Humans are Causing Global Warming 1342
Big_Al_B writes "A Times Online article discusses a new study comparing 7 million real world datapoints with several computer models of global warming. Each model had a possible cause associated with it." From the article: "It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. "
An idea (Score:3, Interesting)
i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
iii) How a western boundary current is formed
iv) What Meddies are.
v) What a pycnocline is.
If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion.
Kyoto is only a start (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny when you read the articles arguing against Kyoto, though: they always end with "Kyoto is fatally flawed, and it'll cost too much to cut CO2, so we should wait to do it." Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years, just as we're realizing oil is getting more expensive and having to switch back to coal?
The funny thing about all of this is that Canada stands to make out really well. Our four-month growing season will probably become more like the American midwest's 6 -8 months, and our boreal forest ecosystem will shift to a St.Lawrence-Deciduous style forest, which is much more habitable for humans. Also we have a ton of oil here.
Of course, there's the problem of Prince Edward Island probably being under water by then. And oh yes, countries like Bangladesh or the Maldives which will be entirely under water if Antartica (i.e. Ross Ice Shelf) starts to melt. My view is that the best thing to do as an individual is a) bike to work (which I intend to do for the first time this summer), b) keep your house colder than you normally would, and c) evangelize energy efficiency. I don't really see that I can do anymore (aside from reading everything I can) as an just one person with no government connections.
Not millions, but here is 400,000 years worth (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html
Re:Do people in the US... (Score:3, Interesting)
It has nothing to do with what the people believe; it's what the government does.
If the current administration refuses to change their position on the matter; there's almost nothing the people can do about it for another 4 years.
I've accepted it as fact, and I doubt I'm alone on that...
I think the question I have is: "Do people outside the US realize that the US Gov't is not necessarily representative of the consensus of its people?"
Re:And... (Score:2, Interesting)
It excludes China and India from any kind of emissions controls. China consumes more material than the U.S., exclusive of oil. They burn 40% more coal without scrubbers. How many times has Slashdot linked to articles about the toxic stuff coming out of the electronics disassembly operations in China?
Europe already exceeds its allocated emissions. Oops. Guess they should stop driving and making electricity, huh?
Take a real look at where pollution actually comes from. Parroting watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) propaganda is very irresponsible.
Don't hold your breath or waste time hoping the U.S. will have anything to do with the Kyoto thing.
Bush's CEO friends don't want restrictions (Score:1, Interesting)
George W Bush: Making CEOs more wealthy every day.(TM)
Re:Flame Away! (Score:5, Interesting)
The phrase "caused by humans" is dangerous to use in this topic. It implies that global warming is directly caused by humans. However, many scientists believe that global warming is indirectly caused by humans. For instance, we eat a lof beef, so we raise a lot of cows. The cows fart and burp a lot - creating greenhouse gasses. Then we get global warming.
Sounds like we're screwed. (Score:2, Interesting)
How long until the warming trend corrects itself? If this has been building for decades, and it seems reasonable that it has been at least since the industrial revolution, then I think there is a sort of catastrophic momentum in play that we can't stop. Assuming that this study is on the mark, nothing we can do at this point is going to save us from decades of negative effects. Things like Kyoto or even more drastic measures might slow things a bit, but it's still going to get worse and I can't see how we'll be able to reverse the trend short of some scientific silver bullet.
Even if this idea of 'catastophic momentum' is true, I suppose it may be hyperbole on my part to say we're screwed. We'll probably adapt and survive as a species (although many species won't), but it will be a new world.
Re:An idea (Score:1, Interesting)
Scientists should be more careful when making technical terms.
If "deep water" were instead written as "deep-water" or "Deep Water", it would be much easier for nonclimatologists such as myself to parse your request correctly.
Also.. I think one should be careful about appeals to scientific authority. When arguing matters of public policy, it is easy to inadvertently end up sounding like:
"There are important reasons why we must take action 'X'. You should believe me because I'm a scientist. But I can't explain it to you, because you're not a scientist."
And even in this case, when you're talking not about policy but a purely scientific matter, it still tends to be bad PR for similar reasons. Practice explaining yourself in simple terms.
However... (Score:2, Interesting)
Somehow I don't think dolphins released tons of CFCs or added an extra protective layer of polutants to the atmosphere.
Yep, pretty sure we screwed it all up...
Re:Do people in the US... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.gravito.com/globalwarming [gravito.com]
The above website is my own.
Re:Every day... (Score:3, Interesting)
Next question, How much study has there been over whether or not the warming will actually cause harm? Not from an "All warming is bad standpoint" but from a "this are is getting warmer, lets figure out what will happen" point.
Why CNN shows 85% belie climate change is man-made (Score:3, Interesting)
Even in the US, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change has been caused by man.
And even the big European oil companies are coming around to that view.
Re:Flame Away! (Score:1, Interesting)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography Link (Score:1, Interesting)
Straight from the horses mouth.
Ice Before Christ (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a friend who worked as support staff at McMurdo Station in Antarctica, and he said the scientific staff had an "Ice Before Christ" party, where they used ice from some core samples that were dated to several thousand years ago to make margaritas and use in their cocktails and such. Kinda neat, if a little silly.
Re:Indeed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Archaean and Proterozoic fossils are billions (with a B) of years old.
Archaean [google.com] & Proterozoic [google.com] fossils on Google.
Re:Indeed... (Score:2, Interesting)
So basically it evolved liked this:
1. 1970's... Here comes an ice age!
2. 1980's... No ice, in fact the problem is the ozone hole and global warming!
3. 1990's... Well, satellites don't really seem to be showing any significant warming, but check out these massaged surface records from lots of stations in urban heat islands of varying quality over the last 100 years.
4. 2000's... Well, the temperature doesn't seem to be rising that much, but that's because global warming might actually cause regional cooling. If temperatures seem warmer, that's global warming. If temperatures seem cooler, that's regional cooling. And if storms are more or less and intense than they used to be, that's even more proof. Droughts are now because of global warming when they used to just be droughts.
5. 2004... Watch out, the ocean conveyor belt is going to shut down and Europe is going to get cold. Oh, and check out this cool movie, Day after Tomorrow (audience snickers).
6. 2005... Ok, so stop looking at the atmosphere for evidence of global warming. The ocean is the proof now. And that cinches it.
Could this be any more silly? Next they're going to point to a 5 degree rise in average temperature on the moon as evidence of global warming because of atmospheric expansion which is going to cause 10 molecules of our atmosphere to hit the moon every year instead of the 5, currently.
But the most ridiculous thing of this article is their absolute conclusion that humans are to blame, that there's no other explanation because the models they wrote say so. Arrogant pricks.
Re:Flame Away! (Score:3, Interesting)
On the safety side, minivans have about the same ride height as a car. What that means is when I get broadsided by a minivan, the front end of the minivan isn't directly in line with the weakest part of my compact sedan, the window. So instead of dying, I get to sue the driver for negligent driving! After all, it's the American Way!
Finally, there's nothing "macho" or "tough" about driving a minivan. I've noticed that some of the most aggressive drivers on the road are SUV drivers, even though their vehicles are ill-equipped for quick acceleration and braking.
More Nukes Less Kooks (Score:2, Interesting)
I am not sure that they have GLOBAL effects, but the local effects are bad enough that
I don't want them up wind of me.
Solar/Wind are small potatoes.
We need nuclear power. Pebble beds are wasteful.
They should be ultra clean, breeder reacters that minimize the waste.
Minimize the amount of fuel needed,
minimize the spent product to send to AZ.
Be Efficient, not stupid or superstitious.
More Nukes LESS Kooks!
Re:And... (Score:2, Interesting)
(This is ripped off from a certain well-known British professor, but I'm not posting a link to save the poor guy's site from a Slashdotting)
(a) Japan: this is the only international treaty named after a Japanese city. You would thus think that Japan might wish to be seen to be leading the way. You would be lamentably wrong. The reality?
* Japan's Kyoto target: a 6% cut in CO2 emissions on 1990-levels by 2008-12;
* Japan's performance to date: CO2 emissions have risen by 8% on 1990-levels (and some authorities put this even higher at 12.1%).
(b) But what about the ever-moralistic and tub-thumping Europe? Complete embarrassment all round:
* Portugal is projected to be emitting a staggering 53.1% more CO2 on 1990-levels by 2010;
* Spain is projected to be emitting a massive 48.3% more CO2 on 1990-levels by 2010;
* Greece is projected to be emitting an Olympian 38.6% more CO2 on 1990-levels by 2010;
* Ireland is projected to be emitting an enormous 29.4% more CO2 on 1990-levels by 2010.....
* And so on, and so on, with even Germany, despite being rewarded with large carbon credits for taking on the former East Germany, failing.
* And, as for the ever self-righteous UK - Margaret Beckett, seemingly with Mr. Blair's full support, has just requested the EU to permit an increase in carbon dioxide allowances by 2.7% above the initial emissions-trading plan submitted last July.
(c) But what of 'ever-so-Green' Canada? Its emissions have risen by a whopping 20% on 1990-levels and it has proved impossible to devise any coherent Kyoto policies. Maple 'fig leaves' all round - just ask Alberta what it thinks of Kyoto.
(d) Then, who isn't in Kyoto, or who has no targets at all? Australia and the US (how very sensible of them), not to mention the new players on the world economic stage, above all China (now the second biggest user of energy in the world), India, and Brazil;
(e) Finally, emissions trading: it is at last dawning on the naif faithful that this spawn of Kyoto will actually increase overall CO2 emissions.
Re:Indeed... (Score:1, Interesting)
>>not all Christians believe the Creation theory exactly as written. I am a
>>Christian, I believe Creation theory is fine. I also believe evolution is fine.
>>Why? Because evolution was simply given the occasional prod in the right
>>direction by an entity, lets call it God.
I've always wondered about this. Christians are wont to say that "this universe has physical constants which are fine-tuned for the formation of life, therefore God exists." But then they say "no way could life have formed in this universe, God must have intervened, therefore God exists".
I liken it to an archer who is so good, he can hit a target from a mile away [God created a universe with physical constants ensuring life would form] vs. a mediocre archer, who can shoot in the general direction of a target and *might* hit it, but has to "prod" his arrow's trajectory the entire way to compensate for mistakes in his initial shot [God created a universe with physical constants in which life *might* form, but had to "prod" it regularly to compensate for mistakes in his initial creation].
Which sounds like te more impressive God? Which sounds like a description of a "perfect" creation? And why do you choose to believe in the latter?
Re:Not millions, but here is 400,000 years worth (Score:4, Interesting)
But, unless you believe that man's activities on Earth influence the behavior of the Sun, then the following URL should prove interesting:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/su
It shows a direct correlation between solar activity and global temperatures.
"Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is becoming more well documented and seems to be accepted by many scientists and people now as fact. Generally, this warming is attributed to the increase of green-house gases in the Earth's upper atmosphere.
Some solar scientists are considering whether some part of global warming may be caused, by a periodic but small increase in the Sun's energy output. An increase of just 0.2% in the solar output could have the same affect as doubling the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.
What is the Problem?
What is the evidence for global warming? Certainly, there are considerably more green-house gases (e.g. carbon dioxide) in our atmosphere than in previous times. And there appears to be some evidence that global temperatures are rising. But, how accurate and correct are our global warming statistics? And, do we really know what role, if any, the Sun might play in any global warming patterns?
These issues are currently being debated, and may significantly affect you for the rest of your life. Would you like to do some research to find out more about global warming?
We suggest here some research topics and places to begin looking for information. But these are all controversial issues, and there are no definitive answers (yet). As an informed, and voting, citizen of the next millenium, you will need to keep listening, looking, and being alert to new research and evidence.
The following are key questions in your research on global warming:
* What is global warming?
* What is the evidence that global warming exists? How reliable and accurate is this evidence?
* What are the projected effects of global warming? How many of these projections have, in fact, been realized?
* What is the evidence that global warming might be caused by greenhouse gases?
* What is the evidence that global climate change might also be affected by solar variation?
* What can or should be done about global warming, at least that portion caused by pollutants and emissions?
* What can or should be done if there is also global climate change being caused by solar variability? "
Re:i disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
The computer model is based on certain variables, and upon receiving live data, attempts to calculate the consequences of the incoming data. This is based on rules of thumb (sort of), which are not always valid.
However, climate predictions are based on statistical methods. This is the key difference. Climate studies assume that if certain factors or parameters persist, trends will continue.
Weather and climate, as well as studies and predictions of the two, are not inherently related. Simply put, the variations in the atmosphere are more random in a shorter timeframe.
Re:Indeed... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, evolution is always going to be a theory. It can never, ever be proved as absolute fact (barring time travel). We can't got back 200 million years, check a couple of animals/plants, and skip forward every couple of million years to verify evolution. The only resort is to craft a theory that matches the evidence.
"Because evolution was simply given the occasional prod in the right direction by an entity, lets call it God." Not that it means anything to you, but you've earned a couple of knotches of respect from me for that statement. Its much easier to have a rational conversation with a person who is willing to adapt their views, rather than hold steadfast to them in light of serious evidence.
For what its worth, I wouldn't call myself a Christain. I do believe in a higher power, I'm just not sure the Christain God-paradigm is believeable.
With that said, the universe is a very complex balance. Take water, for instance. Its one of the only substances that its solid form floats in its liquid form. Without that fact, oceans would have never melted, rendering life (as we know it) un-attainable.
I'm willing to believe in a figure who occasionally nudges things in the right direction, than I am to believe of a omnipotent father-figure...
Re:And... (Score:3, Interesting)
one [wri.org] (This map was created based on U.S. Department of Energy data).
two [ucsusa.org] quick summary of this link (sorry about formatting):
three. Is that enough? This stuff is available from many many sources, try google. [google.com]
Please, do at least some minimal amount of research before you embarrass yourself.
Re:Thank goodness, the treaty is TRASH! (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, CO2 is pinpointed as the sole contributor in Kyoto to an increase in world temperature. They erroneously negate the impact that water vapor has on the environment, and more importantly, ignore the solar flare theories which are far more accurate than any climate model to date.
Second, the US is #1 in CO2 production. It will be an Annex I country under the Kyoto protocol, bound to all restrictions and forced to purchase pollution from other countries. China will not be requried to do anything as a "developing" country. China is #2 in CO2 production.
You see, the difference between your average
Re:No facts here (Score:2, Interesting)
or maybe they didn't, and the anti-climate-change astroturf operation is in full force, in turn ignoring McIntyre and McKitrick's statistical errors -- like not understanding the difference between degrees and radians [unsw.edu.au].
I'll stick with the real scientists, thanks.
Re:Man.. (Score:2, Interesting)
No, not at all. I am very conservative, and I try to drive as little as possible, plant as many plants as I can every year, try to keep my power and heating bills as low as possible, and recycle everything I can possibly recycle.
One of the things that left wing radicals fail to realize is that it makes a lot of economic sense to conserve. For example, recycled raw materials are FAR cheaper to obtain than new raw materials. Also, by driving less, I save more money. The only time I ever use my car is when it is wet or snowy out. Otherwise, I ride my bike. I also burn as little heating oil as possible in the winter, mostly because it's fscking expensive but also for environmental reasons.
What most conservatives don't agree with is the more prominent left-wing notion that we have to sacrifice quality of life in the name of the environment. This notion is also somewhat hypocritical. After all, ask a liberal to give up his/her iPod and see how far you get. Do you know how much energy, water, and other natural resources are consumed just to make one iPod?
The problem is that the left has latched onto fossil fuels as the cause of global warming when there are a plethora of other theories that are just as plausible. Have you any idea how much CO2 is emitted by 6 Billion breathing humans every year? That amount is far greater than the amount that has been emitted by all the oil that has been burned in the last 100 years.
How about Methane? Methane is another greenhouse gas and literally millions of tons of it are released into the atmosphere every year by cows and chickens - not to mention swamps and other naturally occuring methane generators. When you add it all up, fossil fuels don't seem to be as likely a culprit as the natural ebb and flow of the Earth's ecosystem.
12000 years ago, Washington DC was under 300 feet of ice. There is also evidence that Greenland was once covered in tropical plants.
The simple fact is that we can't possibly know that we are contributing in a significant way to "global warming." There is a nonzero likelihood that this is just another swing of the Earth's pendulum and until we know for sure, we don't want to throw the entire GDP at "fixing" it.
Re:Indeed... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Indeed... (Score:4, Interesting)
While there is a model in which carbon dioxide can lead to global warming, there are also several models in which global warming leads to increases in carbon dioxide levels.
1) Permafrosts thaw, allowing the built up organic matter (of which there is quite a lot of under tundra) to decay rapidly, releasing CO2 and CH4.
2) Increasing the temperature of water will decrease the solubility of gasses in that water, therefore increasing the temperature of the oceans will decrease the solubility of carbon dioxide in them, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
While this sounds like I am saying not to worry about CO2 emissions, it does bring about a third possibility: Both models are right. 1)Greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere by humans causes global warming. 2)Global warming releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, leading to... more global warming. Uh oh... we found a potential positive feedback loop in which crossing a certain threshold of greenhouse gas emissions will push us past the point of no return.
Then I like to go along with the idea that messing with something you don't know about ends up with that thing broken. What happens if that thing is essential to your life???
Re:i agree (Score:2, Interesting)
I doubt it would be the end of the world. Reducing green house gas over the course of 50 years would involve many technological innovations. You can't just look at technology today and say we can't do it. Currently we don't have enough incentives to do the research and clean up the problem. By creating an economic incentive for people to reduce green house gas, the technology will be developed. Just as Malthus was wrong about over population, technology can help us lower green house gases. (Think nuclear power, algae based oils...) Otherwise we can continue destroying the commons until we create a real economic disaster that will be much harder to reverse.
Personally from what I've read and heard (which is limited) I think the expected damage from ignoring green house gas emissions is much greater than putting together a solid program of incentives to reduce emissions. Of course, this would shake up the world economy and some vested interests would lose money, but so be it. This only gives me further reason to doubt the do nothing policy. Various rich people don't want to lose their empires and will spin things by spending money to keep things the same.
Re:Flame Away! (Score:3, Interesting)
I never advocated Kyoto. In fact, it turns out that the same greens who push Kyoto so stongly also are working hard to eliminate any reasonably possible means of meeting the targets due to their opposition to nuclear power, just as you said.
The US spends (back of envelope calculation) something on the order of a 500 billion to a trillion dollars on energy per year. Of that, roughly 40%, or 200-400 billion is electricity. Once again, this is a rough extrapolation. We are willing to spend more than $100 billion per year in order to wage war in Iraq on the basis of evidence known to be faulty, you think we can't spend $100 billion per year to convert all our coal and gas plants to nuclear?
That alone would (roughly) cut our CO2 emissions in half. That seems a no brainer to me. Spend 1% of our GDP (which is about 10 trillion per year) in order to greatly reduce the pollution we cause to the planet. This would also have the effect of saving 30,000 lives (roughly) per year, as that's about how many people are killed by coal related air pollution each year. In addition, last year, Nuclear power was actually cheaper than coal, and only held back by NIMBYISM, even without considering the medical bills caused by coal. Upholding a CO2 lowering treaty, if done intelligently might actually save money.
The same goes for cars. Forcing more extensive biodiesel and TDP use, together with more efficient cars would probably save money. This would partially be because even if it costs more, the money would be spent within the country, rather than leaving our economy altogether and going to the middle east.
I would be more inclined to believe what you say if there was any real reason to believe that substantial CO2 reductions would cost much (more than 1% of GDP), or even anything at all. The evidence I've seen however indicates that even discounting global warming related problems, it might actually save us money to reduce CO2 emissions.
This has very little to do with Kyoto though, as we both know Kyoto is like a bandaid on the arm to treat a headwound.
lacking intelligence? (Score:3, Interesting)
The facts are that evolution remains unproven, but is the best materialistic explanation that naturalists propose. This is the case with all of science. Hypothesis gives way to testing, and if the phenomenon are observable and repeatable, it gives credence to the hypothesis.
This is rational and reasonable. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe based on your last post that we are in violent agreement on this issue.
An ordered universe presents itself in a way that ordered examination prevails in exposing and describing natural phenomena. It makes sense to me that everything that exists had a creator, and that a designer is a good explanation for the order and precision in the universe.
Also, naturalism as a world view fails when it comes to describing anything nonmaterial. What is the purpose of life? What gives life meaning? If materialism is true, then why shouldn't you kill anyone who opposes you? If genetic mutation is the pathway to improvements in the progression of living things, why not bombard all living things with radiation in an effort to speed evolution along?
What about those things that are not naturally explainable or describable? For example, love, duty, honor, passion, fear, and self-sacrifice are experiences common to all people, and yet completely nonmaterial. How does one with a naturalistic worldview fit those components together?
Again I ask, what if Christianity is true?