The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

For the sake of example, I'm going to create some numbers off the top of my head to clarify Cing's point. These numbers have nothing to do with reality. Fair warning.

Suppose that after refining our models to be much more accurate than they are today, we determine that global temperatures will rise 50° from 2000 to 2100. Suppose further that we determine that man's CO2 emissions account for 1° of that rise, and previously unnoticed factor X related to meteor activity will cause the other 49° of increase.

Now, it can be said that CO2 contributes to the change in temperature predicted by this model. However, it would be rediculous to state that CO2 causes the change in temperature, because the primary cause of temperature change is the meteor effect.

Does that clarify any?

No.

Because my understanding is that CO2 acts more like, but not exactly like, feedback in an amplifier.

Now the amount of warming that CO2 actually does is kinda small and probably insignificant. Most of the warming is natural.

So to take your numbers.

If temperature rises 50 degrees then you might be able to say:

CO2, all by itself, only caused 1 degree of that rise.

Without CO2 temperature would have risen 10 degrees.

But with the extra CO2 temperatures actually rose 50 degrees.

It seems to amplify the natural affects. It isn't causing the majority of the rise, it is causing the natural rise to be bigger and last longer.

Now this is just how I understand it and I could be wrong.

[ScratchMonkey]

The debate over whether climate change is man-caused is curious. If we discovered a big asteroid was on its way to hit the earth, would we stop and debate whether humans caused it?

I just read a story somewhere calling into question the massive drive towards bio-fuels. It was supposed to be one solution to climate change, but it turns out that it results in loss of lots of tropical forest and grassland that soaks up CO2, resulting in a net loss. So now the industries that benefit from bio-fuel sales have a huge vested interest in keeping their industry going, environment be damned. There's a huge amount of political inertia now that would have to be countered to stop this kind of disaster.

I figure all "socially-responsible" government actions work this way: Some industry stands to gain big, and starts funding a panic to drive money into their coffers. It's not just the military-industrial complex. Now we have an eco-industrial complex.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

I just read a story somewhere calling into question the massive drive towards bio-fuels. It was supposed to be one solution to climate change, but it turns out that it results in loss of lots of tropical forest and grassland that soaks up CO2, resulting in a net loss. So now the industries that benefit from bio-fuel sales have a huge vested interest in keeping their industry going, environment be damned. There's a huge amount of political inertia now that would have to be countered to stop this kind of disaster.

I figure all "socially-responsible" government actions work this way: Some industry stands to gain big, and starts funding a panic to drive money into their coffers. It's not just the military-industrial complex. Now we have an eco-industrial complex.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head...

The debate over whether climate change is man-caused is curious. If we discovered a big asteroid was on its way to hit the earth, would we stop and debate whether humans caused it?

While this criticism has some merit, the one significant difference between these two scenarios is that many of the proposed solutions to man-made-climate-change won't actually work if it turns out the climate change wasn't caused by man after all. For comparison, suppose that after discovering that Asteroid, Al Gore made a movie telling everyone that the Asteroid was only going to strike earth because it was magnetically attracted to the Eiffel Tower, and the only way to avoid destruction was to demolish the Eiffel Tower before it hit us. In this scenario, everyone would agree we have to do something about the incoming asteroid, but it would still be worth arguing over whether the Eiffel Tower was really the cause of the disaster or not, because if Gore was wrong we would still get hit by the asteroid even after demolishing the tower.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

CingularDuality, I'm confused as to why I sound ridiculous. Your summary really throws me off.

So you're saying CO2 emissions do affect the planet's climate.

No, wait. Now you're wondering if CO2 emissions are significant enough to affect the planet's climate.

And now you're saying it's ridiculous to say CO2 emissions affect the planet's climate.

Could you explain?

bkelly

I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then Kero clarified it.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

If you're serious, then Kero clarified it.

All right then. To your statement:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Making the leap of logic to arrogantly state that global warming is CAUSED by man is ridiculous.

1) No, it's not. Global warming was predicted, many reasons to suspect humans abound and no other solid theories exist for the temperature increase.

2) I have never heard the claim that man is the only cause of global warming.

3) I have never claimed that global warming is definitively caused by man. The closest I came was my statement, "I am certain that the Earth is getting warmer and I consider it very likely that humans are a significant cause."

4) Your statement is a non sequitur. I was noting to GhostintheShell that none of the scientists in a poll he posted believed that humans were not a factor in global warming. That does not mean they instead believe humans are the sole cause.

bkelly

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

All right then. To your statement:



1) No, it's not. Global warming was predicted, many reasons to suspect humans abound and no other solid theories exist for the temperature increase.

But this isn't correct. I think most scientists believe that the temperature increase is just as likely to be cyclical as it is to be caused by man.

2) I have never heard the claim that man is the only cause of global warming.

3) I have never claimed that global warming is definitively caused by man. The closest I came was my statement, "I am certain that the Earth is getting warmer and I consider it very likely that humans are a significant cause."

Then what are you arguing about in this thread????

4) Your statement is a non sequitur. I was noting to GhostintheShell that none of the scientists in a poll he posted believed that humans were not a factor in global warming. That does not mean they instead believe humans are the sole cause.

And yet, you try to make exactly that point by referring to "question #3".

C'mon, take a stand and stick to it, man!

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

But this isn't correct. I think most scientists believe that the temperature increase is just as likely to be cyclical as it is to be caused by man.

*bkelly's eyes grow wide and then he shakes his head in disbelief*

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Then what are you arguing about in this thread????

*gestures to Cingular's answer above*

bkelly

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

*bkelly's eyes grow wide and then he shakes his head in disbelief*

*gestures to Cingular's answer above*

Dude. You just said that you don't believe that man is the cause of global warming. Why are you shaking your head?

[GlobalWarmin]

According to my super secret sources and fake expertise, the amounts of BS that was just released on this thread today alone will result in exactly a .026 increase in global temperatures.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Dude. You just said that you don't believe that man is the cause of global warming.

No I didn't. You might want to re-read what I wrote.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Why are you shaking your head?

I am still in shock that you would hold such a view especially since you have been around this thread's discussion since I arrived. I have obviously underestimated how compelling the propaganda surrounding global warming can be.

Let me try to clear things up a little.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

But this isn't correct. I think most scientists believe that the temperature increase is just as likely to be cyclical as it is to be caused by man.

I don't doubt that there are scientists out there who would claim that global warming is a natural, cyclical event but it is a fraction of the people who believe that man is responsible. Unfortunately estimating the size of each group is difficult because scientists want a theory to stand on it's own merit, not its popularity.

However The National Registry of Environmental Professionals did a poll of its members on the topic of global warming in November of 2006. The participants were not scientists but "accredited environmental professionals". What effect this would have on the results, I do not know.

Two results pertaining to our discussion:

* 82 percent of professionals report they think global warming is a real, measurable, climatic trend currently in effect.
* 59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.

I have not read about the study in depth so I won't comment much about these year old results. I present them this evening to show that 59% of these people believed global warming is caused "in large part" by man. This means at most 41% believed global warming is cyclical but that number is much less.

So, a quick estimate of the highest possible belief ratio between the anthropogenic/natural camps is 59 to 41.

bkelly

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

So, a quick estimate of the highest possible belief ratio between the anthropogenic/natural camps is 59 to 41.

This is EXACTLY my point! This issue is far from settled, either from a scientific, or political perspective. But the media has decided to latch on to this issue and sensationalize it more than any issue in recent times.

By all means, let's start doing environmentally friendly stuff. By all means, let's keep studying our climate and keep trying to determine our impact on the Earth. But don't tell me it's the end of the world if I don't buy "carbon offsets".

[AMosely]

Let me try and change the subject. Which poses the greater threat to humanity today - nuclear arsenals or climate change (regardless of the cause)? Which of the two has the best chance of being controlled?

It's pretty astounding to me that we are sensationalize the lesser threat as well as the threat we have less power to control. Thoughts like these tend to emphasize the irrationality and foolish short-sightedness of human beings when taken as a whole. Add politics to it and it gets even worse. The Bush administration has significantly elevated this threat as well. Just today, Russian premeir Vladimir Putin announced that if the U.S. continues with its unilateral construction of a European missile defense system, Russia will respond by retargeting their nuclear missiles at those sites.

Speaking about U.S. plans for missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic, Putin said Russia's response would be to "retarget our missiles toward a system that we aren't creating."

"We are warning people ahead of time: If you take this step, then we will make this step," Putin said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...e10UAD8UQ5PD00

[Kerostasis]

Lets try a quick questionaire for those participating in this thread, that might shed some light on where we're going:

1: What do you consider the likelihood the globe is warming?
2: What do you consider the likelihood man is the primary cause of this warming?
3: What do you consider the likelihood this warming will create a world less friendly to man?

4: What policies do you support to reduce our contribution to warming?
5: What policies do you support to mitigate the impact of a warmer climate?


I'll start.
---------------
1: What do you consider the likelihood the globe is warming?
--90%
2: What do you consider the likelihood man is the primary cause of this warming?
--20%
3: What do you consider the likelihood this warming will create a world less friendly to man?
--50%

4: What policies do you support to reduce our contribution to warming?
--Continue research on advanced energy such as Fusion power. Scrap subsidy of biofuels. Continue present market trends towards more efficient systems. Do not create government mandates of certain levels of efficiency.
5: What policies do you support to mitigate the impact of a warmer climate?
--Whatevers necessary, at a higher priority than item 4. I havent actually seen whats being proposed for this step though: anyone got anything to add here?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

This is EXACTLY my point! This issue is far from settled, either from a scientific, or political perspective.

Woah there cowboy! I don't think you can reach such conclusions from this poll.

I posted the 59:41 number last night to show that, even when looked in the most favorable light possible to your assertion, natural causes for global warming are not "just as likely". If we did a little deeper into what this poll says, the 41 percent I have to your side will quickly shrink because:

1) Many wouldn't agree that global warming is man made "in large part" but would agree that man has had an effect.
2) Up to 18% might not believe the planet is warming at all
3) Some could believe in AGW but think that "current climactic activity" doesn't reflect it
4) Some may still be on the fence and answer "I don't know"
5) A few may support other theories that are neither caused by man nor cyclical

So, I think this poll shows that man made global warming is a popular theory but it doesn't say much about "the consensus" either way.


Actually what surprised me most about this poll is that only 82% think "global warming is a real, measurable, climatic trend currently in effect" as I would expect it to be closer to 90%. Perhaps many of the 18% don't believe it is "currently in effect" or "don't know".

I wish they provided the actual questions asked and percentage of answers selected.

bkelly

[AMosely]

1: What do you consider the likelihood the globe is warming?
Almost certain.

2: What do you consider the likelihood man is the primary cause of this warming?
Unlikely the cause, but certainly a factor.

3: What do you consider the likelihood this warming will create a world less friendly to man?
Almost certain.

4: What policies do you support to reduce our contribution to warming?
Internationally:
De-politicizing the international accords and treaty process - these negotiations are far too important to leave up to government and corporate interests. Immediate funding of eco-initiatives for developing countries as well as foreign investment in renewable energy ventures.

Domestically:
Far more aggressive emissions and efficiency standards (current standards amount to an industry subsidy) - these standards have been kept down to 'save' the automobile and that was a failure. Gas-guzzling automobiles and dangerous coal power plants do no good for the economy, human health or the planet's climate. Decrease subsidies for non-renewable fuel industries and increased subsidies for renewable industries (wind, solar, hydro and tide) - oil companies do not need subsidies right now, why are they still getting billions of taxpayer dollars? Aggressive rebate programs for consumers, especially homeowners - with the rising price of energy, it is a failure of government to not have these in place already. If the government would only give me a sizeable rebate to the cost of a solar installation, I would do it in a heartbeat. That investment would pay for itself in a matter of years, not just in terms of dollars but in emissions from my furnace and the power plants that serve me - multiply that by millions of homes.

5: What policies do you support to mitigate the impact of a warmer climate?
Too hypothetical to answer, and too many obvious undertakings that already need attention (see #4).