Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Good News on Global Warming 128

Posted by michael from the fewer-cow-farts dept.
TheSync writes "OK, CO2 levels are rising, but iAfrica has a report that atmospheric methane concentrations are leveling off. Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas, accounting for one fifth of total warming. Researchers don't know why this is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Good News on Global Warming More

Good News on Global Warming

Comments Filter:

  • CoboyNeal stopped farting? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @09:50AM (#7627677)
    'nuff said.

  • Inverse Time Capsule (Score:5, Funny)

    by Midnight Warrior ( 32619 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @10:26AM (#7628100) Homepage

    Time Capsule From the Future Appears

    WASHINGTON - A time capsule appeared today in an astonishing moment directly on the front steps of a federal court house here in the D.C. area. When authorities opened the capsule, a three items were neatly bundled together: a printout of an article from iAfrica.com published in late 2003, a paper describing a scientific study performed an astonishing 50 years from now, and a memo addressed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The memo requests that the Supreme Court re-open environmental laws that attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions around the world. The memo goes on to cite the attached scientific paper which says that eliminating the greenhouse effect caused the earth's atmosphere to thinned out so much that space debris now [50 years from now] reigns down around the planet almost constantly. The memo states that the thinning out of the atmosphere was due to a connection between greenhouse gases and the density of the atmosphere at its highest levels.

    A brief review of the scientific paper shows that scientists knew of the connection early on, but environmentallist groups penetrated the scientific study panels and had the notion dismissed as a feeble attempt to thwart progress. Later history showed environmentallist groups stating that they did not knowingly hide such connections, but that were aware that some individual may have done so, and in any case, such action should not place the blame for the failures on their organizations.

    Similar capsules appeared in other locations around the world, but mass riots suddenly appeared and the capsules were destroyed before their contents could be examined.

    • This would have been funny if the memo mentioned the next ice age instead of atmosphere thinning which somehow has changed gravity to cause orbital debris to fall, but somehow people still can breath.
  • Researchers don't know why this is.

    Seems to me they don't understand much about the whole thing, really. We keep hering about global warming, yet the winters here have been colder and colder. And that's not counting the surge of floods lately in Europe.

    • The world is a very complex, and large thing. It's no wonder they don't understand it all yet. Hell, we don't have a clue about the oceans yet either.

    • That's because global warming is junk science.

      Is it happening? We don't know for sure.

      Should it be happening? Maybe.

      Was it even warmer last millenium? Could be.

      If there is global climate change, is it our fault? Perhaps.

      So what should be done? Throttle all industrial production for first-world nations, and leave third-world nations exempt.

      Riiiiiiight...makes sense to me.

      • Re:Not yet understood (Score:4, Informative)

        by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @11:01AM (#7628462)
        You are absolutely correct. Global warming has been turned into a big deal because scientists & universities hotly compete for government grants.

        In the 1600's, Dutch settlers regularly walked or travelled by sled from Manhattan to Brooklyn. During particularly cold winters, one could walk to Staten Island.

        The Hudson & East Rivers have not frozen since the early 1800's... I suppose you cannot blame global warming from 400 years ago on SUVs...

      • Re:Not yet understood (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Tiassa ( 632878 )

        So what should be done? Throttle all industrial production for first-world nations, and leave third-world nations exempt.

        Riiiiiiight...makes sense to me.

        You, sir, are a troll. Last I heard, the emphasis was on reducing CO2, not production. Just because most industries today blow tons of CO2 into the atmosphere does not mean that they have to: there are ways to reduce CO2-output without hurting production.

        You sound a bit like an automobile tycoon in the 70s saying: "There's no proof that exhaust emi

        • I was refering mainly to the kyoto accord, which is about reducing many different types of emissions, not just CO2. Dramatic decreases in emissions will most certainly have to be accomplished by decreased production. Retooling may now be an option, as Bush has relaxed some of the constraints on emission standards, the permit producers to make their plants more effecient, but may result in increased capacity for emissions. However, "environmentalists" and the media lambast Bush for this not because they c

          • Dramatic decreases in emissions will most certainly have to be accomplished by decreased production. Retooling may now be an option, as Bush has relaxed some of the constraints on emission standards, the permit producers to make their plants more effecient, but may result in increased capacity for emissions. However, "environmentalists" and the media lambast Bush for this not because they care about the environment, but because they have an anti-capitalist agenda.

            You're looking at (the text of) an enviro

          • I apologize if I initially pegged you as one of the unthinking "Environment Protection == Return to Stone Age" types that I occasionally have to deal with. You seem to have read a bit on the matter. Still:
            Ever read Factor 4, or anything by the Lovins? They show, with tons of examples, a way to raise overall productivity or wealth while reducing the impact on the environment. That includes stuff like CO2-output.

            WRT my car tycoon: There were people that did argue against a connection between smog and exhau
            • Sorry about the gender confusion :)

              The problem for me is insufficient evidence, which was the gist of my original post. Obviously, my opinion contradicts that of the /. intelligentsia, so it must be "flamebait." Anyway, respected scientists disagree strongly about whether climate change is happening, whether it's good or bad, whether it's our fault or not, and what the outcome will be. The left's proscribed remedy is a massive change in our production capacities and output, with far-reaching implication
              • Fine, but the question is:
                Can we afford to wait until we know that, yes indeed, the climate did change, and yes, it was due to hot house gases?
                Can we? I say the risk is not worth the gain.

      • So what should be done? Throttle all industrial production for first-world nations, and leave third-world nations exempt.
        Riiiiiiight...makes sense to me.

        Since you admit that we aren't sure what the exact causes of climate change are and what the consequences are of our reformulation of the atmosphere then you might want to consider the idea of putting a halt to our experimentation on it.

        "Hmmm. I wonder what happens if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?" "Shhhhhh! We really don't want to
        • "Hmmm. I wonder what happens if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?" "Shhhhhh! We really don't want to know the answer to that. It might hurt business."

          Actually, if you read some of the studies done on this subject, its been found that plants tend to grow bigger and be more resistant to stress when CO2 is incresed. Most likely, if the CO2 levels continue to rise, we will see an increse in vegitation, which will work to strip CO2 back out of the atmosphere. Like most changes on Earth, thing

          • Actually, if you read some of the studies done on this subject, its been found that plants tend to grow bigger and be more resistant to stress when CO2 is incresed. Most likely, if the CO2 levels continue to rise, we will see an increse in vegitation, which will work to strip CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

            Maybe-- but we don't know that, do we? Isn't that what atmospheric-change proponents keep saying? The science isn't exact so you can't claim that as a benefit. Don't be a hypocrite.

            Like most cha

    • Re:Not yet understood (Score:4, Informative)

      by fuzzybunny ( 112938 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @11:26AM (#7628701) Homepage Journal

      Quite probable that there's a lack of understanding.

      However, here (Switzerland) we've noticed a _massive_ recession of glaciers over the last 50 years. Like as in >100 meters for a few. Several inhabited areas are pretty seriously threatened, because the build-up of melted glacier water is being held back by the masses of rocks and other crap that glaciers tend to accumulate; a lot of geologists think that there's a pretty heavy danger of huge rockslides when water pressure exceeds the buildup's ability to hold it back. We've had several of these in recent years.

      There have also been a number of rock avalances in the alps, when the ice that's been holding large chunks of stuff in place for centuries has melted.

      Personally, I tend to believe panicky reports that a lot of lower-lying ski resorts won't have snow by 2030; I've noticed a pretty constant reduction in snow each year since as far back as I can recall (~1980) and that's only about 20 years.

      Maybe it's not understood, but _something_ is happening, and it's not all those cows farting.
      • Wellllll, we are at the end of a mini-iceage. Things are naturally warming up.

        The data analysis is varied (depends on who you read); but, if you read some of the historical evidence (which is often anecdotal, I admit) you'll see that about 800 years ago, there were successful vinyards in England. They were growing grapes. This implies hotter & dryer weather than they have even now... Then it got cold. Really, really cold. That was around the 1500-1600 time frame. Now it's warm(er) again...

        Ov

        • You can't properly understand a lie (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Spamalamadingdong ( 323207 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @01:12PM (#7629867) Homepage Journal
          We know (we've seen) that large volcanic eruptions can cause the global temperature to drop several degrees.
          True, but this is due to ash and sulfate particulates which screen out sunlight. These fall out of the atmosphere over a period of months.
          We also know a single volcano can spew out more CO2 during an eruption than all of industry for the past 200 years.
          This statement is not just false, it is a damned lie. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has been measured on a frequent basis for decades. It shows almost no correlation with volcanic activity, but has a seasonal swing on top of an exponential upward curve which is all but certainly from human activity.

          Historic volcanic eruptions can't even compete with human emissions of sulfur dioxide. That's how important we are. (If you don't believe me, look at DOE and EPA figures for sulfur emissions vs. recent volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo or El Chicon. If you actually think rather than hold blindly to an ideology, you will find it sobering.)

          My point is: Although we have some data, it's inconclusive.
          And you use this as a reason to continue a vast, uncontrolled experiment with possibly dire consequences. Why?

          An analogy is to claim that you ought to glue yourself into a winter coat because it was cold last month. If it turns out to be hot tomorrow (solar activity continues to increase), the coat (extra greenhouse gases) could kill you from heatstroke. This is the kind of risk we're taking.

          • ahhh, caught talking with my foot in my mouth again (ranting will do that to you...)

            *Removes Foot*

            We do produce around two orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanic activity each year. Damn. That is a sobering number.

            The ash and aerosols from St. Helens and Pinatubo each caused a 2-3 year long 1-2C drop in global temperature. And you use this as a reason to continue a vast, uncontrolled experiment with possibly dire consequences.

            This argument is no stronger than mine, actually. You're proposi

            • Re:You can't properly understand a lie (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward
              >This argument is no stronger than mine, actually. You're proposing that, based on someone's unsubstantiated analysis, we expend Trillions of dollars to make changes that may be unnecessary.

              All experiments are unscientific if you do not have a "control" subject and a "test" subject.

              That you are saying climate change is "unscientific" is ideological spin. Of COURSE it does not withstand normal lab conditions. We don't have another earth to mess with.

              Given that pollution is man-made and has lots of othe

            • Re:You can't properly understand a lie (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Spamalamadingdong ( 323207 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @04:34PM (#7632472) Homepage Journal
              We do produce around two orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanic activity each year. Damn. That is a sobering number.
              Ain't it the truth. The real scandal is that millions of people "know" otherwise, due to false claims in media like talk radio.
              The ash and aerosols from St. Helens and Pinatubo each caused a 2-3 year long 1-2C drop in global temperature.
              This is a nit and I don't have time to research it, but I bet you'll find that while the effects might have been detectable for years, the time for which they were of that magnitude was much shorter.
              You're proposing that, based on someone's unsubstantiated analysis, we expend Trillions of dollars to make changes that may be unnecessary.
              It's not one analysis, it's a whole family of analyses, and even the ones postulating the smallest climactic changes project effects that would turn our world umop apisdn.

              The USA has a $10 trillion economy, we are going to be spending trillions to add to, replace or repair infrastructure and durable goods (cars, appliances) anyway. The issue is that each dollar spent locks in the choices for many years into the future, so we need to spend those dollars wisely starting today. If additional money has to be spent (efficiency doesn't always cost more), it can often be recovered from savings down the line. We could recover far more if factors such as defense are considered (giving money to Arab oil producers leads to their promotion of radical Islam in madrassas, with results we can all recount by now). For one example of what we could do fairly easily, take a look at my other post here [slashdot.org]. I think that doing these things just as insurance is essential.

        • it could be that in 100 years, we'll be in another ice age...
          At highschool I was told that the next ice age was due to start in the next 50 years, around the same time global warming was due to flood the earth.

          What are we to learn today? Geography teachers know sweet foxtrot alpha, especially ones that support Norwich City [canaries.co.uk]

          --
          I had a point but it was slashdotted between here and there

    • So we should just keep blindly changing the composition of our only atmosphere (the one we need to survive) just because we don't know absolutely everything there is to know about the climate? If we don't know everthing about it then the proper response would be to stop messing it up.

    • An un-American point of view (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      >yet the winters here

      You must be an American.

      That's not (intentionally) an insult - allow me to explain. You have to think globally not "where I live". People in America also wonder why most people in the world do not speak English, or why countries fight border wars. It's a result of culture that's used to dominating others, exporting their culture, and simply not having the inter-state history that Europe, Asia and even Africa has had over thousands of years.

      Some places will get colder, and some pla
    • OK, here's the basic rundown:

      The term "Global warming" is a stalking horse that the pro-pollution crowd uses to manipulate the media, and thus public perception.

      When I last heard the man who coined the term speak, about a decade ago, he bemoaned that he'd ever said it. He wishes he'd said "global climate destabilization" instead - but too late now, as witness this thread.

      He says (roughly quoted from memory) "the issue is not temperature per se, it's the decreased albedo of the planet resultant

      • We, that is, human beings and our industry, have vastly increased the amount of unbreathable crap being pumped into our air.

        "Vastly increased"? I think you have, perhaps, slightly, overestimated the contribution human industry makes to the carbon cycle as a whole.

        I'll agree that humans today are producing hundreds or thousands of times more greenhouse gases that they produced in the past. I disagree that this change is signicant.

        Volcanic eruptions can pump more unbreathable crap into the air in a si

        • I'll agree that humans today are producing hundreds or thousands of times more greenhouse gases that they produced in the past.

          Where I come from, we consider quantitative changes of "hundreds or thousands of times more" to be "vast".

          Perhaps your perception of the problem is based on the result you desire - you don't want to give up polluting, so you have decided to listen to those who say the pollution isn't significant?

          I personally am not convinced that humans can do anything that (in the long term)

    • The important thing about global warming isn't an average increase in average temperatures and the melting of the ice caps. Rather, it's the increased availability of energy in the atmosphere causing so-called Super Storms, widespread disruption of historical weather patterns, and eventually a collapse of the large scale convection that been keeping the climate so temperate for the past several thousand years.

      As for your colder winters... as energy is pumped into the jet stream it takes a higher amplitude

    • Recently published, definitive research shows that human workweek activity causes significant temperature variations [sciam.com], so there's no denying that we're an immediate factor in our climate. The 1990s were the hottest decade in history, featuring the majority of history's top 10 hottest years, despite the many cold winters. Other symptoms are droughts, floods, high winds, more/stronger tornadoes, etc. It's obvious that the climate is becoming more chaotic, twistier and less predictable, even if "warming" is onl

  • In an unrelated story... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Abraxis ( 180472 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @11:06AM (#7628515)
    ...stocks in Beano [beano.net] have jumped 225% on reports of record sales last quarter...

    (no, not really)
  • I thought the first/second (depends on who you ask) most important gas for greenhouse purposes was good old H2O water vapour.

    • Re:Methane? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 2marcus ( 704338 )
      Yes, the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor.

      The most important _anthropogenic_ greenhouse gases are (in order) CO2, CH4, N2O, then in lesser amounts HFCs, SF6, PFCs, etc. (And tropospheric O3, but we only indirectly produce that...)

      Of course, the point is that increases of temperature due to the increased radiative forcing due to the increase in CO2 and CH4 will lead to more evaporation and therefore more water vapor in the air. Mmm, positive feedback loops.

      Of course, it is more complicated t
      • Logically one would assume there is *some* pretty strong negative feedback mechanism, since evidently during the last 4 billion years things haven't gotten out of hand very badly (considering that we're here).

        However, I'd much rather *not* find out how much polar ice melting will happen before this negative feedback kicks in, or what kind of impressive weather effects (tornadoes etc) we can produce, or indeed if the mechanism still works or if it's fast enough to deal with speed of human "progress"...

        Also
    • I think, they are talking about greenhouse gases the concentration of which we can influence (directly).

  • Correlation != Causation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wind ( 94988 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @11:36AM (#7628804)
    Researchers don't know why this is.

    Right. And until they have a solid, convincing theory to account for this 'why', then we've only got (at best) a correlation between the two events - this does not necessarily mean there is a causal relationship between them.

    Trouble is, this is such a politicized issue that I doubt we'll ever see any scientific evidence that everyone will consider convincing (for one side or the other).

    • Re:Correlation != Causation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Lars T. ( 470328 ) <{Lars.Traeger} {at} {googlemail.com}> on Thursday December 04, 2003 @11:53AM (#7628973) Journal
      Which two events? There is now less methane in the atmosphere than expected (IOW not more than before). Scientists don't know why. What is the other event?
      • Well, that's what I get for posting before RTFA. Let's see... here's the text from the post again:

        Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas, accounting for one fifth of total warming. Researchers don't know why this is

        Maybe I misunderstood, but my interpretation was that researchers don't know why methane accounts for 1/5 of total warming. Particularly the way this is phrased - "accounts for" is often used to mean that the size of an effect (i.e. total warming") can be partially predicted or e
        • Well, they at least have a guess:

          "Although we can't be certain why methane concentrations have levelled out, we think it is in response to emissions declining due to better management of the exploration and use of fossil fuels and the increasing recovery of landfill methane.

          IOW more and more "waste" methane is used to win energy (and gets transformed into more "harmless" CO2).

    • Re:Correlation != Causation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Red Rocket ( 473003 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:28PM (#7629351)

      Correlation != Causation

      That's a solid scientific principle.

      Another one is that you don't experiment on production systems without some kind of backup. Do you have a backup atmosphere somewhere that we can use if the methane and CO2 we're adding to this one cause it to break? If not, then it's time to put a halt to the experiment.

      • Re:Correlation != Causation (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Another one is that you don't experiment on production systems without some kind of backup. Do you have a backup atmosphere somewhere that we can use if the methane and CO2 we're adding to this one cause it to break? If not, then it's time to put a halt to the experiment.

        Foolish moron. If you stop removing methane and CO2 from the atmosphere, you don't know what'll happen. You're just trying to slam the side of the debate you don't personally agree with using this ``experiment'' propaganda. Scientist

    • Researchers don't know why this is.

      Right. And until they have a solid, convincing theory to account for this 'why', then we've only got (at best) a correlation between the two events - this does not necessarily mean there is a causal relationship between them.

      It was obvious from the rest of the article that the researchers do not understand why the level of atmospheric methane is falling; the role of methane in the greenhouse effect is well understood.

      As for why researchers don't understand why the at

  • Even with no link, we still need cleaner energy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whorfin ( 686885 ) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:35PM (#7629441)
    I'm not so concerned with the global warming/cooling. I think that all sane people will agree that it is now cooler than when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, warmer than the mini-ice age [csmonitor.com].

    What I am concerned about, however, are things like mercury in fish [epa.gov], which acts as a neurotoxin in humans [sfgate.com] that eat it.

    • Re:Even with no link, we still need cleaner energy (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      mercury is a neurotoxin but if I understand the article it also makes you wealthy:

      She correlated fish consumption with elevated mercury in her patients, and saw a range of symptoms classic to mercury poisoning, including fatigue, headache, decreased memory, muscle pain, hair loss, decreased concentration and joint pain.

      Many of her middle- and high-income clientele -- CEOs of companies, physicians and artists -- were eating generous amounts of fish, the high-end tuna and swordfish steaks, Chilean sea bas

  • Less methane around to heat things up....this is A Good Thing for sure. Is Global Warming a real problem? The evidence that it is a problem is becoming undeniable. Even though the scientific evidence is not 100% certain, there is a great deal of evidence that global warming is happening, and the scientific community has made this clear many times over. See here [dieoff.org] and here [dieoff.org] for references. Much of the so-called uncertainty in this area (so far as the public and public policy is concerned) originates from

    • Current best estimates say that human population will peak about 2050 and then slowly decline. "...uncontrolled growth of the human population..." is not worthy of rational concern.

      • It is most certainly worthy of rational concern. At current population levels, it would not be possible to provide a European Standard of living (~$12,500 US per capita per year) to the entire population into the indefinite future. In order to provide this standard of living in an indefinitely sustainable fashion, world population would need to stabilize at ~2.2 billion, a number much lower than our current population.

        Of course, equal distribution of resources to everyone on the planet is probably never

    • A more pressing problem that receives far too little attention is the issue of overpopulation. The ecological, economic, and social problems that will be caused by the uncontrolled growth of the human population have the potential to make global warming look like a walk in the park.

      Exactly. Your prior scree about oil companies can be forgiven since you point this out. Population must stop growing so quickly. Everything else is a distant second. You can rape the first world of all it's wealth, stop all

      • Although I concur that population is the single most important environmental issue that we currently face, I think that you need to reasses a few of your views:

        The activists will go on whining about SUV's and western per capita energy consumption because it's a lot more fun to point the finger at wealthy people than it is to accuse the third world of overpopulation.

        On the contrary, environmental activists (a group in which I include myself), many of whom are quite well-to-do, find profligate consumpt

      • Here is a thought example. Take a wealthy family with 2 parents and 2 kids. Also take a poor family with 2 parents and 10 kids. I am guessing, but have no empiricle data, that the 4 person wealthy family will use more resources in fuel and such, except maybe food, than the 12 person poor family. Of course people in India and China use many resources too but family size isn't everything. I do agree that both countries, though China has started already, to tone down population. With over a third of the world'
      • bah...last time I read anything about the subject, the material I read suggested that the earth could possibly support far more people than it currently does.
    • When you claim that "overpopulation" is a problem, is the problem to you that there are too many people on the planet, or is the problem to you that there are too many of certain kinds of people?
  • Interesting, I've read several reports ( here [chemslash.com] and here [newscientist.com]) discussing that there will be too little oil for global warming. According to the stories all of the petroleum reserves will run out before the atmosphere heats up enough to have any effect. I guess this just goes to show that atmospheric chemistry [uci.edu] isn't always an exact science.
    • Most energy economists I know would scoff at this.

      First, oil is only a portion of fossil fuels. And we can produce oil from coal or shale oil, and reserves of both of those are enormous.

      So, no, we aren't going to run out of oil soon. It may become significantly more expensive in 50 years, when easily accessible cheap oil runs out, but then again, I wouldn't bet against the improvements of extraction and conversion technologies to keep prices low...

      -Marcus

  • Good news? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 )
    Good news on global warming? Sorry, good news is strictly forbidden. Even if there was bona fide good news with 100% scientific accuracy, such reports should still be repressed or discredited, in order to further our agenda. This is a media war we're fighting folks, and even though Russia just made the decision a few days ago not to cripple its economy in order to comply with Kyoto, we still have to try hard, everywhere.
  • methane concentrations are leveling off.

    ...Gaia farted.

    It lasted 150 years before it finished coming out (good arse!) but now it's finally over. It probably belongs in the "Silent But Violent" class since nobody heard anything, apparently.

    CO2 levels are rising

    She held her breath, duh. Who doesn't, when they let loose a big one?

  • "Although we can't be certain why methane concentrations have levelled out, we think it is in response to emissions declining due to better management of the exploration and use of fossil fuels and the increasing recovery of landfill methane.

    "If this global decline in methane emissions continues, global atmospheric methane concentrations will start to fall."

    The stabilizing of methane concentrations is great news! However, I think that it is overly optimistic to assume they will stay stable.

    First, the au
  • Half the biological methane emissions come from termites. Fewer trees == fewer termite farts. Any questions?
  • Gee the last time I commented on this I was modded troll. I'll have to do better, perhaps this time double troll.

    Before I even read down to the part where people are claiming it's warming, it's cooling, it's your fault, no it's yours...

    Fsck all of you.

    If the evidence shows that things are changing I don't give a rat's ass who was responsible. I do want to know what the most reasonable estimates are on the results and it would even be nice if they started thinking on how to correct things.

    As an added b
    • If the evidence shows that things are changing I don't give a rat's ass who was responsible. I do want to know what the most reasonable estimates are on the results and it would even be nice if they started thinking on how to correct things.

      This statement presumes that the change is an error, and is subject to correction. That already means you've taken a side in the argument.

      Cheers,
      Ian

      • *chuckle* Close. I'm not assuming it's and error, it's a change, for good or ill I've no evidence to define. With that in mind my original post is where I have made the assumption that the "change" or the apparent direction of change is not desirable. And as you've pointed out, It may be quite another kettle of fish.

        With any change in environment there are going to be those who find it to be a positive and those that consider it to be a negative. I'm hoping someone (Or Group, Please feel free to volun
  • The reason is there's something called the carbon cycle and it describes how carbon moves from plants to animals to the atmosphere and oceans and back into plants. Any methane in the atmosphere got there because an animal ate plants. Those plants got that carbon from the atmosphere. All that has happened is that carbon which was originally in the atmosphere got back there where it will eventually be degraded back into carbon dioxide and water by completely natural processes -- processes which speed up when

  • irrelevant; methane has never been the problem (Score:3, Informative)

    by penguin7of9 ( 697383 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @04:44AM (#7637115)
    The half life of methane in the atmosphere is seven years; it has never been a serious problem as far as global warming is concerned because if we produce too much of it, we can stop whatever is causing it and things will return to normal fairly quickly. The same is true for particulates.

    The problem with atmospheric CO2 is that its half life is nearly 200 years. Whatever we emit now, we are going to be stuck with for a long time. Once the concentration of atmospheric CO2 causes dangerous increases in global temperature (and we will reach that point sooner or later), there is absolutely nothing we can do: we will have to live with increased temperatures for decades.
  • ...as they didn't take into account this small piece of VERY important data [charleston.net].
  • I remember the extreme clarity of the skys in the days immediatly following 9/11/2001. I live in Columbus Ohio near a medium size airport. I was amazed at how clear the skys were after the stoppage of all air travel.

    If clear skys relate to energy/heat loss into space and clear skys were noticed after airline stoppage, what would you guess a major component of global warming could be?

    dzimmerm

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close