiight, except that 80.2% of China's production of electricity and 71.4% of the USA's production of electricity is coming from fossil fuels, and that for the whole world 65.1% of electricity is produced from fossil fuels.

You're right, it's not that much, it's only two thirds.

Re:One wonders

[constantnormal]

... there are strong reasons to think that we are causing global warming ..."

If human activity is to blame for the current bout of global warming, then one would logically expect the current bout of global warming to have begun sometime during, oh, let's say the past couple of hundred years. Certainly no more than a few thousand.

But that's NOT what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the current cycle of global warming began about 30,000 years ago. Other evidences include the land bridges between Ireland and Britain, Alaska and Siberia disappearing as the oceans began to rise -- presumably from the melting of the ice caps from the previous Ice Age. And long before human activity had any effect on global climate.

I don't have a problem with stating that human activity is contributing to the current cycle of global warming, but it clearly did not cause it, and there is no reason to believe that even if we immediately terminate all human production of atmospheric carbon (assuming that such a thing is even remotely possible), that the current global warming would subside.

We may have accelerated the progress of this cycle, but we clearly did NOT cause global warming. And in all likelihood, other sources of greenhouse gases -- things like the thawing and subsequent rotting of millions of acres of permafrost -- are now the driving forces.

The fact that we do not have a solid model that incorporates the plethora of sources of atmospheric carbon that are begin recognized currently, or one that can produce the cyclic behavior observed in the paleoclimate record should make us a little cautious. To produce models that track a few thousand years does nothing to test theories against an observed history of a cyclical process occurring over million of years.

The referenced article raises its own questions. For instance, if the planet has seen increases in CO2 and H2S immediately preceding the several previous mass extinctions, then it seems likely that some process also occurs to wash the nasty stuff out of the atmosphere, else the Earth would resemble Venus.

Perhaps it is the abundance of life on Earth that is responsible for the rise of atmospheric CO2 to levels that make the global temperature hospitable for the formation of life, and cyclic eruptions of super-volcanos (like the Yellowstone caldera) snuff out the bulk of the life infesting the planet, allowing the excess CO2 to break down or otherwise dissipate over the next few hundred years following the mass extinctions (and the release of the carbon trapped in all those carcasses), and the large amount of atmospheric dust and debris from the eruption to immediately start the planet into another Ice Age.

But that is merely speculation. The fact is, we don't know and have no theories backed by evidence to suggest plausible answers.

Yes, switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is A Good Thing, and we should be doing so (and are, as fast as we economically can) -- but to suggest that such a switch is the "cure" for global warming is unsubstantiated, giving dangerous hope of a remedy that is almost certainly false.

To "cure" global warming, we need to be able to directly alter the amount of atmospheric carbon -- maybe extract it in the form of carbon nanotubes via gene-modded algae or trees, using carbon nanotubes to replace lumber in our technology. We're clearly a VERY long way from being able to do that.

And even then, we need to be able to deal with the H2S dumped into the environment by super-volcanos, and I cannot imagine how we can deal with that. Based on the cyclic history of the Yellowstone caldera, we should be expecting another eruption there Real Soon Now, which will pretty much obliterate life in North America, if not kick off another wave of mass extinctions around the globe.

Re:One wonders

[asuffield]

All this when in reality the vast majority of researchers and people (at least outside the US) find that there are strong reasons to think that we are causing global warming, and that the consequences likely are devastating for a large portion of the Earth.

That's pure fiction. There have been many studies posted to slashdot alone on this subject, let alone reputable scientific news sources, and every one of them comes up the same: most scientists think the planet is getting hotter, it's probably related to our actions to some extent, and it may have other unknown causes. Most scientists think it is impossible to tell at this point what the long-term consequences are likely to be. "Devastating consequences" is pure Hollywood, there is no scientific consensus on the subject at all (if you think otherwise, show the study). The closest you'll find is a bunch of commonly accepted studies saying "if X and Y and Z happen, bad things will result", where there's no knowledge about whether or not those conditions will actually occur.

Endless debate on the subject and all the numbers you could want (no two sets the same) can be found by following links from wikipedia's article on Scientific opinion on climate change.

Re:One wonders

[drsmithy]

You're right, it's not that much, it's only two thirds.

Fossil fuels != oil.

Most fossil-fuel related *electricity production*, by my understanding, comes from coal (and gas ?), not oil (or derivatives like petrol).

(Heating with oil was something I hadn't considered, however, largely because it's not very common here in Australia (neither is really cold weather, for that matter).)

Re:One wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

coal is not oil, dumbass.

Re:One wonders

[hamburger lady]

If human activity is to blame for the current bout of global warming, then one would logically expect the current bout of global warming to have begun sometime during, oh, let's say the past couple of hundred years. Certainly no more than a few thousand.

But that's NOT what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the current cycle of global warming began about 30,000 years ago. Other evidences include the land bridges between Ireland and Britain, Alaska and Siberia disappearing as the oceans began to rise -- presumably from the melting of the ice caps from the previous Ice Age. And long before human activity had any effect on global climate


this is a strawman; nobody is saying that people are the cause of warming out of the last ice age. people are saying that humans are responsible for the warming above and beyond what is caused by natural means.

in the last 800,000 years, the world has gone through a number of climate cycles where CO2 has peaked at about 300ppm and then turned and lowered along with temperature. today, we've surpassed that peak and instead have continued climbing to almost 400ppm, something unseen in almost a million years of fossil records.

hence the belief that humans are screwing up the system; people point out that in ancient times CO2 was at ridiculously high levels, however nobody can point to a natural phenomenon which would be responsible for the extra warming and CO2 we see today.

Re:One wonders

[Bing Tsher E]

Come election day, and you have very little choice but to do so.

No. You can also acknowledge that no matter what a bunch of hotheads do in special 'argument chambers' established for them to fume and bluster at one another, that the world spins on, and people and entities make the right decisions when presented with the truth.

In other words: quit assuming that 'government' is running things. Perhaps come to an understanding that the world is more complex than that. Throw away your parody opponents and start communicating with those who have the power to institute change. That means 'working within the system,' which is NOT all government. This is sometimes called 'selling out' by those who live in pristine personal fantasylands bounded by their favored idologies.

Re:One wonders

[Alef]

Most scientists think it is impossible to tell at this point what the long-term consequences are likely to be.

So you're saying short-term consequences can't be devastating? Humans and nature are good at adapting to the environment if it changes, but adaption takes time. I'm sure the western world will cope; some of us might even be better off. But even slightly altered rain patterns in poor countries that already have a dry climate could be very problematic, resulting in drought and famine. And rising sea levels would be extremely costly for people living in flat coastal areas. The problem isn't primarily the end result, but the sudden changes.

I'm not saying there will be giant tidal waves ungulfing coastal cities out of nowhere, or sudden massive changes in the sea currents. That would be Hollywood.

Re:One wonders

[AhtirTano]

If butterflies were natural you would expect them to look like other flies. Flies have dark bodies and translucent wings. Butterflies have light bodies and colorful wings.

Now, I can accept the idea that evolution has produced a variety of fly that looks different from the other members of its family. (Look at zebras and horses.) But butter does not occur in nature! Butter is only a manmade product! How can we accept that butterflies are natural when butter is not natural! Scientists and evironmentalists are ignoring the clear facts to stir up controversy.

Compound words are not always compositional in meaning. This is especially true of technical terminology. If you want to participate in a debate, it is a good idea to learn what the words mean before doing so. (Hint:"Global warming" is not just about the globe getting warmer. It's more complicated than that.)

Re:One wonders

[Snaller]

So what do we do ?

You should stop being a bad human being and stop perverting facts.

Re:One wonders

[gobbo]

Greenpeace founder supports nukes..

Oh, for crying out loud, don't use Patrick Moore to support any of your arguments. He's made a lucrative career out of making perfectly reasonable middle-ground arguments into sheep's clothing as a corporate shill. His credibility went down the toilet when he started several PR front organizations for the transnational foresty industry in his home province.

He's like a shrill ex-smoker: rabid, anti-whatever-he-was, and self-serving under the guise of magnanimity and moderation.

Not that I disagree with you, what you're saying is sensible from an energy point of view. /.ers should be aware of the astoturfing Mr. Moore, however. Whenever he stands up to speak, look to see who benefits, and you'll see that he stands for a concentration of corporate power, and unfettered transnational industrialism.

The big thing about nuclear power is the business model. Who gets the profit, or is any allowed? Who has oversight? And who sets the standards, enforces the distribution rights? Most of these issues are submarined.

Re:One wonders

[khallow]

So you're saying short-term consequences can't be devastating?

Well, they haven't been so far.

Re:One wonders

[yusing]

When scientists say "probably" related to our actions, that constitutes "strong reasons to think that we are causing" ... because when scientists say "probably" they have numbers to back up that assertion.

The majority opinion of the NAS does not constitute "pure fiction". There is no call for such rhetoric; there is cause for concern; there IS a call for reasoned discussion ... which is not assisted by categorical denial in the face of mounting evidence. Whatever is causing the poles to melt ... most certainly NOT fiction ... it behooves us to look very hard at that.

In the face of enormous uncertainties, to the extent that we MAY be contributing, the only rational response is to look for ways in which we might be endangering ourselves, and for ways to ameliorate those dangers. Hand-waving and partisan red herrings are not an appropriate response to the potential magnitude of this problem.

Re:One wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell you what. You try packing 55 gallon drums full of coal and try selling it as crude. Let us know how it all works out.

Re:One wonders

[TubeSteak]

we've surpassed that peak and instead have continued climbing to almost 400ppm, something unseen in almost a million years of fossil records.

I'm not trolling or anything:
Why were C02 levels at ~400ppm almost a million years ago?

Volcanic activity?

Re:One wonders

[4D6963]

coal is not oil, dumbass.

I know lol, but tell it to the two guys who modded me up.

Re:One wonders

[asuffield]

When scientists say "probably" related to our actions, that constitutes "strong reasons to think that we are causing"

No. It means "strong reason to think that we are one of the causes". All consensus studies so far, including the NAS one that you attempted to cite, have said that scientists think we don't yet know whether we are a major or a minor cause. That's the big problem really.

In the face of enormous uncertainties, to the extent that we MAY be contributing, the only rational response is to look for ways in which we might be endangering ourselves, and for ways to ameliorate those dangers.

Only if we have unlimited amounts of disposable wealth to expend on doing so. Otherwise, it has to compete with all the other things that need doing.

Re:One wonders

[Anthony]

CO2 levels were on a long decline from the Eocene, thought to be primarily from volcanic activity at levels much higher than what we see today. Note the majority of that activity was at active mid-ocean ridges.

My recollection is that youi really have to go back to the start of the Miocene (~25Ma) to find similar CO2 levels to what we are now approaching. That gets interesting because grasses became dominant in the Miocene. What are our staple foods baesed on? Grasses and grazers.

Re:One wonders

[Michael Wardle]

cliffski wrote:

And why does my PC have such a ludricous power supply anyway, especially when im just surfing, do I really need it all?

From http://www.silentpcreview.com/article28-page3.html :

Without getting into technical details, the nature of a switching power supply is that it delivers as much power as is demanded by the components. This means that when installed in a PC whose components require 200W, a 400W PSU and a 250W PSU will each deliver 200W. ... As long as there is adequate power, higher efficiency is the key to cooler, quieter PSU operation.

In other words, power supplies only draw as much power as they need to meet the computer's power needs, so all power supplies will draw less power when you're web surfing than when you're playing games or running intensive calculations. What's most important is how efficiently a power supply converts AC power into DC power, and hence how much AC power it must draw to supply that demand.

Re:One wonders

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

How is this a party line ? This is a concrete issue and I have an opinion. I have no idea wether this is republican or democrat. And frankly, I don't care.

Re:One wonders

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

And why does my PC have such a ludricous power supply anyway, especially when im just surfing, do I really need it all?

Engineers who have studied for at least 4 years (most have a phd, so that would be 6 years I believe), and have dozens of years experience in the industry are saying yes.

They're even trying to reduce it, which advances slowly. Very slowly.

But if you can do better than them, by all means, do so. I'll buy one of your coming-up low-power (like 10 watts maximum) not-produced-with-any-oil computer for the low price you present by (and I quote) "saving our own hard-earned cash". When will it be available ? ( I'm thinking about buying a mini-itx pc though, or perhaps just always use my laptop which does have lower power usage, for other reasons )

Politicians won't care

[PhoenixAtlantios]

The politicians, their children, and even their children's children will all be dead and long gone by the time the next century ends (2200). If you want them to do something, try pointing out the implications global warming will have before they die.

Re:Politicians won't care

[Coeurderoy]

You mean before the next elections, or more accuratelly before the next time their party administration designate them for reellection.
(The risk of an US Representant or Senator to fail to be reellected is LOWER than it was for a Soviet representent to be thrown out.

Re:Politicians won't care

[east coast]

If you want them to do something...

If you want to do something? How about instead of waiting for the government to solve this problem people get off their own fat asses and follow their own advice?

Without consumer support for lower emissions technology there will be no way for corporations to continue on with the R&D it takes to pursue these matters seriously. Well, no way but high subsidies. So people need to put their money where their mouth is. You want to cut emissions; just do it. You'll vote with your dollars and there isn't anyone who will turn that down.

Hang on

[bblboy54]

Let's ask this guy first.

Not my problem

[Ice Wewe]

Today with CO2 around 385 ppm...climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm...to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century.

That's assuming we as a race live that long. With things like North Korea, and the current situation in Iraq, I'd feel good if we made it for that long. Anyway, unless they make a miracle drug to keep everyone alive for longer, I wont be around then. So, my grandchildren are screwed.

Re:Not my problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, things like United States of America.

Global warming is a lie

[zitintheass]

They promised us summers like in California. This year was the coldness summer in my entire life, this is simply unacceptable, we in the north are unfairly treated environmentally speaking. We need to pump more CO2 into atmosphere. Go buy a Hummer.

Re:Global warming is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

They promised us summers like in California.

No, they didn't. They promised us extreme weather, which if judged by your statement, seems to be happening.

Everybody else?

[Vexorian]

Everybody else -> There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true) -> Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)

Hello, I am not a frigging environmentalist. But this sickens me off, why do it call it the `green house effect? Do you know what a green house is? Green house do work! and let the warm increase and all that is caused by CO2 . Now if you think about it, evidence is required to proof that CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE Global Warming. I am sorry but it is not the opposite.

Re:Everybody else?

[Ekarderif]

Because, you know, CO2 is the reason green houses work.

Oh wait, green houses work because of the glass. Last I checked, glass isn't CO2.

Where's the O2?

[sensei moreh]

It's one thing to talk about increased H2S production, but that totally fails to address the question, "where did the O2 go?" The article describes the displacement of dissolved O2 by dissolved H2S in anoxic oceans, which is fine as far as it goes. However, unless large reservoirs of elemental carbon (or CO or CH4) are being oxidized to produce CO2 in large quantities, the result should be an increased atmospheric O2 concentration. Perhaps volcanic activity resulted in such an outpouring of CO2 that it dwarfed the O2 forced into the atmosphere by the anoxic oceans, resulting in the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations inferred by the rock record. Or perhaps the inferred cause and effect relationship is not nearly as simple as the article makes it out to be.

Re:Where's the O2?

[Anonymous Coward]

The concentration of O2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. The issue described in the article is the lack of O2 in the water. Anoxic bateria produce H2S, a severe toxin for aerobic life. Releasing this poison into the atmosphere is what causes the extinctions. Even high levels of atmospheric O2 won't save the situation.

Incidentally, the flamewar on these threads about CO2 is misplaced. The authors point out that it is raised ocean temperatures that prevent O2 dissolving into the water, causing the problem. They don't imply a direct link with CO2 other than the effect of higher temperatures, and only mention CO2 in the last paragraph.

Re:Where's the O2?

[sensei moreh]

H2S is oxidized to SO3 in the atmosphere which then combines with H2O to produce H2SO4 unless the toxic clouds of H2S take too long to oxidize

Won't Happen to US if we believe the science

[logicnazi]

Now reducing emissions is clearly the safest way to go about dealing with global warming but so long as humans take these threats seriously we won't all die from massive bubbles of gas erupting.

Unlike the ancient eras of life we are (hopefully) smart enough to know we need to keep the world cooler. If we end up with our backs to the wall we can always inject more sulfates into the upper atmosphere or otherwise decrease the amount of solar energy the earth absorbs. There are big drawbacks to these plans but they are a sure of a hell lot less bad than all life on earth dying from released gases.

Re:Won't Happen to US if we believe the science

[gEvil (beta)]

As has been proven time and time again over the past 4 billion years, ALL life on Earth is very unlikely to die. If you're arguing against the eventual demise of mankind, however, that's a different story...

New Indirect Solar Power Generation Concept

[rohar]

I have been working on a design for an indirect solar power generation system that can be cost effective, location independent and I believe can be built with a low enough capital investment to compete directly with fossil fuels.

The idea is to build a standard low gradient heat platform that can be optimized for a geographical location's specific climate and geothermal features. The specific adaptation for arid regions utilizing absorption refrigeration especially shows promise.

Just a thought....

[grishknash]

Lots I want to reply to...
Probably the best source for scientific data and reliable modelling comes from the intergovernmental panel on climate change [ipcc.ch]. The last full report was from 2001 and is fully available on line and for free. I stupidly bought the books. The amount of synthesis of data performed is HUGE and from literally thousands of scientists in the field. It is truly the definitive work in progress. Due to the nature of science and the complex chaotic mechanisms of climate the models cannot be 100% conclusive; however, the four prospective models used have hypothesized the expected changes since 2001 fairly well. The four models assumed different scenarios of human responses to climate change. The four models being a reduction in CO2 emissions, constant increases, moderate increases and large increases in CO2 emissions. The effects of these models are classified according to a likelihood scale and associated percentages. Since the publication of the report, we have had 5 years to compare and contrast the models with reality. The modelling has done quite well. I suggest anyone who is interested read the synthesis report. The rest would take you a year or so to read :)
Since the report, due to the political tenderness of the topic, if anything, has been underreported and cautiously forwarded. It seems that one area that was underestimated in impact was the positive feedback mechanisms invovled in lost albedo and permafrost thaw. Also, the effects due to water vapor and cloud formation are still difficult to understand and predict.
As a teacher, I agree that we MUST listen and respond to the experts in the field and not political/religious/uninformed theorists. IE> michael Creighton and his ' State of Fear'. Some of the scientists he interviewed respond to his book at realclimate.org as well as a 'book report' in science magazine. Both are telling of the political nature of the topic.
Finally, we need to consider the larger manifestitions of 'global warming' with respect to increases in ocean acidity, altered weather patterns with respect to agriculture, etc. It is the unpredicatable spinoffs of global warming/climate change that will threaten society. Lack of food, lack of clean water and the wars associated with future conflicts we need to worry about.

Re:Just a thought....

[Anonymous Coward]

The four models being a reduction in CO2 emissions, constant increases, moderate increases and large increases in CO2 emissions.

This reads like a description of four inputs into the same, i.e. one, model. Which is it? You certainly wouldn't only put four inputs into four separte models. More likely, four inputs would go into four models (if you had that many). Of course, ideally, countless inputs would enter all feasible models but ...

Re:Just a thought....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm relying on public sources (wikipedia) to find a handle of this thing, and if they're correct (no reason to suspect differently), I must say that those guys at the UN are just a bunch of brain-dead idiots. They consciously propose to "stabilise" CO2 levels at 450ppmv, while the last 800000 years the level has been in between 180 (ice ages) and 280 (hottest periods), and while according to biologists a CO2 concentration of less than 300 has enabled C4 plants to evolve, or, let's say, plant-life as we know it. To make things clear, we're now at a level of 380!! Furthermore, the age of homo sapiens is about 200000 years... I would say, put them in front of a very hot gun and shoot them all.

Re:Immortality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats funny, I thought all life on earth was certain to die? Or was that not what you meant...

Not Human Nature

[ChronoFish]

One of things that we have to accept about humans is that they are part of nature. It's not natural for humans (as a population, not necessarily individuals) to restrain themselves.

What this means (to me) is that the destruction that humans brings (aka man-made) is also natural. It is also natural for humans to destruct to the point of no-return - i.e. humans will use up every last natural-resource until there is no longer a natural-resource to use.

Whaling and fishing are great examples. The Atlantic Ocean used to have an abundance of (sperm) whales. But the human race killed them off - that didn't stop the whalers of course. Rather than realizing the impact and looking for alternatives, they setup long complex shipping routes. Boats from Nantucket (North Eastern US) would set sail and round Argentina (South America) and then exploit the waters of Hawaii and Singapore in the Pacific. Eventually killing off the whales there as well.

The reason for hunting whales? Primarily whale blubber -which was boiled down to oil - which was used as a power source. Eventually the stock of sperm whales dried up in the pacific as well - forcing humans to come up with an alternative - which they did (petrol) - thereby officially killing the whaling industry. (Sure Japan is still at it - but mostly for the meat which focus on other types of whales).

The point is that humans will not restrain themselves or conserve (with some notable exceptions of course) their natural resources. And this is a natural part of human nature - which is part of nature.

So yeah - we are doomed to repeat the process (there are countless examples) and the end result is that we will wipe ourselves out. But that is part of nature - to thrive until starvation. Every population does it. Name one animal that does not gorge themselves - even if it means death to the species.....

-CF

Re:Not Human Nature

[katsiris]

A fundamental tenant of the natural order is self-preservation. To ignore that and say "it's part of nature for us to destroy ourselves" is like a gazelle seeing a lion and not running because it knows its place in the food chain.

Re:Not Human Nature

[ChronoFish]

Self preservation - yes - absolutely. The gazelle will - purely on instinct - get the hell out of dodge when a lion approaches. Of course it will also leave it's young in the lion's path. You won't see the gazelle sacrifice itself for its offspring.

Don't confuse self preservation with preservation of the species.

-CF

Re:Not Human Nature

[arcite]

And you shouldn't confuse the Human ability of LOGIC and IMAGINATION. Holy shit. Are you really putting us humans on the same level as a cow? I know what your argument is, but it stinks and its a copout. We have a responsibility to preserve the earth because it is our ONLY home. The more we destroy the natural environment, alter weather patterns, cause mass extinctions, the closer we get to doing ourselves in. I'm sure you would agree with this, but where are wrong is the INEVITIBILITY that because that is what we are doing now, that it is our fate. You might not want the human race to survive the next 1000 years, but I certainly do.

Re:Not Human Nature

[ChronoFish]

On an individual basis - yeah humans are brilliant. As a species we are no different than any other. I have complete faith that someone would be able to solve the global-warming problem. And I have complete faith that it won't matter.

100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? It has nothing to do with my desire - nature will takes its course.

-CF

Re:Not Human Nature

[fferreres]

Natural is the word that includes a sense of NOT being able to predict the consecuences and therefore changing the behaveour. Else, Natural means whatever happens, and therefore the word is uneeded as fate, destiny or just evolution can be used :-)

Re:Not Human Nature

[DrCode]

I don't know about this claim. When my cat has had enough to eat, she sleeps, rather than going out and killing more prey. When we humans have enough to eat, we keep eating until we get fat. When we have a car that gets us around fine, we decide that we need a bigger car.

There's nothing particularly natural about this. Let people know that gas is going to cost $5/gallon, and most will stop buying such large cars. Tell us that if get sick from being overweight (ie, diabetes, heart attacks), we'll have to pay our own medical bills, more of us will make a point of thinning down.

The Cost of Fighting Global Warming

[schroedogg]

This idea that global warming is caused primarily by humans is speculative at best. In the past 120 years, the average surface temperature has only risen 1.2 degrees F in North America. Because measuring has not been as accurate as it is now, this may not be a totally accurate number. Plus, most of this can be attributed to things not caused by human action such as retreated glaciers, volcanos, etc. Do we really know for sure that WE are causing global warming?

Also, think of all the negatives of fighting this perceivedly harmful warming. One, the poor will become poorer because they won't be able to afford the latest fuel efficient cars, furnaces, etc. We just recently purchased a "new" (used) car and found that it was manufactured to meet california emissions standards, though we do not live in California nor was it manufactured there. Because of this, a simple $50 oxygen sensor that needs replacing is now going to cost $150. On top of that, it has not 1 but 2 catalytic converters, which are another expensive part to replace. Then think about the benefits of global warming. Warmer weather means a longer growing season, which could be a boon to agritculture in 3rd world countries. Also, more people die from cold each year than from heat, so a warmer planet could mean less deaths due to temperature.

Of course, these are assuming the warming doesn't eventually result in some sort of catastrophe, but I think the evidence for this is very shaky at best. Don't believe everything the media is spitting out currently. I think this whole catastrophe theory is a very politically motivated issue with a little bit of science behind it.

Re:The Cost of Fighting Global Warming

[cnettel]

Go read up on the length of the growing season(s) in tropical regions, versus precipitation. It never gets cold enough to stop photosynthesis in a serious way. On the other hand, high temperatures will, in fact, limit the growing ability of crops, forcing them to close their stoma to stop water loss, and the whole fuss making C4 plants more efficient. Maize is C4, but many other base crops are not, and higher day temperatures during significant parts of the year would certainly still be a problem for those organisms. Irrigation is the problem here, and that's not helped by a higher temperature.

Increased CO2 levels might on the other hand benefit a lot of plants, especially in the high-temperature scenarios. Those effects won't get too significant until we reach a level similar to what's mentioned in the blurb, several times higher than the "normal" level for the human civilisation, and a level where even the most crappy "CO2 is an IR-mirror inwards in the sky" high-school physics model will give us some pretty adverse answers, unless there is a giant negative feedback somewhere fixing it for us.

Re:The Cost of Fighting Global Warming

[Profound]

>> forcing them to close their stoma to stop water loss

They will also need to open them for less time as the concentration of CO2 in the air rises.

Troll Food.

[TapeCutter]

"I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media"

Just in case you actually belive your "research", here is a handy mythbuster. A bit of research on that site will set you straight, the link itself points to a search on the word "myth", I'm confident the results will cover your objections and questions.

BTW: If you can come up with an original myth I'm sure the boffins at realclimate will be happy to try and bust it for you, if they can't then you may just end up famous.

Stop the "Only in US-oil industry lies", here's EU

[andreasg]

Here's something that describes a theory and experiements by danish scientists. The statement that it is only in the US that people is arguing the global warming because of the oil industry is simply false and an easy way to discredit the research done by those who you do not agree with.

These guys aren't saying that CO2 might not be one of the causes but that it might not be the biggest cause.

source: http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,931599&_ dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

"Results from an experiment, called SKY (Danish for 'cloud'), show that the released electrons significantly promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds.

Hence, a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth's atmosphere has been experimentally identified for the first time.

The Danish research team, headed by Henrik Svensmark, officially announced their discovery 4 october 2006 in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, published by the Royal Society, the national academy of science, United Kingdom."

The place they performed the experiments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cern http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html


"Global warming caused by cosmic rays?

It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth's surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth's climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth's climate.

Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun's magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century."

More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#_ref- Svensmark1998_0

Cleaner air

[Anonymous Coward]

I will always vote in favor of cleaner air. But how? With our very fragile economic balance, and our overwhelming dependence on "energy" (oil), what can we do? All these people crying about CO2 get right into their cars and drive.

I know this will sound silly, but how about eliminating soda? I bet a significant quantity of CO2 is released by all the soda, including the energy spent making and compressing the CO2. Anyone have any numbers?

If we don't fix the problems, the earth's ecology will.

Re:Cleaner air

[r00t]

CO2 for soda comes from coal plants.

Re:Cleaner air

[eclectro]

There are a number of industrial processes that create large quantities of CO2 as a byproduct, such as air distillation.

Curbing soda pop would be like trying to stop cows from farting. Both would help, but more in the area of improved diets from having less sugar and red meat. The amount of CO2 released from soda is ultraminiscule compared to the huge amounts of CO2 we produce when we start our cars.

If we never can get a handle on the big stuff aka cars, we may as well not even bother with the (possible) small emitters such as soda pop. I also think it should be a national agenda to switch everyone to compact flourescent light bulbs, as that could help greatly. But there has to be willpower and leadership, both which seem to be missing at this time.

BTW, getting rid of the "liquid candy" is far more important to our nation from a diet/health perspective, than an enviromental one, as it has a far greater impact in this area. Obesity, with which soda plays one part, is an increasing problem.

Ignorance is not the way to do this.

[NockPoint]

... when CO2 is a very small part of the overall picture; Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.

CO2 is the central climate gas. No, it doesn't have the largest warming effect; water does, nor the largest effect per molecule; SF6 is the current leader with 22,200 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. CO2 is the central climate gas because it is the reason why the Earth's climate has been mostly stable over geologic history.

CO2 is released by volcanic action, and removed by rock weathering. Rock weathering is a temperature dependant process. If the climate is warmer than the equilibrium temperature, more CO2 is removed by rock weathering, cooling the climate. Volcanic activity varies somewhat, which changes the equilibrium temperature. Human releases of CO2 are about 150 times that of current volcanic activity. The good news is that there is only enough fossil fuels to continue such releases for a few hundred years, far shorter than the effective lifetime of free carbon (as CO2 in the atmosphere, carbon in living and dead plants, etc), so the climate will not reach the equilibrium temperature.

Water acts to magnify climate change, as warmer temperatures mean more water vapor, and less snow cover. Methane is the joker in the pack, but probably not a good disaster movie. SF6 is produced in such tiny amounts as to be almost a non-issue, yet with a lifetime of about a million years, tiny amounts will add up.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride

Aside from all that, we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will. Barring asteroid impacts, of course.

RTFA: "Five times in the past 500 million years most of the world's life-forms have simply ceased to exist." Only one of these extinctions has a huge crater and other convincing signs of a killer asteroid. Perhaps there are even some events that might be harder to cope with than a killer sized asteroid. But H2S bubbling out of the oceans probably wouldn't make as good of movie as "Deep Impact".

--

This is not a sig. If it was a sig, it would say something witty.

Re:Ignorance is not the way to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

But H2S bubbling out of the oceans probably wouldn't make as good of movie as "Deep Impact".

Well, it would create quite a stink. It would also kill the cruise business.

Just becuase you don't understand it

[arcite]

Doesn't make it not true. Ignorance is NOT strength.

How many obese wild animals do you see?

[arcite]

Answer, none. ALL animals establish equilibrium with their environment.

If pathetic short sighted people like you become the only voice out there the human race is indeed #ucked. If however, more rational voices and policies can be established, there is hope yet. We have about 100 years to save this planet, I don't see how that is impossible.

Ofcourse, you'll probably be dead by then anyway. Lung cancer from too much smob mb?...

Re:How many obese wild animals do you see?

[ChronoFish]

The key there is "wild". You're right, you rarely see "wild" obese animals. Although the hippo - which has few natural predators and normally an abundance of food - may come close. Same with the adult walrus.

What you do see is animals gorging themselves in summer and sleeping it off in winter (we have some damn-fat squirrels in this area). Or you see animals gorging themselves and converting that energy into extremely powerful muscle.

Humans not only gorge themselves, but they also sit and watch TV.

Any animal that has an easy, abundant, food supply, AND no reason to motivate themselves to move, do become obese. There are plenty of non-mousing cats that lazily sit in window-boxes to sun themselves - getting up to do little more than eat. Dogs are the same way. Sure put them out in "nature" and they will slim down quickly - because hunting take energy, and the food source is not readily available.

Look at elk. They have little regard for the amount of grass they consume. The only thing that keeps them in check is the size of their mouth and the number of calories it takes to maintain their weight. When they decimate a meadow they move on. "Moving on" makes them expend more energy. Take away their food source (do to drought or human development) and they become skin and bones. Elk don't hibernate and they loose tremendous amount of body weight during the winter - when spring comes what do they do? They fatten up, and keep fattening up right on until the next fall when food starts to become sparse. Do they moderate themselves? Not by choice - it's simply a supply thing.

Does what I say mean that we shouldn't try? No - I never said that. I do think that saving our environment is worthwhile - I mean I don't want to be sick while I'm here. But I also think we are fighting nature, rather than fighting on behalf of nature.

Short-sightedness is not realizing the realities. The big picture is that the human race will not last forever.

-CF

The idea you know what you are talking about

[arcite]

You Sir are a TROLL

Oh my... have you ever heard of this little thing called a drought? In developing countries (most of which USED to be covered in rainforest) they are ALL experiencing increase numbers of droughts. This is exaspirated by the fact they have lost their protective forests. NO forest means there is NO place for water to be stored. The land becomes parched and much less productive. DESERTIFICATION is what you should learn about...go ahead look it up. Educate thy self. When you buy a cheap piece of furniture from IKEA that is made in China, realize where that wood came from (probably illegally logged in SE Asia). We are quickly turning our world into a desert. This is DIRECTLy caused by humans and nothing else. The fact that we are also pumping BILLIONs of tons of carbon emmissions into the atmosphere is increasing the magnitude of the problem...accelerating it greatly.

Open your eyes to the truth, or are you too brainwashed?

You might not think you are a troll, but your ignorance is inexcusable. For that you should apologize to your grandchildren (if you have any) for why you failed to act when you could to do your part to save the #ucking earth.

I say nay! But I have solid reasons for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea strikes me as overly complicated.

I come from an engineering family (my father builds dams, my uncle railways, and another uncle fighter jets) and I'm an ex-mech-eng who these days helps run the CPAN.

The current designs only need to solve three problem.

1. Build a concrete structure half a kilometre high in an area where land is cheap and weather is predictable.

2. Build some turbines into the structure that will require minimal maintenance.

3. Build a giant heat-absorbing green house to keep the convenction running 24 hours a day

And that's it!

No water needed, no complex enormous refrigerants, no underground cooling systems, no bi-directional fluid flows.

It works because it's SIMPLE and has no water or refrigerants, and almost no moving parts.

This is important beyond just the engineering, because it means that a solar tower has a similar economic profile to other giant concrete things with minimal moving parts, large up front costs and continuous income. Specifically, dams and toll roads.

So the same asset managers with billions to invest in toll roads and dams can also apply their same risk modelling to regular solar towers.

The same cannot be said for something with giant refridgerant flows moving all over the place. The engineering inefficiencies introduced would be huge, maintenance would be a nightmare, costs would balloon...

The solar tower planned in Australia has (from memory) a planned full time staff of 19. 17 of those 19 work in the gift shop and related tourism jobs.

The main tower will have only 2 full time employees outside of maintenance.

Can you say the same for the tower you propose?

Re:I say nay! But I have solid reasons for it

[rohar]

Thanks for looking at the system, and you have some very good points.

Just for reference, the solar updraft tower you are talking about is an existing concept and there was a small prototype built in Spain in the 1980's. There is another large plant planned in Australia. Although a solar updraft tower is simple, the large land usage, limited night time power generation, the infrastructure cost of transporting the electricity and the extremely high tower requirements limit the potential usage.

I agree that the simpler the design the better for all of the reasons you state and many more, but there is nothing simple about constructing 1000 meter towers out in the desert and then building all of the infrastructure to transport the electricity to where it is needed.

The system I am proposing is intended to be scalable and adaptable to all power generation requirements and climates and could be used to generate electricity from geothermal sources and cold air in arctic regions, solar/geothermal/biomass in moderate climates and solar in hot dry climates. The intent of the absorption refrigeration system is to use solar energy to create a much wider temperature gradient (i.e. +30C air and -30C heat exchanger) than is possible with a non-active system and store the captured heat to be used to generate power when the ambient air temperature drops.

The intent of an adaptable design and a standard system beyond the engineering and construction benefits of standardization is to create the investor "warm fuzzy" and once a system is in operation, the same economic investment model can be used for other plants, regardless of location.

The ammonia absorption system in my design isn't much more complicated than an RV refrigerator or absorption heat pump and doesn't require any substantial operational resources. The fluid pumping systems are much less complicated than existing coal and natural gas power generation systems.

Re:I say nay! But I have solid reasons for it

[cr0sh]

Very interesting idea - your website is something I will be looking at in more detail later. You mention there that this system could be scaled to the size needed for a "single dwelling". Questions: just how big would this "single dwelling" system be, and what would be its output (ie, how do you define "single dwelling")?

I would imagine that if it could be built no bigger than a "single dwelling" solar cooling tower system (similar in scope to what you mention in "Water Spray Down Draft Towers" - except with the singular purpose of cooling air for a dwelling), it would feasible for those wanting to live "off the grid". Anything bigger would likely be cost prohibitive (actually, even at the size mentioned such a device would still be kinda expensive - but if it could be built for under $50,000.00, it would be competitive with existing solar panels and other alternative electricity generation solutions).

Finally - if it can be built to a size for a single dwelling, is this something you are pursuing? Are you looking at building a "proof-of-concept", or do you know of others who are doing so?

Re:I say nay! But I have solid reasons for it

[rohar]

Finally - if it can be built to a size for a single dwelling, is this something you are pursuing? Are you looking at building a "proof-of-concept", or do you know of others who are doing so?

A single dwelling sized system in existing urban areas is probably not feasible, but it would make sense in rural and remote areas. I think the medium to large agricultural operation would be the best initial market. The ammonia absorption system works well with agriculture and in Canada and many other places there already is an infrastructure and material handling experience in place in agriculture for NH3 (used as fertilizer).

We are planning a POC based on the ammonia absorption idea and hopefully we can have that worked through in the next year.

Oversimplification

[ttfkam]

Yes, houses should be better insulated. Unfortunately, many homes are quite old and would require a non-trivial amount of money from the homeowner to improve. Since many new homeowners have a fat mortgage, children, a college fund, food bills, etc., a lot of folks will not rush out and do this.

It's not because they are evil or apathetic. They are simply not rich, are commonly sleep-deprived (read: have children), and flat out do not have time to deal with it (read: have children).

As far as your "use stone instead of wood houses," that is a red herring. Yes, when starting from scratch, a stone house would be better; however, US homes are overwhelmingly built upon wood construction. Those homes don't just magically go away just because we decide stone homes are better. Even if all new construction were to be stone homes -- a long shot considering that most construction workers are familiar with wood construction, not stone -- it would be a minuscule proportion of the total number of homes.

In addition, what would you propose for earthquake-prone regions? Stone? I think not. A very good reason to build wood homes is that the wood home will sway in an earthquake instead of crumble. In 1989, a major quake hit my area. Many homes survived, but the chimneys were by and large ruined. You simply can't buy a home around here that doesn't have a cracked or repaired chimney.

The suggestion about smaller, more fuel-efficient cars is actually the most reasonable suggestion you've made. Far more so than the suggestion about wind power. Why? Check out wind density in the US. Wind power completely excludes the south and most of the southwest. Just have one state sell to another? One word: Enron. Not gonna happen.

Also, let's look at your numbers. Possibly up to 10% by 2020 in Germany? In the US, we consume upwards of 4.8 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (with a 't'). The larger windmills generate up to 5 megawatts if the wind is blowing to full potential and the windmill is in perfect working order. That's potentially about 43.8 million kilowatt-hours per year. Those 5 megawatt jobs require about an acre of land apiece (they're really big!). Hmmm... Not only would it require 19,178 of those monsters to handle 10% of the US in the perfect case (hint: we live in the real world where perfect cases don't exist), but you'd have to factor in the maintenance costs associated with keeping such a decentralized power source in good repair. This requires -- you guessed it -- more energy. If you think the repair aspect is trivial, just remember the climate found in those northern states where the wind is so abundant. Hot summers and below freezing winters with hail and sleet in between.

Coal is currently the number one US electricity source: over 50% of our total electricity production. This is a problem. For reasons mentioned above, wind is not going to replace that. For reasons I haven't spelled out but you can research yourself, solar power can't displace coal either (1.367kWh/m^2 is the solar constant). The reasons are somewhat similar though: energy density and the demands of geography. So what's left?

Hydroelectric? We've already tapped that avenue. Microtidal? Over 90% of Earth's life exists within ten miles of a coastline. I'm a bit hesitant to mess with the energy transfer found in those ecosystems. Geothermal? The US is not Iceland. Biodiesel? The amount of cropland required to offset coal usage would significantly reduce the area available for food production.

What's left? Conservation? Even if we cut our usage in half -- 2.4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, which incidentally will not happen in the US without an energy crisis afoot -- that's still a massive amount of power required.

And we haven't even factored in vehicle needs yet, which is necessary since oil won't last forever. Plug-in hybrids? Great idea. Gonna need more electricity for that.

What hasn't been discussed yet? Nuclear. Commonly

Re:Oversimplification

[RoLi]

Yes, houses should be better insulated. Unfortunately, many homes are quite old and would require a non-trivial amount of money from the homeowner to improve. Since many new homeowners have a fat mortgage, children, a college fund, food bills, etc., a lot of folks will not rush out and do this.

Actually many houses are so badly insulated, that you could get back your investment within only a few years.

But, essentially you are right: It does cost something, sometimes a lot. And in this times in which everybody seems to be dependent on the nanny-state any change is seen as threatening.

But what is the alternative?

Let's ignore global warming completely. What is the alternative?

The alternative is that within 5-10 years Saudi-Arabia will no longer be able to satisfy rising demands and/or China will buy so much oil that there just won't be enough to heat all houses.

If you think that's great, OK.

I don't think that's great and taxing the hell out of all energy would be a big hassle now, but it would soften the blow that will come in the form of Peak Oil.

As far as your "use stone instead of wood houses," that is a red herring. Yes, when starting from scratch, a stone house would be better; however, US homes are overwhelmingly built upon wood construction. Those homes don't just magically go away just because we decide stone homes are better. Even if all new construction were to be stone homes -- a long shot considering that most construction workers are familiar with wood construction, not stone -- it would be a minuscule proportion of the total number of homes.

You are just making excuses to ignore the problem. The sooner you start, the sooner you get results.

In addition, what would you propose for earthquake-prone regions? Stone? I think not. A very good reason to build wood homes is that the wood home will sway in an earthquake instead of crumble. In 1989, a major quake hit my area. Many homes survived, but the chimneys were by and large ruined. You simply can't buy a home around here that doesn't have a cracked or repaired chimney.

Another excuse - and a pretty weak one: Only a "miniscule proportion of the total number of homes" stand in earthquake-prone regions. And of course you can use steel-reinforced concrete in these cases that will survive any earthquake.

The suggestion about smaller, more fuel-efficient cars is actually the most reasonable suggestion you've made. Far more so than the suggestion about wind power. Why? Check out wind density in the US. Wind power completely excludes the south and most of the southwest. Just have one state sell to another? One word: Enron. Not gonna happen.

Of course you install wind power only where it makes sense, that's pretty clear. I fail to see how lack of wind in the south prevents you from using wind power in the north, though.

Also, let's look at your numbers. Possibly up to 10% by 2020 in Germany? In the US, we consume upwards of 4.8 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (with a 't'). The larger windmills generate up to 5 megawatts if the wind is blowing to full potential and the windmill is in perfect working order. That's potentially about 43.8 million kilowatt-hours per year. Those 5 megawatt jobs require about an acre of land apiece (they're really big!). Hmmm... Not only would it require 19,178 of those monsters to handle 10% of the US in the perfect case (hint: we live in the real world where perfect cases don't exist), but you'd have to factor in the maintenance costs associated with keeping such a decentralized power source in good repair. This requires -- you guessed it -- more energy. If you think the repair aspect is trivial, just remember the climate found in those northern states where the wind is so abundant. Hot summers and below freezing winters with hail and sleet in between.

1) Of course they don't need an acre of land, they just need about 30m for the foundation, the surrounding land can be used as farmland j

Re:Oversimplification

[k8to]

Nuclear power is a stopgap. Companies involved in nuclear power generation and Uranium sourcing project that peak uranium production will be hit in the 2030s. Different projections put the peak around 2030 to 2036.

Re:Oversimplification

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, houses should be better insulated. Unfortunately, many homes are quite old and would require a non-trivial amount of money from the homeowner to improve."

There are a number of ways to insulate houses that require a modest amount of money for good returns. Perhaps the single most cost-effective method is to insultate the roof space. This both improves warmth in winter and cooling in summer. Depending on local energy bills the payback period is one or two years, with the added benefit of less rapid temperature variations from day 1.

Re:Oversimplification

[maraist]

1) Of course they don't need an acre of land, they just need about 30m for the foundation, the surrounding land can be used as farmland just fine (you usually don't build them in residential areas).

I'm sorry, but I've been to Germany, and the landscape/real-estate there is totally different than in the US.. It's much sparser (except in the main cities). In the US, An airport can not expand to lay more runway (and who the hell wants to live near an airport). Every place that is trying to deploy wind mills has MASSIVE local retallitation, because there are significant negatives to putting a massive tower in your back yard (and wind mills are in EVERYONE's back yards within visibility). And every spot of land is SOMEONE's back yard.. Why would you want your land devalued by putting a massive power plant hundreds of feet above you? It doesn't matter if it's only psychological, it is a very real effect that affects their pocket-books when it comes time to sell (and we trade real estate every 7 years on average).

I'm not balking wind mills (I love them), I'm balking the idea that it only takes 30m of real estate.

For the same reason, we can't build new oil refineries or virtually any other non-clean factories in the US - at least not without buying out all the land at enormously over-priced rates.

Re:Oversimplification

[ttfkam]

Actually many houses are so badly insulated, that you could get back your investment within only a few years.

But, essentially you are right: It does cost something, sometimes a lot. And in this times in which everybody seems to be dependent on the nanny-state any change is seen as threatening.

I totally agree, it can be an obvious gain; however, injecting the "nanny state" into this discussion is unnecessary. Inertia happens in any society, nanny state or not.

The alternative is that within 5-10 years Saudi-Arabia will no longer be able to satisfy rising demands and/or China will buy so much oil that there just won't be enough to heat all houses.

If you think that's great, OK.

I don't think that's great and taxing the hell out of all energy would be a big hassle now, but it would soften the blow that will come in the form of Peak Oil.

There you go again with the straw man argument. You know damn well I wasn't saying we should do nothing. I actually agree with you on most points. I'm simply saying that in the real world, answers aren't quite so cut and dry as you present them. Part of the solution includes the method in convincing others to work toward a common goal. From a pragmatic standpoint, this can be almost as important as the goal itself. You can feel self righteous all you want, but if you come off as arrogant and dismissive, people will ignore you or contradict you simply because you are personally distasteful to them. This does not help anyone's long-term goals.

As far as stone homes versus wood homes, it is you that is ignoring the problem. Yes, we should be building homes with energy efficiency in mind, stone or not. But you cannot reasonably ignore the existing population of energy-inefficient buildings when discussing solutions. Yes, you can insulate in the attic and install double-paned windows to get an immediate and substantial benefit. But that is a far cry from homes that are built from the ground up to be energy efficient. That's all I'm saying.

Another excuse - and a pretty weak one: Only a "miniscule proportion of the total number of homes" stand in earthquake-prone regions. And of course you can use steel-reinforced concrete in these cases that will survive any earthquake.

What is the single most populous state? California. Earthquakes there. It is not a miniscule proportion. And yes, you could build with steel-reinforced concrete. Unfortunately, it would be substantially more expensive than the equivalent size wood home. I'm not trying to justify buying a wood home over a stone home. I'm just talking about the effect of economics in the real world. Unless of course you want the "nanny state" to step in with incentives and taxes. (Notice how if the government intervenes for something you want, you don't consider it obtrusive, but if it's something you don't want, it is?)

1) Of course they don't need an acre of land, they just need about 30m for the foundation, the surrounding land can be used as farmland just fine (you usually don't build them in residential areas).
2) 20,000? So? In the US, there are several hundred MILLIONS of cars and tens of MILLIONS are produced every year. You want to tell me that this country is so weak that it's unable to produce a couple of thousand windmills?
3) Modern windmills have a lifetime of 20 years without any maintenance whatsoever. The technology isn't that new anymore.
4) Power lines distribute electrical energy over long distances, that's nothing new.

Here I admit, I was not being clear enough. I am not suggesting that only windmills could be used on this land. Another respondent did, but not me. I was referring to the fact that 5MW windmills requires that much distance from each other due to the physical blades as well as airflow.

As far as numbers go, each car doesn't take an acre of land. ;-) Also, bear in mind that I was arr

Re:Oversimplification

[ttfkam]

No they don't. That's bullshit. If we do not mine anymore, only use 1-2% of the energy potential (like we do now), do not enrich the spent fuel, and completely ignore fast-neutron reactor designs. Then and only then would we "run out" in 2030-2036. Fast neutron reactors can breed uranium from thorium, and we sure as hell are not going to run out of thorium anytime in the next few millennium.

But I will agree with you that it's a stopgap. Fission until fusion.

Re:Oversimplification

[Dark_MadMax666]

And your sources are? And did you even consider that full nuclear power cycle is basically infinite energy (will last millions of years with current resources) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle

  And if you dont trust wikipedia google for it -there is plenty reputable sources on the subject. Nuclear power is THE solution, but majority of people are too stupid to understand it , and majority of those who understand are powerless to do anything about it , and minority of those who understands it and has power are not interested (since they own stake in coal/oil companies) . And btw say thanks to Jimmy fuckin' Carter for setting back nuclear power back for 70 years (and who knows for how much more)

Re:Oversimplification

[RoLi]

I totally agree, it can be an obvious gain; however, injecting the "nanny state" into this discussion is unnecessary. Inertia happens in any society, nanny state or not.

In my opinion, the nanny-state is subsidizing and cultivating stupidity and shortsightedness. The nanny-state causes people to think that they don't have to worry or care about any consequences their actions (or non-actions) have.

It's not an accident that the biggest nanny-states ever (the Soviet Union and most of communist east-Europa) was an environmental hell-hole.

There you go again with the straw man argument. You know damn well I wasn't saying we should do nothing. I actually agree with you on most points. I'm simply saying that in the real world, answers aren't quite so cut and dry as you present them.

The answers actually actually are pretty simple: Just tax the hell out of fossil fuels and let the producers of pollution pay for the damage they cause, so people will find alternatives ON THEIR OWN. There is absolutely no need for some state buerocrat to worry about where to put wind generators.

Part of the solution includes the method in convincing others to work toward a common goal. From a pragmatic standpoint, this can be almost as important as the goal itself. You can feel self righteous all you want, but if you come off as arrogant and dismissive, people will ignore you or contradict you simply because you are personally distasteful to them. This does not help anyone's long-term goals.

OK, however some honesty is also needed - and many facts may not be very pleasant.

As far as stone homes versus wood homes, it is you that is ignoring the problem. Yes, we should be building homes with energy efficiency in mind, stone or not. But you cannot reasonably ignore the existing population of energy-inefficient buildings when discussing solutions. Yes, you can insulate in the attic and install double-paned windows to get an immediate and substantial benefit. But that is a far cry from homes that are built from the ground up to be energy efficient. That's all I'm saying.

And if taxes on energy are high enough, they will at least insulate the attic and install double-paned windows. Yes it's not perfect (nothing is) but it's a lot better than doing nothing until the economy is in shambles. That's all I am saying.

More importantly, your assertion that modern windmills take no maintenance whatsoever is... ummm... questionable. You're telling me that a windmill in a northern state can handle hot days, rainy days, below freezing days, and the like for twenty years and yet need no maintenance and care whatsoever? You're telling me they will work during a thirty-below blizzard with no problems or energy drops? If so, they'd be the first structures in the history of mankind to do so.

Actually most well-built houses will survive all that without maintenance. There are many houses which stand for over 50 years without any structural maintenance at all. (Of course somebody will wipe the floors inside but we are talking about structure here)

The technology is not that new anymore and they are designed for low-maintenance. Otherwise the whole thing wouldn't make any sense.

As for coal, I am no coal advocate, but I can recognize that coal can be shipped. The US has a fairly extensive network of train tracks. This is incidentally how coal power works in the US. It's mined in a few places and shipped out to many other places. Hell, the coal was used for the transportation for a long time through the use of steam engines. This is not the same as wind, and I'm frankly annoyed that you even suggested that. You cannot ship wind and the windmills are useless where there is no wind.

Historically most coal power plants were built near coal mines, of course because some coal mines stopped producing coal, the respective power plant will get shipped coal. However I think electricity is much easier transported than coal, so if we don't wan

Re:Oversimplification

[Anonymous Coward]

US homes are overwhelmingly built upon wood construction.

Or as we people in brick houses say, built by the first two little pigs. :-)

Nuclear power is NOT the answer.

[Eye-of-Modok]

Yes, global warming is happening. Certainly the current fossil-based goin-on-all-guns economy isn't helping matters. Nuclear energy appears to be an appealing emmissions-free alternative. But, is it really?

1- Claims of greenhouse reductions made by nuclear power generation supporters focus primarily on only one aspect of the entire process, namely the power generation cycle, which gives off nearly no greenhouse emissions, while downplaying or ignoring greenhouse gas emissions throughout the remainder of the cycle, such as mining of uranium, uranium conversion and enrichment, plant construction, transportation of uranium and spent fuel, nuclear waste storage and nuclear power plant de-commissioning.

In order to produce enough enriched fuel to supply a standard 1GW reactor for one full-power year, about 160 tons of natural uranium must be processed. The hexafluoride method of uranium enrichment commonly employed during both enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel releases greenhouse gasses in the form of halogens and halogenated compounds, such as Freon-114, with many times greater global warming potential than CO2. When the entire nuclear power cycle is considered, the argument that nuclear power reduces greenhouse gas emissions does not stand under scrutiny.

2- Nuclear power is not cost-effective. The nuclear power industry is the most heavily subsidised among all power generation technologies. Without these subsidies, nuclear power could not compete with other, less labor, time and capital intensive generation technologies. There is currently a backlog of high-level nuclear waste that has accumulated over the course of 60 years into a over a quarter of a million tons that are kept in storage in ponds in temporary storage containers, which have to separated by boron panels to prevent chain reactions. How much energy will be required to dispose of this waste is unknown, but in "Why Nuclear Power Cannot be a Major Energy Source" David Fleming suggests a rough guideline of one third of the total of all energy produced.

When the total life cycle of nuclear power generation, from mining to plant decommissioning is factored in, the cost of nuclear power is greater than the power generated. It is estimated that the energy requirements to create the lead-steel-copper containers required to package the spent nuclear fuel produced by a reactor is nearly equal to that required to construct the reactor.

3- Nuclear power generation decrease national security. Governments have been aware of the security issues raised by nuclear power generation since the inception of the industry. In the US, the FBI has long considered nuclear power plants to be "hardened" targets. After the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, the public became increasingly aware that nuclear power plants could be devastating targets for attack. In 2005, elected officials from counties neighboring the India Point nuclear power plant facilities in New York called for the immediate closure of the plant, citing a history of accidents and toxic leaks, and a growing concern that the dense local population within a fifty-mile radius of the plant, numbering close to 20 million, would be at great risk in the case of a terrorist attack on India Point.

Nuclear reactors are not the only potential targets for terrorists. Because spent fuel contains deadly radioactive particles that remain hazardous for so long, an attack on nuclear storage facilities could lead to a catastrophe on the same scale as an attack on a nuclear reactor. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, over $US 1 billion has been spent on security improvements by the nuclear power industry, in addition to the substantial sums which has already been spent before that time.

4- Toxic waste and pollution is created at every stage of nuclear power production. In mining operations, "in sutu leaching" is a common technique for reaching deeper uranium deposits by injecting hundreds of tons of sulphuric acid, nitric acid, a

Re:Nuclear power is NOT the answer.

[Somnus]

May be of interest:

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

Whale oil

[ChrisMaple]

Whale oil was NOT a significant power source; it was not economically viable for that use. It was used for lighting and as a lubricant; other whale parts were used for clothing, food, and toiletries. Coal and wood were far more economical power sources, and also petroleum starting about 1900. Think about the huge amount of labor that goes into catching and processing a whale, compare that to cutting down a tree or mining coal.

We are living in an extremely cold period...

[i]

...as seen over the last 500 million years.

Both the temperature and CO2-levels are at an all time low value.
And the correlation between temperature and CO2 is very weak at best.

If You look at the diagram http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/ image277.gif over the last 500+ million yers of CO2-levels and temperature You will maybe get the impression that the humanitys CO2-production is not the main climate factor.

Re:We are living in an extremely cold period...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's completely and utterly irrelevant. The climate that existed before humans (or leafy plants for that matter) evolved is not something we'd want. We aren't dinosaurs, nor are we giant insects, or cyanobacteria. We and other currently extant lifeforms have evolved to live in the "cold" climate of the last 10 million years, and if the climate went "back" to a state it was in before our amphibious ancestors crawled out of the sea it'd the worst mass extinction in Earth's history.

Newsflash

[flyneye]

Since the recent announcement that the sky falling could have been the mass extinction of several species of Gallus gallus parvus minor minimus,noted scientist and eggologist C.Lyttle has noted that research funding is now extinct.film at 11

Ok..

[stoneymonster]

My Prius has averaged exactly 50 mpg over the last 3000 miles. Thanks. And it's large enough to fit a full drum kit, a passenger and my dog. And I'd venture that its a hell of a lot more comfortable and safer than the two cars you mentioned.

Take the Global Warming Test

[Morgaine]

While many of your points are good, I wouldn't stress so much about predictions of gloom. It's both safer and more credible to stick to objective assessment of the hard science in this area, which is extensive but doesn't always make the headlines.

When faced with minimally-informed climate theorists, I like to direct them to Take the Global Warming Test". (Part of an excellent fossils resource.)

It gives a reasonably accurate scientific picture which non-scientists can comprehend, and most importantly it deflates any agitated arm-waving and predictions of imminent doom. While I'm not a geologist, geologists do tend to take the long view, and given the sheer inertia of the Earth's systems, that is a sound approach.

No way. My guild already downed Anoxia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry about it.

Global warming is real

[Orp]

Global warming is real. The data is clear.

Global warming is indeed due to greenhouse gas emissions, and not some natural cycle.

If we keep a business-as-usual approach to emissions, climate change will be dramatic and catastrophic for many.

This is what virtually all climate scientists believe (and by "believe" I mean "have concluded from painstaking scientific research involving paleoclimatology, basic therodynamics, oceanography" etc...). Not "believe" as in "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

I can't tell you how much it frustrates me as a scientists that more people can't see the obvious. I believe (heh) it is due to an overwhelming lack of people exercising critical, scientific thought.

The truth is, unless you at least have a basic understanding of atmospheric radiation theory, you really have no place arguing about the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me put it this way: It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that increasing greenhouse gas emissions would *not* lead to a shift in the earth's radiative equilibrium temperature (related to global average temperature). If there were too many negatives in that sentence, I'll put it this way: Global warming is no surprise, it is physics in action.

Pick up any intro meteorology college texbtook - there are several - and read the chapter on radiation and climate change. And climate feedback mechanisms. And the thermohaline circulation. And then argue against global warming being forced by greenhouse gas emissions. I'd love to hear a decent argument which wasn't politically motivated or based upon selective omission of the research on this topic.

I have grown weary of trying to get people to do a small amount of basic science research so that they may use their own goddammed heads and draw a scientifically based conclusion about climate change rather than re-spew crap they heard from some douchebag whose politics aligns with their own. This includes you too Lefties/greenies: Do some homework. If you are right for the wrong resons, you're not helping things. Educate yourself scientifically. Everyone.

Think, people, think. It seems that precious few people (well here in America) do much of this any more.

And yes, I have a PhD in meteorology.

Re:Global warming is real

[andreasg]

have a read http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,931599&_ dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Re:Global warming is real

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what virtually all climate scientists believe (and by "believe" I mean "have concluded from painstaking scientific research involving paleoclimatology, basic therodynamics, oceanography" etc...). Not "believe" as in "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Since belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is rooted in the "painstaking scientific research involving paleoclimatology, basic therodynamics, oceanography" upon which global warming is based, I feel it is safe to conclude that belief in FSM is equally supported by science.

Proof: http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

(it's a joke, laugh)

Re:Global warming is real

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you recommend some fairly readable meteorology textbook? As in engaging text; ideally, something like Knuth's book on Concrete Mathematics but for meteorology.

Eivind (posting anonymously to keep my moderations for this topic active. I'll bookmark and check.)

Re:Global warming is real

[JustNiz]

>> I can't tell you how much it frustrates me as a scientists that more people can't see the obvious.

Unfortunately it seems most Americans believed Bush when he said that all the scientists are wrong. It seems Bush's obvious financial relationships with the Oil Industry are not blatant enough to penetrate the average American's thick skull as a reason for possbile bias.

Mass Extinctions

[thethibs]

We call that a "Malthusian Projection".

Those who fail to study the past...

[amightywind]

Make things up in the present! Here is our best understanding of causes of the past mass extinctions:

• Precambrian/Vendian - widespread glaciation
• Cambrian - Cooling and depletion of oxygen in marine waters
• Early Orduvician - Glaciation
• Devonian - global cooling, similar to the event which is thought to have cause the late Ordovician mass extinction
• Permian - global widespread cooling and/or worldwide lowering of sea level Cretaceous - Meteorite, cooling climate disruption

There has never been an extinction event caused by global warming. Warmth is conducive to life.

Re:Those who fail to study the past...

[Anthony]

There has never been an extinction event caused by global warming. Warmth is conducive to life.

Never say never. You might have noticed the mention of the PETM (Palaeocence-Eocene Thermal Maximum) by a previous poster. The PETM is coincident with the boundary marking the end of the Palaeocene. There is also evidence for a similar occurance that tipped the climate way over at the end of the Permian. The similar conditions were a massive outgassing of frozen clathrates from shelf sediments. This led to a rise in methane and subsequent carbon dioxide concentrations both oceanic and atmospheric (Henry's Law at work), coincident with a shallowing of the carbon compensation depth. This means a dissolution of carbonates and mass extinction of marine fauna as a consequence.

By end of next century?

[mnmn]

I'll be extinct by then.

LOL, all dissent mod'd as FLAMEBAIT or TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot needs to do something about Flamebait and Troll moderations, because they're being used incorrectly against any non-PC opinion despite technical merit, as in the parent.

Today's PC opinion is that global warming is a problem and that it is caused by mankind's CO2 emissions. As a matter of scientific fact, global warming is an extremely important mechanism for planetary heat retention (we would be dead without it), and 95% of global warming is driven by water vapour.

What's more, of the 186bn tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year, only 6bn tons are the result of human activity, the rest is from normal ocean release, volcanos and plant decay. So the human impact is present but not large.

Why then is it that a number of comments like this (and like the parent's) have got mod'd as Flamebait or Troll? They neither seek to troll nor are they baiting anyone. They simply reflect scientific fact that is a matter of public record, complete with all the necessary error bounds on scientific measurements.

Slashdot is not treating scientific evidence fairly when it conflicts with mass non-scientific PC opinion.

The whole "global warming" myth...

[fm6]

...is just a con to get the federal government to adopt fuel efficiency standards. That will force people to drive smaller cars, which will force them to have smaller families. It's just a conspiracy to impose involuntary birth control by a bunch of latte-swilling liberals who hate children!

Sounds like I'm flamebaiting, right? But that's pretty much the party line with the Eagle Forum crowd.

P.S.: Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this.

[HiThere]

P.S.: To ease the paranoid mind the boiler the water was being pre-heated for could be a part of the reactor setup. This is just a bit of extra waste heat recovery, and there's no reason it couldn't be used to cut operating expenses in some secured area.

thanx for the link

[WindBourne]

I just got done going over parts of that. It seems like one of the few sites out here that has a grasp of what is going on. I love reading the part about the global cooling myth. In fact, it reminds of how the anti-goto issue runs through out CS/CIS/Engineering, etc. And that was a case of idiots not reading or not understanding what was being written about it.

Sad thing is that even with good sites like this, we will still see loads of crap everywhere even in /..

Re:thanx for the link

[TapeCutter]

I refuse to get into long drawn out arguments about climate myths that have already been debunked, I simply post a link to realclimate (and encourage others to do likewise). The people who created and run the site are some of the best climate researchers on the planet.

Very Thin Evidence

[Jane Q. Public]

This looks to me like large-scale speculation based on scant evidence. For example, while they give a plausible cause for increased H2S, they have ignored the simultaneous presence of excess iridium. Here is an alternative theory: The asteroid impacts imparted enough energy to disturb balances at the edges of the tectonic plates, dramatically increasing volcanic activity for a time, which would account for BOTH the iridium, AND the H2S. Thus the H2S would be a symptom, not a cause.

predicting 200 yrs into the future is ambitious!!

[heartsurgeon]

hmm...."by the end of the next century"
since it's the beginning of this century, that indicates the prediction is nearly 200 years in the future..

just as an exercise, let's see what the state of mankind was 200 years ago...

lewis and clark were exploring the west (no states west of the mississippi)
Napoleon invades Berlin (now there's a twist!)
War of 1812 U.S. vs. Britain
semaphore system developed (internet?, heck folks were waving flags around to move data)
first battery invented
little ice age ends
civil war
ottoman empire
postage stamp invented

i hardly think those alive 200 years ago were in any position to predict what mankind's situation, much less the weather was going to be like in 200 years. likewise, it's preposterous on it's face, to assume any prediction 200 years into the future will be accurate.

in 200 years, i don't think we have any idea what the energy producing technologies will consist of.

Hydrogen Sulfide

[Jon Luckey]

Great be;ching clouds of H2S, eh.

I suppose in that scenario, Mankinds final words should be

"He who smell't it dealt it!

500 MY?!

[coyote-san]

Do you have any idea about how long 500 million years really is? Reputable scientists usually focus on the last few million years since the continents have been in approximately the same locations, solar output has been the same, etc.

Go back further and the earth is so different that it's hard to make meaningful correlations. How do you compare temps today vs. the temps when there was ocean circulation through the wide gap between North and South America? Or before the Himalayans rose and dominated weather patterns in south Asia?

What about Pangaea, or during the massive basalt flows as that supercontinent broke up?

Yet all of that is recent history when you're looking back 500 MY. Trying to compare these numbers is as silly as comparing your ability to lift a 20 kg box today vs. your ability to do it when you were 12.

The real cause of global warming discovered

[Anonymous Coward]

Read all about it

Oh I get it.

[Remik]

Mother Nature started the battle for survival, now I'm supposed to feel bad because she's LOSING?!

-R

)) Syntax Error

[TempeTerra]

Whew, that was close. We almost lost the rest of the thread to mismatched parentheses!

Don't mind me, just the Programmer's OCD kicking in ;)

Re:)) Syntax Error

[fyngyrz]

Personally, I found it very funny. But the mods... you know how the mods are.

Some of your facts are wrong.

[Truth_Quark]

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

There are numerous proxies for temperature. Ice core studies use the proportion of deuterium to hydrogen in the ice is a sound local temperature proxy, since the water with deuterium in it requires more heat to evaporate it. This proxy correlates well with temperature measurements.

A mercury thermometer can measure relative temperature to within 0.1C. These have been around since 1714.

3.) The sun's activity has increased by approx. 10% in the last 15 years. In other words, it's getting hotter.

Indeed no. About 0.07%. (Yes that's not 7% and a typo, that's 7 parts in every 10 000.)

Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years.

100 years.

5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is.

No, the earth is experiencing global warming. Jupiter is experiencing a redistribution of temperature. (from your link: As a result, areas around the equator become warmer, while the poles can start to cool down.)

6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is.

Possibly. I don't think that observed changes on Mars over the past 7 years are a good reason to ignore the measured and predicted effect on increasing greenhouse gasses here on earth over the past 100.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena?

No it's not. CO2 levels are the highest in several million years, and temperatures are hotter than any time in the Holocene, which represents 7 ice-age cycles. This is new, and we know why it's happening, because the physics of greenhouse gasses is well understood.

Good Posts Thanks http://tinyurl.com/qmdek

[ImitationEnergy]

I have enjoyed your thoughts on the varied subjects. My only issue worth noting is that I've heard that statement "100 years to fix it" many times before. I'm not a per se scientist so that's my un-scientist opinion but I base it on my two engines that do not use combustible fuels so they provide a 100% drop in all emissions across the board > http://www.newpath4.com/imitationenergy.htm . Global warming could be slowed or halted in less than 10 year's time. At which time we would be better able to concentrate research into those other causes you mentioned, such as higher Sun radiation levels that you say has been peaking. I can't rightly help you with the loss of Gravity occurring but I always look to see what has changed the most, so the increase in the total Mass of Mankind added to the accompanying increase to total Mass of feed animals is one of those. Each mammal is an ongoing living electrical process which might possibly EN MASSE create a magnetic sink. That is not a prediction just a postulation, something a real scientist would be able to compute.

Point is though that a drastic reduction in combustion engine/fossil fuel usage could stop the Warming/Climate Change Spiral. Slowing planet warming would lower earthquake activity + volcanic eruptions by increasing the natural atmosphere sink of excess Earth heat (that is "blanket-fueling" the earthquakes/volcanoes), thereby reducing global warming by leaps & bounds -in +/- one decade- instead of 10 decade's time.

In the longterm it is my belief we could rather quickly lower Earth's temperature back to what it was in the 1950's when you began your great Work... but the ultimate objective would be to lower Earth temperature more than that. Lowering Earth's temperature decreases the Speed & Volatility of all processes that are clobbering us today. Like now, we have insects breeding, airborne viruses & bacteria super-breeding, causing a rise in illness. Plus the tree larvae boring into tree bark and increasing deforestation rates. Colding this planet down would reduce all that.

So why don't we?! Because we don't have a home generator like my Millenial Dawn engine that provides electricity on a per-home individual basis. As it stands now, we would turn our thermostats higher, negating positive gains in planet cooling somewhat. A week or so ago, another writer here said he was sick to death of my endless plugging of "my engines". I have a good reason to do that because all the other engines are decades away technology-wise whereas mine are now & could be built and marketed, reaching the Public in 2-5 year's time. But since I am not a "scientist" I have been told to go slinking to the back of the bus with Rosa Parks and the blackies more-or-less,

There's only one thing to do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote liberal! Nyuk yuk yuk yuk yuk

Re:I say yea! But I have solid reasons for it

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree that it needs to be simple, and I bet there are unused smoke stacks that could be use as a prototype. The only thing that I would add is some mirrors(or solar panels) that will direct the sunlight into thew hot air intakes. You will want the hot air over 100 C. The air at 1000 m (3000 ft) may or may not be cold enough, and it might need to be higher. I'm not sure it really needs to be in a upright configuration though. Couldn't you run the pipes up a mountain and have the same effect?

I would also add some insulation to the pipe in certain places to prevent heat loss.

Seems like a good concept, but I would worry about how much energy it could produce.

We still need to do something about it.

[Wyrd01]

Ok, so let's say yes, it is the sun getting hotter that is causing the climate change we're seeing. Does that actually change anything? It's still a threatening scenario to human kind.

We have a pretty good understanding of how CO2 manages heat on earth:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_accum ulation_in_Earth's_atmosphere) and we can see that too much of it is a bad thing. If the sun is in fact heating up and sending more UV rays our way we'd be wise to not pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than we need to.

Even if we're not the cause of the rising heat we will be affected by it.

Let's save a few problems for future generations

[MooseTick]

So 200 years from now there may be super high CO2 levels that may trigger some major climatic change. Whoop de doo. If that proves to be the case then I suggest in 150 years whoever is around build some super high scale air scrubbers around the planet that pull the CO2 from the air and do something with it. If it is that big a threat then something like the US defense budget would probably knock that problem out in a decade or two.

mankind WILL do something to reduce CO2...

[Bob-taro]

... but I'm not holding my breath!

Great Article

[Java Ape]

I am not a climatologist, but I've done a fair bit of biogeochemistry (aquatic chemsitry), and have considerable experience with H2S-saturated waters/sediments below the chemocline. Typically, waters below the chemocline are anoxic, and extremely basic. H2S is very toxic, and highly soluble in water. Fortunately, we usually only see large amounts of it trapped in sediments, but it CAN accumulate in the water column. Now, when you have deep waters with high H2S concentrations, and then transport those waters vertically (wind, waves, currents, earthquakes etc.) the pressure drops, and H2S degasses. Actually, this further reduces the density of the ascending water and speeds the ascent, often pulling additional deep waters up behind the initial volume. As these waters near the surface, they release considerable quantities of H2S into the atmosphere. There are areas with huge amounts of H2S locked away in sediments deep below the surface - a rapid overturn could be VERY unhealthy for we oxygen-breathing critters!

For the record, I once "accidently" entered an H2S pocket in Lake Michigan. Scuba diving along the bottom at about 60', my buddy and I suddenly "skimmed" over a deep, cave-like tube. The water there "shimmered", which frequently indicates a strong chemocline, and we were too bouyant to descend into the tube. Stupidly, we got more weights, went back. Almost immediately my skin began itching and burning. I could smell H2S strongly, even though I was breathing through a regulator. My dive buddy, ahead of me, was obviously in distress so we surfaced. On the surface, his breathing was still labored, and he didn't look good (I was just feeling nausiated), so we went to a hospital, where we were both treated for H2S toxicity. It binds to the hemoglobin and won't let go, causing asphyxiation, and can be absorbed throught the skin! We both had chemical burns from the water, and later I found much of the rubber on my dive gear to be gooey and partially dissolved. All this from less than a minute under the chemocline. This is how I got interested in biogeochemistry.

Don't forget the sun has warmed up too

[J.R. Random]

The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm...climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm...to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century.

One thing to keep in mind is that the sun has been steadily getting hotter over geologic time. This has been matched by a general downtrend in the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. The bottom line is that a "thermal extinction" event today will require lower levels of CO2 than a thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene.

The global warming deniers today are in pretty much the same position as the "young earth" biblical literalists. They ignore scientfic data that doesn't tell them what they find convenient to believe.

Living on borrowed time

[Anonymous Coward]

We're already living on borrowed time... check this FACTS: According to the much reputable Wikipedia, the atmosphere's composition is as follows: Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%) Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%) Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%) Carbon dioxide (CO2) 381 ppmv Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv CO2 is our problem? I DON'T THINK SO... since there's so little of it. The problem, as it's clear to see, is that we're running out of OXYGEN, which we human beings use to breathe!!!!! There's only 20% of O2 (that is, oxygen) left in the atmosphere, and it's only getting worse. Once it gets to 0% we'll surely die unless we manage to grow gills and perhaps breathe thanks to the measly amount of water in the atmosphere (if there's still any Hydrogen left). You can see in the above that the main culprit of this horrid atmospheric deterioration has been the Nitrogen, which amounts to more than 70% of the total gas around us. Nitrogen is a combustible, since it's used in top notch racing cars with NITRO option... so you can bet your sweet asses it's a greenhouse gas.

Re:Living on borrowed time

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL

Living on borrowed time

[Anonymous Coward]

We're already living on borrowed time... check this FACTS:

According to the much reputable Wikipedia, the atmosphere's composition is as follows:

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 381 ppmv
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv

CO2 is our problem? I DON'T THINK SO... since there's so little of it. The problem, as it's clear to see, is that we're running out of OXYGEN, which we human beings use to breathe!!!!!

There's only 20% of O2 (that is, oxygen) left in the atmosphere, and it's only getting worse. Once it gets to 0% we'll surely die unless we manage to grow gills and perhaps breathe thanks to the measly amount of water in the atmosphere (if there's still any Hydrogen left).

You can see in the above that the main culprit of this horrid atmospheric deterioration has been the Nitrogen, which amounts to more than 70% of the total gas around us. Nitrogen is a combustible, since it's used in top notch racing cars with NITRO option... so you can bet your warm asses it's a greenhouse gas just like others (O2) used in manufacturing petroleum and fuel.

Why is Global Warming bad?

[huckamania]

Scary Stuff:
Rising sea levels... I don't live on the coast.
Hotter summers... I have a swimming pool.
Disruption of the thermal currents... If temperatures keep rising it won't be needed, will it.
Change in weather patterns... Those happen already.
Disruption of animal habitats... Why should polar bears get a pass?

Not Scary Stuff:
Alaska, Canada and Russia emerge from permafrost... All those who lived on the coast can move there.
Hotter springs and falls... I'm grabbing my clubs and hitting the links.

Honestly folks, you may be right and stupid at the same time. Making dire prediction after dire prediction is not helping your cause. Calling people stupid and unqualified is not helping your cause. Making this political is not helping your cause. Blaming Katrina and a bad hurricane cycle on GW is not helping your cause, cause it should have gotten worse this year, right? Asking people to make sacrifices while begging to spend more of thier tax money is not helping your cause. The fact that your cause is made up of people who can't even agree with each other, is not really helping your cause.

Personally, I worry more about paying my mortgage every month...

Re:The whole "global warming" myth...

[Tablizer]

That will force people to drive smaller cars, which will force them to have smaller families.

This is wrong for 2 reasons.

1. Cruising speed does not require big engines. It is eccelleration which does. If we simply tolerate vehicles with wimpy eccelloration we can still have fairly big cars. Ecceloration is kind of like an arms-race: you need more power to beat cars with more power.

2. Minivans are more economical than SUV's. Laws can encourage more practical cars rather than wasteful phallic symbols on wheels like a Hummer.

Practical vehicles are ugly and have less ego power, but they still can haul a family.

Re:The whole "global warming" myth...

[fm6]

Please read the whole post. It's not that long!

6m trees per year

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so let's pull in a little more information and think about this some more.

There are roughly . At 12'x12' spacing, you can grow 303 trees per acre, or 750 trees per hectare. So your 6 million trees per year is only a net gain of 8,000 hectares. Yes, this is a pretty reasonable goal. Mind, you've got to keep it up, each year, every year, that we're pumping this much CO2 into the atmosphere.

There's a catch, or two, or more, of course. We're not adding 8,000 hectares of forest annually. We're losing 13 million hectares , for a net loss (you do the math) of 9,750,000,000 trees. Wups, that's 1,625 times the number of trees we're supposed to be adding. "New growths without human intervention" most certainly isn't "covering it".

Note too that what we're concerned with isn't merely growing another 6 million trees, but sequestering the equivalent carbon from the atmosphere. Given any unit of arable land may support trees, shrubs, perennials, or some mix thereof, at various stages of their life cycle, it's not enough to simply plant these trees. After they die, you've got to put them somewhere the sun don't shine, or at the very least, where the wind don't blow. That carbon needs to be removed from the short-term carbon cycle. Say, by burying it in an anaerobic environment for a hundred million years or so ... replenishing the current stock of hydrocarbon resources we've been depleting for the past 150 years. The natural cycle of trees is to die, fall, degrade, and release their carbon back into the atmosphere, on a cycle of a few tens to thousands of years. Perennials and shrubs do so on a much shorter scale. Simple plantings aren't going to resolve this issue, you've also got an ag material disposal problem on a fairly significant scale.

Your back-of-the envelope calculations are interesting, but hardly sufficient. They're also strongly contradicted by widely accepted current knowledge. If you dispute any of the stats presented here (granted, the results of a few minutes' Googling), present your own citations.

Peace.

I did notice

[amightywind]

Never say never. You might have noticed the mention of the PETM (Palaeocence-Eocene Thermal Maximum) by a previous poster.

I did notice. I also know that it wasn't a major extinction of the kind that the article suggests. You can't refute that the major extinctions are caused by cold. If the original artcle claimed less my point would be less valid. There is a good chance that warming will increase the diversity of species.

Global Warming Not Necessarily Bad

[PeterWone]

Let's leave aside the difficulties of measuring the temperature of a planet with a complex weather system, and the insupportably narrow window over which even remotely reliable measurements are available. Let us also ignore the rather more verifiable position that the total post-industrial atmospheric effluence of mankind is comparable to just one medium sized volcanic eruption.

For the sake of argument let us posit that global warming is indeed happening, and happening as a direct result of first-world flatulence (I include the vast quantities of methane excreted by cattle).

If the world really is warming as a result of human technology, is this so bad?

It no doubt sucks big time if you own waterfront property. If you own property that's going to be waterfront it's not a bad prospect.

If your country is currently a whopping great desert the middle of which is below current sea level, then a ten metre rise in sea level means that instead of a big useless desert you're going to have a gigantic estuary (natural fish farm) that can double as a protected goes-everywhere shipping canal. As an added bonus your rainfall patterns are very likely to change in such a way that both sides of the Great Dividing Range (I'm talking about Australia) are likely to become more temperate with reliable rainfall, so the amount of arable land will probably increase.

Frankly I'm cheering for global warming. Bring it on!

So as far as I'm concerned, under no circumstances should Australia make the slightest attempt to curb greehouse emissions. At worst the whole thing is a furphy and there is no point in going to great expense for a non-event. At best it's real and, and we'd be crazy to go to great expense and inconvenience to oppose something that is greatly to our advantage.

Bleeding hearts will no doubt carry on about human cost. Planet scale things have a lot of inertia, and I daresay 100% of people now voting will be dead anyway long before any do-gooding takes effect.

Toe

[TapeCutter]

The GP is correct the word is "tow".

I can only imagine that "toe some kind of party line" has something to do with kicking arses.

BTW: Your whole argument amounts to "towing the line" because you are willfully ignoring and/or distorting the science. You see it's not who funds the research that matters, what matters is if the research can withstand skeptical scientific scrutiny.

"I suspect you see it because it is a valid argument.....Tenure, funding, pride of place at cocktail parties, self-respect."

These things do not come from discredited research, coming up with the "right" answer for a corporation can definitely increase your personal wealth. Anyone who harps on that AGW is some kind of conspiracy to gain funding does not understand either science or humans.

Re:Toe

[fyngyrz]

No, the idiom is "toe the line." Look it up. The net being what it is, you'll find a couple of percent of the sites will have it as "tow" (because they're confused or illiterate) but the vast majority have it right.

As for the rest, you're entitled to your opinions, of course.

Re:Toe

[TapeCutter]

"As for the rest, you're entitled to your opinions, of course."

It's easy to belive what you want to belive when you reduce everything to opinion. Still it doesn't change the facts.

Frogs being boiled are equally sanguine

[alienmole]

The human race might not be able to sustain its current CO2 emission rates. You can't count on that to happen without more knowledge, but it brings up an important point. We don't know that global warming will become a genuine problem.

But the problem is that if global warming does become a genuine problem, by the time we have irrefutable evidence of that, it'll be too late. This is the worst kind of problem for humans, who are little better than frogs when it comes to detecting that they're being slowly boiled. Your post exhibits all the signs of that weakness. Simply studying global warming until we have a better understanding of the problem is not enough. We know we're pumping huge amounts of a problematic gas into the atmosphere, and we know that this isn't a good thing - we just don't know exactly how bad it is, but indications are that it could ultimately be disastrous.

There are some similarities with the fear that terrorists could detonate a nuclear weapon in a city. We don't know that this will ever become a genuine problem. This does make it difficult to decide what resources to invest in guarding against the threat. There's no right answer: we're trying to protect ourselves against future events which may never happen, and we don't even have good ways to calculate their likelihood.

The difference is, even if a terrorist nuclear detonation in NYC killed millions of people, while horrible, that still wouldn't be the end of the world, and at that point, even if we hadn't done anything to prevent such attacks up until that point, we could start getting serious about it, and it would make a difference. If global warming starts becoming a serious problem for humans, it'll be too late, and it could literally be the end of the world, at least for human life on Earth as we know it.

There are two kinds of "conservative" at war here: those who are conservative about finances, economic productivity etc., potentially at a severe cost to the future of humanity; and those who are conservative about the survival of the human species on a planet worth surviving on. If you belong to the latter group, none of the arguments you've raised have much merit, so I take it you belong to the former group. How do you justify that to yourself? Is it purely short-termism, i.e. "I won't live long enough to suffer the worst of the consequences, so to hell with it"?