Firm Evidence for Greenhouse Effect 212
(outer-limits) pointed us to this AP story which describes a study published in Nature: a comparison of infrared data from 1970 and 1997 shows that the Earth is definitely re-radiating less energy in the bands absorbed by greenhouse gases. What does this mean for global warming? <shrug> Nobody knows.
Global warming/cooling... (Score:1)
Re:Ice age looming (Score:1)
At this point I think you will find that most scientists (at least the ones who don't work for various industry-sponsored groups) will agree that: a) global climate change is happening (yes, it is on average getting warmer) b) atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing due to our burning fossil fuels c) we can't predict exactly how the climate will change in the future, but we can make educated guesses that are reliable enough to base policy on . Those guesses/predictions include rises in sea level and the disruption of long-established weather patterns, with potentially very serious consequences. (Of course, mostly for the Third World, so I guess it isn't a problem for people well-off enough to be reading /.)
In any case, sooner or later we'll run out of oil, gas and coal. We'd better have an alternative energy source, or your great-great-grandchildren will be running Linux on hand-cranked computers.
Can't be or Dubya'd help us (Score:1)
Gee, You Like Hypotheses. (Score:1)
An analogy (Score:2)
Similarly, if we don't understand why the Earth is warming up and the only thing that really has changed is the pollution we spew up into the upper atmosphere in large quantities, shouldn't we stop doing that as well?
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
"Nature" is a disgrace (Score:2)
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
I do remember the 70's, and I remember OPEC cutting production, leading to an "energy crisis", panic, and recession that got Reagan elected. Yes, I agree, cutting CO2 emissions will cripple the economy. Maybe it's the economy's fragility that's the problem, and maybe we need to learn to stop being slaves to it, and try to accomplish something as a species other than our own extinction. Which understates things, because we won't be the only species to become extinct.
500 years from now, the last republican and the last democrat will be sitting on a glacier fighting over the last scrap of the last dog, and the republican will blame the democrat for the ice age because he paralyzed the economy so that the republican couldn't afford to buy a space heater to prepare for the coming naturally occuring ice age, and the democrat will blame the republican for the ice age because they wouldn't cut C02 emmissions. Neither will be in a position to prove the other one false. But the republican will get that last scrap of meat because he doesn't believe in gun control. Then the republican will eat the democrat too. And the Libertarian will lament that the republican and democrat conspired to keep him from piling up all the bodies so he could climb up to the moon and live where it's warm.
Re:Global heating = Global cooling, but bad econ (Score:2)
"If you don't like the "pollution market" approach, how else do you propose to getting the cooperatiom of of hundreds of millions of people needed with using authoritarian methods?"
I don't. There's no way that will work. By the time people get the clue, it will be too late, and the changes will be irreversible. In 20 million years, when aliens visit the funny ice-world with the buildings sticking out of the tops of glaciers, they'll go in, and dig around and find my remains clutching a scrap of paper that reads:
"I told you so!"
Re:Too much theories?? (Score:2)
Acid rain.
Deforestation.
Mass species extinction.
Salinization of irrigated lands.
That big inland sea in Russia that's almost dried up.
An example would be the Hawaiian Puuoo bird, who's feathers were used to make cloaks for the cheifs. 80,000 birds for each cloak. Had NO impact on the extinction of this species. They were able to reproduce quickly enough. It was the introduction of feral pigs to the islands. The pigs dug holes in the roots of rain forest trees to get at the soft stuff inside - to eat it. The holes collected rainwater, which bred mosquitos, which spread diseases, which killed the birds. At the time, nobody thought that the pigs were going to kill the birds, and nobody could have forseen the very strange chain of events that would take place, but the world is now one species less because of humanity's stupidity.
Like I said before, in the end, when it happens, nobody will be in a position to point fingers anyway, and we're pointing fingers now, but nobody has sufficient data to prove it one way or another, and we're so skeerd of that nasty big ol economy, we don't dare do a thing to harm IT.
Re:Global warming/cooling... (Score:2)
But you can take a more moderate approach. How about, when you BUY a car, research good used cars. Who said you must buy a new car every 2 years? Do you know how much energy it takes to make a new car? Greenhouse-gases-wise, that energy does not come cheap! Get Consumer Reports, find out what car brands are good, used, and buy those. I find Volvos to be GREAT used cars, they're reliable as hell, safe, generally in such good tune that they don't pollute as much as other older cars, but they don't have the high resale value that other euro cars have like Mercedes or BMW, so you can actually AFFORD a used Volvo, and it's a good deal. I mean, when you buy a new car, you're not necessarily guaranteed a trouble-free experience, and the car loses 20% of it's value the second you drive it off the lot, and you've just given the manufacturer a reason to build another one to take it's place on the lot.
There are a LOT of more moderate things you can do to live "more simply".
Buy a Macintosh instead of a PC. Macs last longer, they're easier to set up, and the PPC uses much less power than any Intel chip.
Re:Yet another theory... (Score:2)
Great news! (Score:1)
If we could get a tropical weather that would be wonderfull!
And with all the flooding we have had and the rising of the water, I am sure in 10 years, my house will be close to the beach (I am about 200km from it right now).
They've cried wolf one too many times (Score:1)
I'm sorry I don't follow the logic. Satellite photos then and now showing global warming does NOT equal humans are the cause. Mmmkay.
I am so jaded by the media that I can barely trust them on anything vaguely scientific. I don't believe these immanent global catastrophe pronouncements any more. I do believe that humans have a large impact on the planet but has anyone stopped to check to see how big it is compared to other natural forces? One good volcanic eruption can change the weather more quickly than fifty years of burning fossil fuels. El niño causes more damage than humans do.
Yes, we should be better stewards of the Earth but we shouldn't use every doom and gloom piece to push someone's political agenda. There are many things we don't understand about global climate changes and the impact humanity has on on the climate. Good science takes time.
They can have my fossil fuel burning car when they pry my cold dead fingers from the steering column.
Re:Still Inconclusive that man effects the ecosyst (Score:1)
Re:Global warming/cooling... (Score:1)
Re:Sunspots (Score:1)
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:1)
Re:Unacceptable Risk to our children (Score:1)
Re:Global warming/cooling... (Score:1)
Walk to work, eh? That's not such a bad idea, if you're in good enough health to accomplish it in the first place, or if your job is close enough to permit such a labor and time-intensive commute. But what about the ill and infirm? What about the older population? Our society works as well as it does because the technological support built into it allows a diverse range of people to contribute their energy and talents. In nature, only the healthy contribute to society, the rest die and get eaten. In a sense, this is certainly a very sustainable model for society. It would provide far less stress on the environment than current lifestyles. But it's also a far colder and merciless way for things to work.
You're very upfront about pushing your lifestyle and the beliefs that motivate it. I respect that and wish you well, but permit me the same liberty here:
Rely on science and technology to solve problems. Modern agriculture, for example, has made our current population size (and larger!) sustainable. Modern medicine and hygene has resulted in far fewer epidemics and diseases are incrementally being vanquished. The use of automobiles and airplanes has allowed people to share their talents over a larger area. These technologies have also reduced dependence on horses for transportation, and thus eliminated a major source of pollution and disease common in 19th century cities. Computers and the Internet are allowing more people to work from home, thus driving down the need to commute in the first place.
Hopefully, in the not too distant future, computers and telecommunications will further reduce the need for commuting. Nanotechnology might soon be able to reclaim materials from junk yards and trash heaps at the elemental level -- the ultimate recycling. Heck, we might have the technology to start moving people off the planet in huge numbers within fifty or sixty years. The worst thing we could do for the environment right now would be to stall progress with feel-good but useless regulations.
Pay less attention to the alarmists and social engineers, or at least treat them with skepticism. They want something: ratings, funding for research, power. Just because someone says something against the interests of one big industry, that doesn't mean that those statements aren't bought by another. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace and now one of its outspoken critics, cautions:
Each species has strengths that allow it to survive in its environmental niche. In fact, that niche is defined by the strengths and weakness of the creatures that fill it. Humans have a capacity for abstract reasoning and talent for building things. To compromise these gifts would be as foolhardy as pulling fangs and claws from lions to try to force them into becoming vegetarians. It is completely natural for us to take over our environments the way we have through reason and ingenuity. It is also natural for us to have displaced other species in the process; no species dominates its environment without displacing others.
But here's the clincher: We are the only species on the planet that gives a damn about the others. We are the only creatures who will choose to inconvenience ourselves to save threatened animals. When push comes to shove, nature insists that only the strong survive, but as a species we are willing to resist that and let mercy intervene. That, in my opinion, makes human progress worth quite a bit. Anything that benefits our species ultimately benefits others.
Re:Ice age looming (Score:2)
Still, your point is well taken that there are very powerful natural forces that drive climate in a chaotic manner. I'm sure that mankind is more of an influence now than a few hundred years ago, too. But I doubt that alone should force our civilization into the arms of the alarmists and social engineers.
Re:Sunspots (Score:1)
My interest in sunspots? I am an amateur radio operator, and HF (and sometimes higher frequencies) is best during a sunspot maximums, which means that I am able to more easily talk from Australia to the US and Europe (without internet and/or wires), some people have recently done it on foot with a radio in a backpack, and extreemly low power outputs (5w).
Anyway, I hope that this information is useful to some people, mabs (vk3tst).
Greenhouse effect makes life as we know it... (Score:1)
The real question that we should focus on is "are our actions in the last 2, 3, or 4 centuries or so (more so after industrialism) contributing to Global Warming in a negative way and is this bad?"
That's just too much of a question to bother with trying to figure out right now in this little response. The point of my response is as follows:
- the greenhouse effect is what makes life possible, shielded atmospheric conditions which allow for our water cycle as we know it and temperatures allowing the kind of abundant plant growth that we already have
- Global warming is often wrongly associated with the Greenhouse effect - while they can be intermingled, one should not think of both as the same thing. They work together, but are different things.
- The question to focus on is not 'is there a greenhouse effect' it's more a question of 'are we breaking the earth?'
Re:Too much theories?? (Score:1)
If we really wanted a debate, we'd at least hav some points of view seen on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, et al. But they talk about it as though it were a forgone conclusion. It's not, it's very worthy of study, and genuine study.
The scientific method is based the princlple that one collects data and draws a conclusion from all the data collected.
In addition, people always seem to gravitate to the Kyoto treaty when this issue is put on the table. I find it curious that we never hear about the Leipzig Declaration [sepp.org], the Heidelburg Appeal [sepp.org], the and the Oregon Appeal [oism.org].
They have signatures from over 4000 scientists who say:
"The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world's ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. "
So, as the original posting of the aricle says.. What does this mean for global warming? Nobody knows.
Re:Too much theories?? (Score:1)
Currently, circulation is created by cold, salt-rich and thus heavy water in the waters around Greenland falling to the bottom of the sea to be replaced by hot surface water that originally started out in the Caribean gulf. If the incoming water gets too hot, too much ice will melt at once, and reduce the salinity to the point where it no longer sinks to the bottom of the sea.
Unacceptable Risk to our children (Score:1)
It is definitely getting warmer, temperature is already up 1 degree Kelvin, which is fucking much averaged globally. Also there are multiple feedback mechanisms at work, like melting ice-caps, melting gletchers, oceans being able to hold less CO2, therefore aggrevating the situation. (Ever wondered why warm Coca Cola has almost no bubbles anymore? Go figure)
Where it will lead to is an open question, but consider this:
People go through a lot of trouble to shield their children from relatively low risk situations, like:
- falling of their bikes (they all wear helmets),
- sex on TV,
- dirt on the street,
- diaper rash
But when it comes to our childrens future on Earth, AND grandchildren etc. a possibly disastrous climate change is waved away as 'speculative science'.
That is completely insane.
Even a 5% probability that the climate is changing is like playing Russian Roulette with our childrens lives.
And I can tell you that that probability is more like 75%.
We are taking an unacceptable risk with the future of our children.
Do people, and especially Americans (but Europeans have no reason to be proud too) understand this?
Unacceptable Risk
To have even a slight chance of reversing the proces, total emmission of CO2 and other gases have to be cut down by about 80 to 90 %!
At the latest climate conference an agreement was reached to cut down by 8%. Totally inadequate.
What has been achieved of this 8%? It has not even be ratified yet, by most countries. America hasn't, and they, with 4% of the Worlds population, cause more than 25% of the rise of CO2-level.
Their emmisions have only accelerated. Even the Netherlands, who did ratify, have a rise of 17%, instead of cutting down 8%.
And did I tell you between 80% and 90% cut-down is needed?
Nothing could be more important than this, for humans anyway.
-----------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...
Re:Unacceptable Risk to our children (Score:1)
The same goes for most western governments, who fully realize that a complete transition to clean energy and production methods would lead to 25 years of hardship for all, before the same levels of welfare have been restored, or your Glorified Economy is at the same level.
-----------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...
Re:Unacceptable Risk to our children (Score:1)
You are SO convincing.
And if the director of the bloody KNMI is not a real scientist, then who the fuck IS? It is the national metereological institute, 500 scientist work there, 100 of them doing hardcore research into this climate stuff. It doesn't get more scientifically respectable than that, my friend.
But maybe you, as you say yourself not being a scientist, are in a better position the judge the validity of what is science and what is not?
Maybe I should believe the next shoe-salesman who says that at MIT no science is done, and lightspeed is not the absolute fastest speed.
Or maybe I should use common sense and conclude that someone who references a non-existing website named 'junkscience' and failed to make sense or point to some 'real science' is indeed a TROLL.
-----------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
Yes, but without licenses, you will have a sub-optimal reduction in greenhouse gasses. Establishing a market for pollution licenses means that the people who can most afford to reduce their greenhouse gas production will do it.
Without licenses, the people who can most afford to reduce their greenhouse gas production will have no incentive to reduce it, and the people who can't afford to reduce their emissions will be a drain on economies, encouraging increased political backlash against emission reductions.
If rich people want to pay poor people for the right to pollute, and that leads to an overall emission reduction, why is that bad? It makes the poor people richer, and reduces emissions!
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
It reduces overall pollution because some people will have a much harder time reducing pollution than others. For instance, a company with a very old coal burning powerplant might need to spend $100 million to retrofit to achieve CO2 reduction, while another company building a new coal burning powerplant may only need to spend $25 million to achieve the reduction by planning for it before the plant is built.
So we have two scenarios with the same CO2 output reduction. #1 has the old coal plant spend $100 million and the new plant spend $25 million to achieve 60% CO2 reduction.
Secnario #2 has the new plant spend $30 million to achieve 90% CO2 reduction, and sell a 30% reduction license to the old plant. The old plant spends about $50 million to add the additional 10% reduction it needs to achieve a 30% real and 30% licensed emmission.
In both cases, overall CO2 emmission reduction was 60%. The difference is that the new powerplant can afford to build in an extra 30% reduction beyond that, and sell the license to someone who needs it.
Actually, scenario #1 really goes like this - the company that needs to spend $100 million can't afford to, and instead spends millions on politicians to make sure that the law is never passed. Or, they go out of business, and you have a bunch of angry AFL/CIO members. Either way, it makes the political job of selling CO2 emmission more difficult.
By instituting a market for pollution, you make it far easier for companies with a higher marginal CO2 reduction price to be able to help achieve overall CO2 reduction.
Creating a market in pollution is the sickest most unethical thing I can think of. Creating commerce out of an activity which leads to suffering, horrible afflictions, and death is akin to legalizing child torture and pornography because some people want to do it.
I'm assuming that you don't emit any CO2, or else you are saying that you are the same as a child pornographer. I suggest you STOP BREATHING IMMEDIATELY!
IF YOU ARE IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS, we will all die, like the millions of Chinese killed due to communist farming techniques under Mao. Global warming is too dangerous for us to ignore economic and political realities.
Re:Global warming is good? (Score:2)
Re:global warming blues (Score:2)
Okay, I'll bite...
Sure, we produce more than our share of CO2 -- we're an industrialized nation. Hoovallooo in Papau New Guinea doesn't produce CO2 (except through respiration) because he's squatting in a tree waiting for a pig to pass by.
"But that's an extreme example!" Okay -- try Lin Chang in China. His complete personal property list is (1) water buffalo, (1) wok, (1) pointy hat. Not much CO2 producing going on there.
Now Biff Manley over in the States has a lawnmower, SUV, charcoal grill and a Pentium III 1Ghz. He's a CO2 producing fool, all by himself.
The fact of the matter is, most of the world's population lives in what may be considered -- to us overfed, whiny Americans anyway -- Third World status. Of COURSE they aren't going to produce much CO2.
An equally fair (and stupid) comparison would be "Mexicans are only 3% of the world's population, but produce 65% of the world's supply of laquered frogs."
Re:global warming blues (Score:2)
Well, almost. I'm saying that to pick an arbitrary metric (CO2 production) and measure ONLY that, then all kinds of assumptions can be made -- most of them wrongly.
I can pick another metric (say methane from burrito farts) and say "Mexico produces 75% of burrito farts, and they're only 5% of the worlds population. And their government is doing NOTHING about it!" It's equally valid (which is to say, equally stupid).
Try to balance your CO2 metric with a QOL metric (Quality of Life). Now -- we have 25% of the world's CO2 output, but the highest QOL. The argument can be made, then, that higher CO2 output means higher QOL. Thus, countries, to increase QOL must increase CO2 output.
(I make these points to highlight another point -- that point being that "Global Environmental Treaties" such as the Environmental summit in Rio some years ago, have all boiled down to Third World Countries lining up, holding out their hands to the US and saying "Give us a dollar")
Re:Damn it (Score:2)
Because it's more interesting this way... you don't think the cosmic mind would set up a whole planet for its avatars to just sit around and eat grapes do you?
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Skin cancer myth (Score:4)
I don't like it when people spread inaccurate information. Not even for a good cause. For example, the fighting drug abuse would be served better by reliable information about drugs than by irresponsible lines and inaccurate scare stories.
-
A perfect coincidence... (Score:2)
Good thing he didn't ask us to read his lips on that one.
W
-------------------
best evidence is rising sea level (Score:2)
a steadily increasing sea level over the past ten
years of a few millimeters per year. Most of it
is attributed to thermal expansion of the ocean
with a minor contribution from glacial melting.
whale-lovers prevent best measurement (Score:2)
average temperature of the oceans. Local measurements
are distorted by human effects and local currents.
The speed of sound in water directly depends on
temperature.
Scientists proposed measuring the sound speed (and
temperature) in the highly transparent sofar zone
accross entire oceans.
The source would be a relatively loud, chirp sent
for hundreds of seconds.
Experiments have showed it works. However, a
systematic implementation of this measurement has
been delayed because of complaints this may hurt
marine life ears.
Global warming is good? (Score:2)
The immense tundras of Canada and Russia become
huge agricultural areas to feed the world.
Re:Hmmmmm.. (Score:2)
True. And where is most of that pressure coming from? Corporation and astroturf lobbying efforts doing their best to stick their fingers in everybody's ears and sing "La la la, we can't hear you!". It's understandable that people are trying to be heard over that.
(Astroturf lobbying: fake grass roots. "Citizen groups" that are fronts for corporate interests.)
Consider your source (Score:2)
Re:"Nature" is a disgrace (Score:2)
Re:global warming blues (Score:2)
Maybe Hoovaloo and Lin Chang aren't (significant) CO2 producers. And maybe Thog the slash-and-burn farmer in the Amazon rainforest isn't either, but he *does* have a significant effect on CO2 levels.
Re:Ice age looming (Score:2)
We won't know if they are reliable until time passes. Those predictions don't include the recent discoveries of the power of soot and heat-caused cirrus depletion cooling, much less other unknown factors.
There is no global sea level change -- that's only another prediction. Read about the problems with sea-level predictions [greeningearthsociety.org] and see how confident you then are about them. For that matter, the recent IPCC sea level prediction includes mention that southern oceans will rise somewhat less than elsewhere -- the IPCC doesn't explain how water rises differently there. For that matter, El Nino was discovered by climatologists only a few decades ago...it's amazing how the same science which is still discovering smaller oscillations can be used to make longer-term predictions.
Re:An analogy (Score:2)
Re:Ice age looming (Score:2)
I know what site the link was on. Quit attacking the messenger and deal with the message. What is wrong with their analysis of the IPCC [www.ipcc.ch] sea level studies (chapter 11 of "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis")?
Is PGR being used to change lowering levels to rising levels? Were the simulated ice levels tinkered with to produce the desired result, and if not then how were the ice levels determined? Does the glacial melting simulation match the geological 120 to 130 meter rise? Is the IPCC indeed predicting that southern oceans will rise less than other oceans, and why?
Re:best evidence is rising sea level (Score:2)
Re:Too much theories?? (Score:2)
However it should take 50-75 years to cool down.
Each ice age starts with a "small" one. Because of the ice that builds on more areas on earths surface more sunlight gets reflected and it gets even colder, but this takes a lot longer, it's out of our lifespan
I believe we just added or part to make it happen faster, on the other hand the climate is *very* fragile. The gulf stream which balances the climate for europe, can be slowed down a lot by warming the earth by average 4 degrees. During an ice age it stops completely, it takes a few 1000 years to bring it on again, this is when an ice age ends
[This a theory I read about, nothing more nothing less.]
Methane in the oceans (Score:2)
All in all, there's a lot we don't know about global warming, but that doesn't mean that we should be reckless in how we treat the environment.
Re:Sunspots (Score:2)
Monkeys may have flown out of Ronald Reagans butt.
Can you prove beyond any doubt that this statement is false? Other then the fact that ronald probably believes it?
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
Not only that but there really is no market for pollution unless some govenment steps in and passes clean air laws which would create scarcity. Without government intervention any industry could pollute as much as they want and would have no incentive to buy somebody elses pollution tickets.
So if the only source of scarcity is governmental regulation why do you need commerce in pollution anyway? Why shouldn't the government simply pass clean air regulations and be done with it?
Finally. Creating a market in pollution is the sickest most unethical thing I can think of. Creating commerce out of an activity which leads to suffering, horrible afflictions, and death is akin to legalizing child torture and pornography because some people want to do it.
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
Pollution controls cost too much money, minimum wage costs too much money, competition costs too much money. Whine, whine whine. Nothing would make a business person happier then to repeal every single environmental law and bringing back slavery.
What's the difference between a lear jet and the businessman who owns it?
The jet stops whining when it gets to hawaii.
Re:Global heating = Global cooling, but bad econ (Score:2)
The way you make people do the right thing is to punish them when they do something wrong. You don't let drug dealers sell drug credits so they can sell less drugs, you don't make serial killers sell killing certificates, why should you keep encouraging other criminals to keep commiting crimes?
If an industry breaks laws jail the CEOS and the board of directory, seize the assets and let the shareholders take it in the shorts and shut them down. This will influence the shareholders to keep a close eye on their corporation to behave corrrectly and will provide incentive for the board to act ethically.
Ice Ages vs. Temperate Ages (Score:2)
If on a linear time scale you compared an Ice Age to a meter, a Temperate Age lasted only about a centimeter.
Its got to make you wonder about the whole argument today.
The question imbodied in the article was "were we headed for an Ice Age or not?" The conclusion was "We don't know. But what we do know is that Mother Nature is going to kick us around a lot more that she has in the last few hundred years."
Re:Still Inconclusive that man effects the ecosyst (Score:2)
I was under the impression that we were coming out of a small ice age. This is claimed as evidence for winters being whiter in your grandparent's days.
This is often claimed as the real reason why the earth is warming up, as opposed to greenhouse effects, which are presumed to take longer to gestate. (I must admit that I had thought it strange that we had already had an effect on the climate -- which is not to say that our current emissions won't wreack havoc in the next centuries).
I hate to say this.. (Score:3)
There is quite some debate going on between the two main theories on global warming, namely the well-known Greenhouse Effect theory vs. the Solar Activity theory, i.e. the idea that Earth's temperature is much more correlated to solar activity than to anything else, making human activity a negligible factor.
The latter is quickly gaining momentum. The correlation exhibited in the Friis-Christensen & Lassen graph (first published in 1991 in Science) is really disturbing. Their more recent publications [www.dmi.dk] are even more so (better data thanks to satellites).
Thomas Miconi
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
Re:Sunspots (Score:2)
Can you prove beyond any doubt that this statement is false?
----------------------------
Sunspots (Score:5)
Sunspots increase the Sun's magnetic field which acts as a kind of barrier helping to protect the Earth from cosmic rays. This acts as insulation and increases the Earth's overall temperature. When there are fewer Sunspots on the Sun's surface, it's magnetic field reduces allowing more cosmic rays to reach the Earth which cools the Earth. For example, in the late 17th century, there was hardly any Sunspot activity [nasa.gov] on the Sun's surface. This period coincided with the "Little Ice Age" when rivers on the Earth remained frozen all year round.
This research is on-going. At CERN [wwwth.cern.ch], for example, tests are being undertaken with the particle accelerator to see if cosmic rays can affect cloud formation.
What this all means is that our predictions about global warming due to the Greenhouse Effect may have been greatly exaggerated.
----------------------------
Re:Ice Ages vs. Temperate Ages (Score:2)
The real problem is cloud cover which Harris admits we just don't know enough about to give accurate long term predictions of temperature.
So we're back to square one. We know that the level of greenhouse gases is increasing, but we still have no idea what the real long term effect will be.
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
I remember way back in school(been out a while) learning that the Ice Age was NOT a single time when the planet was covered with ice. In fact there were a series of glacial movements every 10,000 years or so. With that in mind, we are up for an ice age in a few centuries at the most.
As for global warming triggering an ice age, that is NOT theory. Current research shows that before each previous ice age there was a period of global warming not unlike what we are experiencing today. It will happen, it is only a question of when.
This has been a bit of a build up, climate changes don't happen overnight. More like a snowball you roll down from up on top of a large hill. It's growth starts small but it starts picking up momentum and all of the sudden it can crush a house. Thats how the climate changes, little stuff at first, over a century or so, then BOOM! I'm not a meteorologist, but from the reading I have done, I'd say we will start suffering colder winters soon. then colder summers. Maybe not severely so in our lifetimes, but by our great grandchildren it will probably start happening and by their great grandchildren well I don't think I'd want to live at most spots on earth it would be so cold.
Re:Yet another theory... (Score:2)
That makes sense. (Score:2)
--
Too bad... (Score:2)
--
Re:Global heating = Global cooling, but bad econ (Score:2)
EXCELLENT POST
I have no quarrel with your science. However, you seem to have a weaker grasp of the economics. you wrote:
While it is true that global climate won't respond to bits of paper, the human economy does. Forty years of air pollution regulation here in California has shown that authoritarian dictates "Thou shalt do this..." only get one so far...and expensively so. The idea of the quota system is that we can get to the lower emissions scenarios *cheaper*. If the government says "all emitters must reduce by 20%", then I won't bother changing my bakery much, even though I could easily cut 80%. However, the furniture maker can't get his 20% cut without risking bankruptcy. Under the pollution trading credit regime, my bakery invests in more efficient gas furnaces and makes a big cut of 80%. The furniture maker buys the excess cut from me, (helping pay for my new equipment) cheaper than he can change his own factory. Emissions target are reached and now bankruptcy.-- but the "clearner" business are more profitable.If you don't like the "pollution market" approach, how else do you propose to getting the cooperatiom of of hundreds of millions of people needed with using authoritarian methods?
I wonder... (Score:2)
Yet, now that people have a political axe to grind, they start hollering that the only reason it could POSSIBLY be is pollution etc.
Cows put off more methane than the entirety of the human race. This is one of the primary ingredients of 'greenhouse gases' yet no one wants to admit that at least part of this is perfectly natural.
Oh, that's right, they cannot use the warming to their political gain if it's been around for millions of years. I forgot. Got to have something to hold against those who think differently than they. After all, it's inclusion, but only for those who conform to the left wing beliefs.
Give me a break, yes people and pollution may very well assist in the warming, but I'm tired of hearing that it's The President's duty to singlehandedly reverse a process that has been going on for millions of years.
DanH
Cavalry Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
Re:global warming blues (Score:2)
You seem to be saying, "Ha! But there's a *REASON* why what you're saying is true! Therefore your point is stupid!" This... logic... confusing...
My point: Given that the US is a disproportionate cause of the CO2 problem, it is unfortunate that Bush has decided that we will not take any part in the solution.
Who will, then? Your Hoovaloo and Lin Chang will take the full impact of global warming, but there's not much they can do, since (as you point out) they're not CO2 producers.
Yet our Senate voted *unanimously* that we ought not to enter a CO2 reduction treaty unless-- you guessed it!-- the third world is bound also.
...which is again too bad, since OPEC states will never sign on, for obvious reasons.
Blech.
Re:Ice age looming (Score:2)
You are quoting from Greening Earth, a site produced by the Western Fuels Association. WFA supplies coal to power plants, making it a world leader in production of greenhouse gases. "We promote the benign effects of carbon dioxide on the earth's biosphere and humankind." Oooh-la-la...
You might as well quote Steve Balmer on the merits of Linux.
By contrast, here's what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says about sea levels change:
"...it is an observed fact that relative sea level is rising in most coastal regions and causing major problems..."
Re:Ice age looming (Score:2)
What you said was, "There is no global sea level change -- that's only another prediction." This is patently false: sea levels have been rising steadily. It is not a prediction; it is an observation.
You suggest that I not attack the messenger, but then immediately question whether simulated ice levels were "tinkered with" by IPCC scientists? You take a coal-producer's propaganda as serious commentary and impugn IPCC scientists as data manipulators? What... on earth... are you thinking?
Let's be clear: you haven't read one single word of the IPCC report that you're attacking and that you're asking me to defend in detail, have you? Everything you know about sea level change in that report comes from a few sentences in the summary for policymakers and what you read on that coal-producer site, right? (You did at least read the IPCC summary, didn't you?)
On the prediction side, the global warming trend projected by all of the dozen or so major global climate models-- not just by the IPCC-- implies corresponding warming in the oceans and consequent thermal expansion and sea-level rise. The IPCC conclusion is not some rogue hypothesis, as your favorite propaganda site would have you believe, but rather is consistent with the findings of many independent research groups.
If you're interested in this issue, you really need an unbiased source, don't you? The full IPCC report is surely too much. But the book "Earth's Climate: Past and Future" by William Ruddiman comes highly-recommended, though I've not yet read it myself.
global warming blues (Score:3)
When the media reports on global warming, they like to talk about coastal flooding and severe weather... direct human impacts.
What particularly bums me, though, is the fact that probably every ecosystem on earth is going to be affected. There will be no pristine places left on the entire planet that are safe from the effects SUV exhaust and other excesses. Not northern Canada, not Sibera. Everywhere there will be tundra melting or species adjustment or rainfall changes in response to human activity. That makes me sorta sad.
We Americans are 5% of the world population, and we produce 25% of the world's CO2. So it is too bad that Bush has decided not to do anything.
Re:Too much theories?? (Score:5)
When the ice caps melt, the cold fresh water will form a layer over the warmer but more salty water of the gulf stream. This effectively prevents the warm water from rising (water doesn't mix as fast as you would think). The result of this is that something called the globl conveyor, a series of warm ocean current that flow round the earth and distribute heat from the tropics to the poles will stop. These current basically keep areas like northern europe warmer than they would otherwise be. if my memory serves me right, London is at the same latitude as Moscow, the only reason we are so much warmer is because of the gulf stream bringing warmer (and wetter
In theory, if the global conveyor does stop, then the isea will get colder. The effect of this is that the tropics will get warmer (due to the general increase in temperature) while the more northerly areas get colder. The most worrying aspect of this is that the effective growing reagions of the world will be squeezed from both sides. The deserts will grow from the equator (that includes the US grain belt), making many areas too hot to farm effectively, while the nothern and sothern temperate zones will get much colder and dryer becuase of reduced transpiration (now there is a word I havn't used in a long time, means the cumulative effect of evaporation from the seas and plants). Basically the worlds prime growing land is going to be squeezed between an ice burg and a desert.
What no one knows is how the global climate will react to this. It is increadibly complex and feedback mechanisms that we don't know about may kick in and either accelerate the effect, or limit it. No one really knows. We could end up with a complete reversal over the next few hundred/thousand years. The ice caps grow, reflecting more light, which means a drop in temerature, which leads to more ice growth and so on. The snowball earth theory.
Over geograpical time the earth is capable of taking care of itself. We could nuke the entire place and things would regrow over the next few (hundred) million years. Unfortunatly humans do not live on the geographical time scale, so we have to care about what happens in the short (or relatively short for the earth) time.
Basically, environmentalism is a very selfish thing. it is all about protecting the environment so that we can carry on living. Over its life the earth has been a place where humans could never have survived, and in the long term (millions of years) it probably will be again. But right here, right now, we have to protect the geo-eco-system purly for our own sakes. Without it we simply cannot survive. It isn't about saving cute little furry things, its about making sure that you and I have somewhere hospitable to live in 60 years time that isn't entirely artificial. And no, we can't move all 6billion people to the moon or mars.
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
The crazy thing about many greenhouse skeptics is not their skepticism...but their assumption that the error bars only extend in one direction
While I agree with you about this problem (and it is quite prevalent among most opponents in most areas, not just in the climate debate), in fairness it should be noted that most popular reporting that activists/citizens/politicians/businesses respond to make the opposite error and only quote the worst case scenario, which is ALSO a one sided error bar. So, responding that "things are not going to be that bad" are not too far out of line...even if it is an indefensible stance.
Too much theories?? (Score:3)
Re:Too much theories?? (Score:3)
Well, according to those scientists, the first effects of the oncoming ice age would be notable within one or two decades. So if they're right, start buying warm underwear :)
BTW I'm european tooRe:Too much theories?? (Score:4)
Yep, that would be the same theory allright. It talked about the reduced 'pumping effect' in the area of Greenland (colder water sinks and it transported back to the caribean, to be replaced by warmer water). They said that this effect was measurably diminishing, and we could have another ice age on our hands. The big question is if humaity is causing all this, or are we just adding to an already present natural effect? This last assumption is not so strange - we have had quite a number of ice ages already. All the environmentalists are yelling that we are the cause of all this, but they easily forget the fact that there is natural occuring pattern of heating up and cooling down. Maybe humanity is a bit too arrogant to think that they are the *only* cause
Re:I hate to say this.. you overlooked something (Score:2)
I think you've missed the debate entirely and so come to a conclusion that is easily dismissed as incorrect. The Solar Activity theory predicts changes to the Earth's climate due to solar activity, the Greenhouse theory predicts changes due to human activity.
You give the impression of having fallen into the trap of thinking that since climate chanegs can be caused by non greenhouse means, they can clearly only be caused by non greenhouse means - a conclusion that dangeriously defies logic. Bear in mind that most greenhouse theory suggests that it is a little early for pronounced greenhouse climate changes, therefore finding only changes that could conceivably be attributed to solar activity in no way refutes greenhouse warming
The reality is that if solar-warming coincides with greenhouse-warming, we are in a far nastier situation than the already considerable nastiness of greenhouse warming or solar warming on their own.
Perhaps you think greenhouse theories are based on observation of climate change, and thus alternative explanations for those observations refutes the theory? If so, this is not the case - the theories _predicted_ climate change, and the Solar Activity theories do not refute a single thing on which that prediction is based[1]. Climate change is the conclusion, not the premises, of greenhouse theory. Possible alternative explanations for current climate observations are simply not relevant to a prediction of future warming effects.
In other words, if you think the Solar Activity theories hold water, you have twice the reason to reduce greenhouse gases as the people who see greenhouse warming as the only threat.
I just don't understand the idea that since warming can be caused by different things, we shouldn't worry, and even worse - that since it can be caused by different things, it clearly can't be caused by us!?!
I simply can't grasp the logic. It really does seem to be a case of believing something simply because you want to. Is there something I'm missing?
[1] Take enough varients of each theory and I'm sure I could find something, but you know what I mean
Re:Ice age looming (Score:2)
I'm worried by the misconceptions inferred here.
Climate change theory is not a case of "Oh look - the earth is getting warmer. What could be causing this?" and then enviromentalists painting pollution as the bad guy. Rather it's a case of "Um guys - my studies suggest that the pollutants in the atmosphere are nearly at levels where they could start changing the climate. If we don't change, we can expect climate changes in the future".
In other words, recent climate change need not have significant (or any) greenhouse causes and this is simply not relevant to whether we face a greenhouse warming problem or not.
By all means, keep a close eye on the climate, but it is insane to assume that if another contributor is currently affecting the climate, then greenhouse gases obviously can't. Quite the contrary - possible future greenhouse warming plus possible future say, solar warming, equals an even greater problem. (Not, as many would like us to unquestionably believe, a negation of the problem, or a disproving of greenhouse effects.
Of course, this asks the question: "If absence of solid evidence is not yet evidence of absence, and acting to contain a virtually-proven (but not quite) threat is expensive, how long should we continue to act in absence of further evidence?". Well, I guess that question became a whole lot less important today
Re:Skin cancer myth itself often a myth (Score:2)
Look a bit closer at your "facts" and you'll find that they come from sources probably a lot like the UK study on the effects of the ozone problem on the UK population - which is fine and accurate if you live in the UK (which has no ozone problem and is on the other side of the world from the ozone problem), but quite false if, as you have done, you make blanket statements about what the effects of the ozone thinning are.
The real facts include the obvious, such as if you live in, say, the USA, the effects are quite different from when you live under the hole. I do not live in the USA, and I have lived under the hole, and I think your misinformation is as bad as that which you were trying to correct.
I agree with the rest of what you said though.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
You've got it backwards. Studies predicted that our contribution to the atmosphere would, if continued, lead to a global warming.
It is not a case of "look - the earth is warming - let's determine what causes it".
It is not a case of "look - non-manmade causes can change the climate too, so clearly we were wrong when we said man-made causes can also cause warming". (I don't understand this reasoning, but much of the USA seems to swear by it)
Is might even end up a case of "current warming seems to be the result of non-manmade causes, we still haven't done anything to limit greenhouse effects, so we're now looking at greenhouse warming joining forces with non-manmade warming and creating warming of a magnitude that we hoped was just a worst-case scenario"
Cows put off more methane than the entirety of the human race. This is one of the primary ingredients of 'greenhouse gases' yet no one wants to admit that at least part of this is perfectly natural.
?!? Where are you coming from?
Rudiment methane production is by no stretch of the imagination "natural". And even if it was, it certainly isn't relevant if the goal is to avoid the problems of warming. "Natural" warming is just as bad for us as "artifical" warming and both (in this example) are preventable. You seem to be in the thrall of misconceptions promoted by the US-industrial lobby - are you aware that many farming countries think that adding "low methane production" to the list of desirable breeding traits in farming can create livestock that help a country meet emission guidelines cheaply and effectively? Or are you sold on the US lobby that claims any curbs on pollution is a disaster that will blow us back to the dark ages? (They're currently also claiming that giving US citizens any rights to privacy will cost the country "hundreds of billions of dollars". Good thing no-one told the rest of the world, or their economies would sink overnight under the weight of the terrible civil rights they already have in place! (My own observation would be that privacy frees up all the workers tied up in non-productive telemarketing and the like to work in productive industries. But I digress...
And the cows are used for...? (Score:2)
http://greenbureau.wcc.govt.nz/infosheets/globa
"In the past 40 years increased demand for the meat and dairy products has doubled the number of cows."
(I've no idea how valid that page is, it was just the first one I fund on google, but it seems to be from the govement of new zealand)
Other then that I've found it nearly impossible to discuss energy policy with Americans. They simply do not understand that it is possible to use less energy and think/worry about the future of the planet without being a commie bastard. Probably rooted in the sick relationship a lot of Americans has with the idea of Freedom.
This doesn't apply to the majority of
(I know this could be considered flamebait. Could be as much fun as that time when I said "guncontrol" in a newsgroup full of Heinlein fans).
--
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
The story of the Little Dryas (the 1000-year mini Ice Age just after the last major ice age, which is believed to have resulted from the massive influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic as Lake Agasiz drained down the St. Lawrence) is not completely resolved, but isotope ratios in sediment cores from South American bogs suggest strongly that the Little Dryas caused global cooling, not just cooling in Northern Europe.
What causes interhemispheric links is unknown, but powerful. After all, the Milankovich explanation for the ice ages would suggest that the ice age cycle for the Northern and Southern hemispheres should be exactly out of phase. Some poorly understood interhemispheric linkages are believed to be responsible for the fact that the Southern Hemisphere experiences warmings and coolings driven by radiative forcing of the Northern Hemisphere.
Thus, a Heinrich event in the North Atlantic, driven by greenhouse warming, could hypothetically cause a global mini-ice-age, but we don't know enough to say for sure.
What the writer of the top post on this thread misses completely is that none of this is certain and Wallace Broecker introduced the idea of an ice age hiding in the greenhouse (as he titled his 1995 address to the AAAS) to get climate scientists to be less smug about their ability to tell what would happen in a CO2-doubled world (i.e., things could either be much less severe or much more severe than current predictions imagine).
The crazy thing about many greenhouse skeptics is not their skepticism---too many mainstream climate scientists are far too smug about their models---but their assumption that the error bars only extend in one direction: that uncertainties in model predictions mean that outcomes will likely be less severe than predicted. Few skeptics follow Broecker in addressing the question of whether the current generation of models may be seriously underpredicting global climate change.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
I don't know why people make global warming a politcal issue. Oh, yes I do, there's money involved. What it boils down to is a fairly simple gambling equation. If global warming occurs it will cost us X. X is very large and each new study seems to make it larger. We can spend Y to try to combat global warming. Y is much smaller than X. If we do nothing we save Y but may have to pay X. If we do what we can we pay Y, possibly for no reason. In Feburary some 700 scientists from over 100 countries produced a report saying that the risks are very great, and that time is short. In fact they said that some effects will happen regardless of what we do so we better get ready.
People should also forget the impending ice age theory. It's irrelevant because it is easy to combat. If we find we're getting into a global ice age we just burn more hydrocarbons. That'll probably save us money.
Re:Too much theories?? (Score:2)
Do you know if it is related to the Gulf stream? As a European I'd like to know if Europe is about to turn into a Siberia-like freezer...
Re:Ice age looming (Score:2)
We're currently in the middle of an ice-age and the planet went for 15 million years without them at all. It seems as though the changes in temperature are largely effected by the angle of the earth to the sun and solar activity. There's still no firm evidence that climatic change has been caused by us and polution although we may have altered the rate of change slightly.
Still it's no excuse for us to be complacent - pollutants in the atmosphere and on the ground a re generally bad news for us all. One interesting point of note - research into greener forms of transport has been increaced recently not due to environmental concerns but because OPEC has the rest of the world (quite literally) over a barrel!
Iain
Na nya na boo boo: Scientists prove greenhouse fx (Score:2)
When asked if the greenhouse theory was still a theory, Harries said, "It's a fact now. Get over it. You lost. We won."
New definition of 'zero emissions' [ridiculopathy.com]
Oh if only... (Score:2)
Referring the clouds... ahh aren't unpredictable chaos systems fun? I did one chapter of chaos in a differential class and suddenly realized that if tested, my brain could really really hurt.
There are ways to help lessen our effect on the world. But to the extremists, realize, everything has an effect on the planet! We can't remove it without killing ourselves, and then some other thing will change the environment somehow. Endless cycle. But yes, we are doing a lot of change very suddenly (suddenly by Earth standards). Solution? No solution, but lessening? Strict radical worldwide government regulation. Likely hood of acceptance, nil. It would cost too much up front (ie that transit system posted a few days ago).
It's kind of interesting how we bind outselves up with this thing called money. It controls what everyone does, and yet, it is simply a man made concept. At a risk of sounding red, real true communism (not Stalinism) would help to solve this sort of thing, BUT, human nature would not allow it to work, we all want to get a head of the next person. Unfortunately a corporate run world (if not totally, we're almost there) will not solve these problems unless they stand to make a quick buck.
Either we solve everything, or hope our population decreases to, oh 1 billion? Come one, remove the weak!! What, you mean I'm one of the weak? I changed my mind!
Dubya gives us more sun! (Score:2)
Action - Reaction (Score:2)
Re:Sunspots (Score:4)
There is a lot of evidence that the solar cycle has an effect on the atmosphere and climate. Saying things like cosmic rays "cool the Earth" or that a lack of them "acts as insulation" is stating the fanciful and the unproved. The link between solar activity and climate is not a new idea, and there is a lot of work already done on more concrete mechanisms. For example, the solar UV radiation (which varies considerably with the solar cycle) effects levels of ozone in the stratosphere.
People in the field are well aware of the effect of the solar cycle and suggesting that their ignorance of this fact has lead to, "predictions about global warming due to the Greenhouse Effect [possibly being] greatly exaggerated" is wrong. The effect may have been overestimated, but not because the academics forgot about solar activity.
It should be remembered that this paper is about increases in green-house gasses. It doesn't attempt to say they have seen an increase in the Earth's temperatrure.
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)
Re:Ice age looming (Score:3)
Re:Too much theories?? (Score:4)
However several rather frightening changes have been seen in the temperature and saltiness (haline) of various important currents off the northern coast of Scandanavia . One apocalyptic scenario is indeed for the Gulf Stream to shutdown, which would ****up western Europe nicely.
However this is a *local* effect in the context of the global climate. The whole system is *extremely* complex (chaotic, even) and hard to model or predict. Broad, long-period predictions are easier to make than short term ones - we can model nice equilibrium states, but it's highly likely that in the short term (a few hundred years) that the entire planet will see wild fluctuations in precipitation, temperature, sea levels, yadda yadda.
Ob links:
Note to the inevitable sceptics: if you accept (say) evolution, Relativity, Quantum mechanics (random eexamples) as being very very very likely to be true, then at least read the damn docs, look at the scientists who are putting their reps on the line on this, and consider whether it's more likely that we *are* affecting the global climate in unpredictable ways, or that vested interests are funding astroturf movements to try to convince American voters that it's all a commie plot...
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
The President? (Score:2)
This man was elected as *president* of the USA? Exactly what criteria were applied to his worthiness?
This man is supposed to act for the good of the nation - either he is deliberately flouting this notion, is too stupid to realise that pollution is one of the greatest crises to face mankind, or he believes that price = cost (it does not).
God help us all, if the 'most advanced' nation on earth managed to elect this imbecile to wield more power than any man in history.
-------------- Russ
Conscience? Is that *still* in the dictionary?
Re:Global warming/cooling... (Score:2)
Our "quality of life" is such an illusion. Having the "right" to drive your car everywhere does not make your life better, it makes you lazy, it isolates you from your surrondings, caging you into a small box, it encourages urban sprawl which reduces farmland space and forest space, and it makes our cities stink.
We only think that cars make our lives better because we see so many car commercials on televion. Advertising wouldn't be a 1/6 of the economy if it didn't have at least some results.
Our doctrine that there must be economic growth for there to be prosperity is ridiculous. The earth has finite resources, and we're already seeing the results of this (not just with pollution and resource depletion, but also the horrible gap between the haves and the have-nots.)
What we need is a sustainable economy. Because what we're doing cannot be done indefinetly, and because of that our economy is going to collapse whether we like it or not. It's time to stop draining the capital and instead living off of the interest, to use a financial analogy.
The ecological deficit we are setting ourselves up for is enormous. That's what my signature means with "Live simply so that others may simply live." Stop polluting and start walking, riding a bike or taking the bus everywhere you go. You'll get much more exercise, it's much less stressful, you can let your mind drift and relax, knowing that you're doing what is right.
Regulations alone won't fix our environment problem, we need a change in our consumer culture, where economic self interest is the the faith, and growth (which is another way of saying resource depletion, or unfair distribution of finite resources) is the measurement for whether or not we're doing ok.
Look seriously into your lives and try to discover the ways that you can cut down on waste, practical things like always recycling, using reusable containers instead of plastic bags, never use anything disposable at all, always turn the lights off, consider eating more vegetables and doing research on which foods (or any product for that matter) cause the least stress on the ecosystem.
Do it a little bit at a time, but don't take forever either. The simple lifestyle is not necessarily the amish lifestyle, or a demoted one in anyway at all. Sell your car and see how much money you have for other things that really do matter. Ever wonder how many hours you've worked just to pay for that one damned thing anyways?
If you care at all for the future of your children, or anybody else's, or you want to think of yourself as someone who honestly isn't a selfish consuming hog oblivious to the effects of your gluttony, then these are things you should seriously consider. And reject the idea that an end to pollution leads to a lesser quality of life! It's the other way around!
Re:Action - Reaction (Score:2)
now you're missing the difference between ozone layer and greenhouse effect.
Correct, but there's relationship the other way. An ozone hole lets more short wave UV in, which leads to more long wave IR getting trapped by the blanket.
That aside, we should legislate against those damn New World Order stooges, volcanoes. Put a punitive tax on unlicensed eruptions. Yeah, that'll show the gas and dust spewing commie sympathising bastards.
Global heating = Global cooling (Score:5)
How? Well the increased heating causes melting of the polar caps and increased rain fall, partickularly in the critical area of the Atlantic south of Iceland where the Gulf current heavy with warm salty water sinks to form a current that flows along the ocean floor into the Indian ocean where the current rises to the surface again. This system is called the "Great Conveyor" due to its similarity to a conveyor belt in a factory.
So why should we care about increased rainfall in the ocean around Iceland and holes melting into the N-polar ice cap.?
The reason we should care is that if the salty water in this area is dilluted the "Great Conveyor" will be cut. This means that the critical area where the Gulf current sinks moves south or the conveyor is cut alltogether.
What is the result of this development?
The Gulf current and its warm water is what makes large tracts of Europe and N-America habitable. So if the gulf current moves south we get a nasty cold period, a mini Ice age. If the Conveyor is cut we get a full blown ice age.
Contrary to popular opinion climatic changes do not happen sloooooowly they happen fast. We could see a the climate in say S-England change from what it is now to a type of climate that is common in N-Norway today within a human life time. This exact thing has happened before, the last time it happened was about 10.500 years ago when climatic conditions in S-England changed within 50-60 years to sub arctic conditions and remained htat way for over a thousand years.
Popular myths:
Climate changes happen slowly over hundreds of years! Wrong it changes fast and the changes are ill-predicteble.
The Global warming will cancel out the ice age! Wrong it causes the ice age.
I live far from the ocean and way south I should not worry! Wrong you should. All human kind should worry. A drop in temerature will cuse massive political an social upheval, crop faliures, famine and war.
The pollution quota system proposed by the US will help with the climate problem! Wrong selling liscences to pollute and produce greenhouse gasses won't help. Only an over all reduction of greenhouse gasses will help. Nature does not care about Pollurtion liscenses any more than God respects absoulution certificates signed by the pope, you'll go to hell anyway! ;)
So either we stuff a sock in the business lobbys mouth and make some relatively elementary changes to make energy consumption more efficient and industury and society more enviromentally friendly. Or we might be in for a long period of living in iglu's. And since I have been in an iglu I can tell you that you'll prefer to spend your lives in your cozy apartments.
Re:Still Inconclusive that man effects the ecosyst (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:3)
Let's take an example. We know that global warming is going to effect Europe especially hard if it happens. Nobody knows quite what the effect will be, but one thing experts do seem to agree on is that the Gulf Stream, which provides around 30% of the heat energy to Northern Europe, will be moved by a change in temperatures and a change in the structure and mass of the polar icecaps. It seems more likely than not that the effect would be negative, the stream diverted so that it misses Europe altogether. This would make London as cold as the parts of Canada and Russia, including Moscow, it's lined up with.
How would Britain, and the rest of Europe, send a message to a hypothetical environmentally-clueless President of a country responsible for a massively disproportional share of carbon dioxide production that, for the sake of argument, announced that the greenhouse effect wasn't on his agenda and that he'd make no attempts to cut output? I guess the only way would be to manufacture an "environmental catastrophy" that would effect that country.
Example: Take the eating habits of the country with the environmentally clueless president. It might be a country that eats a lot of beef and regards it almost as its cultural diet, for instance. Suppose an outbreak of some disease were to be engineered within Europe, some disease... that most effects cows? The announcement that the disease exists could occur a few days after the outbreak, after the disease has had time to incubate and be exported to neighbouring countries. There'd be no questions raised about this - no disease is ever detected straight away, so it would appear innocent. The disease ridden cows could initially appear to be a problem in one country, and then after a fortnight or so, guaranteeing that some of the tainted product is exported to the targetted country, it could then be revealed that it had made its way over a border.
The targetted country would choose then to ban the product. But it would be too late! The disease would spread across the targetted country, and ordinary citizens would panic, their most prominant and visible foodstuff the subject of a major environmental catastrophy!
Meanwhile, during all of this fuss, as the President of the pollutor is announcing his policy on carbon dioxide emissions, the countries most likely to be effected can prod the science community to release documents showing how strong the evidence is for global warming.
Could it happen?
Naah. Europe wouldn't have the bulls. I mean balls. Oops. Put my foot in my mouth there!
(Note to moderators, readers, etc: This is humour, albiet with a serious message)
--
Keep attacking good things as "communist"
Re:Still Inconclusive that man effects the ecosyst (Score:2)
Re:Global heating = Global cooling (Score:2)