Global Warming - The Liberal Conspiracy

[Dr. Science]

First thought - Gee, this could have been written by some of the people on this forum.

Second thought - Why doesn't she just move to COLD Springs.

[Leftopolis]

are you kidding? this is really silly. the idea that just cause we choose to structure our time differently somehow this effects climate. ummm. i think not. thats like saying if we call winter summer from now on that somehow the globe will take notice and reflect our decisions.

[Gilby]

It shifts energy use and maybe fluctuates slightly -- less energy use means less heat output. It shifts the time of emission output -- different amount of sunlight hitting smog. It affects the time of mass movements in the air caused by moving vehicles -- air circulations change weather patterns. These all could theoretically have an effect on the weather and "global climate change". Though, I doubt any effect, if any, on a daily basis is significant.

[Jim_Rob]

Somehow I think you guys are over-thinking this. She is talking about the extra hour of daylight.

[thejim]

I had better not forget to wind my watch tonight, the sky could fall on our heads!

[johnfoss]

Maybe we need to under-think this one, like the author of that article. I somehow don't think she meant the stuff Gilby said.

[uni57]

Al almost has me convinced, but every time someone talks about how hot it is, they compare it to how hot it was.

From the article (emphasis added)...
You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century.

That means a HUNDRED and seven years ago, it was basically this hot. So much for Global Warming.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

I think it's important to remember here that this is not an "Article" it's a letter to the paper, which follows vastly different rules of journalistic integrity than an actual newspaper article.

[uni57]

No, no... this is peer reviewed. I'm sure her Arkansas friends reviewed it.

[kington99]

I think it's important to remember here that this is not an "Article" it's a letter to the paper, which follows vastly different rules of journalistic integrity than an actual newspaper article.

By which you presumably mean no rules whatsoever.

[podzol]

Scientists have only documented climate change on this side of the Earth. Maybe the other side is getting colder.

[Borges]

Scientists have only documented climate change on this side of the Earth. Maybe the other side is getting colder.
An extra hour of daylight in Arkansas must mean the night lasts an hour longer on the other side of Earth. Ofcourse it gets colder there.

[timbob1907]

Global warming exists. Theres no debate about it. Daylight savings is not contributing to it though. Daylight savings is used to minimize energy use.

[Spudman]

Fortunately, I didn't adjust the time on the clocks in my room. Nice and cool here.

[mawesome]

AHAHAHAHAHAAH!! Oh man, that article was hilarious, she has to be kidding. I mean, I know some people aren't all that brainy, but come on...right?

Maybe the other side is getting colder.

No, everythings pretty much the same down here, rain falls up, owls only come out in the day time, the usual.

[unipsychler]

Do you smell that...? This whole global warming thing smells kind of familiar. I know I've smelt that smell before but I can't quite place it and it's driving me crazy...Ah YES! I've got it! It has the familiar smell of Y2K all over again. Remember Y2K? Remember how scared the Y2K conspirators had us? Remember the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars we spend and others made on the Y2K SCAM? I, for one, didn't buy into the Y2K scare but I do remember feeling a little anxious at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2000 and what happened? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! NOT EVEN A LIGHTBULB FLICKER! THE NATIONAL POWER GRID DIDN'T COLLAPSE! RUSSIA'S NUCLEAR MISSLES DIDN'T LAUNCH! MY BANK ACCOUNT DIDN'T GET WIPED OUT! NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING! So the average temperature has risen 1/2 a degree over the last gazillion years. SO WHAT! These con men and women should be rounded up and put in jail just like the Y2K conspirators should have been.

[Gilby]

It may be like the ozone issue from the early 90s... Dupont's patent on their cfc aerosol is about to run out, so let the propoganda engines roar to make legislators outlaw the stuff, so that competitors can't make it when it becomes patent free. Then come out with a CFC replacement, patent it, and claim another victory.

In any case, legalize industrial hemp so we can actually produce biofuels (ethanol, biogas) cost effectively, instead of having the illusion due to high corn farming subsidies.

[cool-bananas]

Do you smell that...? This whole global warming thing smells kind of familiar. I know I've smelt that smell before but I can't quite place it and it's driving me crazy...Ah YES! I've got it! It has the familiar smell of Y2K all over again. Remember Y2K? Remember how scared the Y2K conspirators had us? Remember the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars we spend and others made on the Y2K SCAM? I, for one, didn't buy into the Y2K scare but I do remember feeling a little anxious at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2000 and what happened? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! NOT EVEN A LIGHTBULB FLICKER! THE NATIONAL POWER GRID DIDN'T COLLAPSE! RUSSIA'S NUCLEAR MISSLES DIDN'T LAUNCH! MY BANK ACCOUNT DIDN'T GET WIPED OUT! NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING! So the average temperature has risen 1/2 a degree over the last gazillion years. SO WHAT! These con men and women should be rounded up and put in jail just like the Y2K conspirators should have been.

you are joking me right? Global warming is real, it is here it is now and we need to do something to fix it. As it stands America and Australia havent ratified the kyoto protocol treaty and the Earth will suffer for it.

[Gilby]

you are joking me right? Global warming is real, it is here it is now and we need to do something to fix it. As it stands America and Australia havent ratified the kyoto protocol treaty and the Earth will suffer for it.
Have you done your own research? Or do you believe everything the media tells you?

[Dr. Science]

It may be like the ozone issue from the early 90s... Dupont's patent on their cfc aerosol is about to run out, so let the propoganda engines roar to make legislators outlaw the stuff, so that competitors can't make it when it becomes patent free. Then come out with a CFC replacement, patent it, and claim another victory.

The Ozone issue that you are referring to goes back to the mid 1970s. Dupont and the other chemical manufacturers fought the research (that showed a potential problem) tooth and nail. There was a ban on the use of CFC in aerosol cans put in place in the US during that time. Only after the "ozone hole" over Antarctica was discovered in the early 1980s was there enough political will to act and the 1986 Montreal agreement was signed that phased out the use of CFCs for the rest of the world. The ozone hole has been gradually getting better and should be gone in a couple of decades, a timetable that was predicted by the computer models.

The whole issue: the science behind it and the poltical solutions instituted to solve the problem are a real sucess story. I wonder why people keep trying to discredit that.

[cool-bananas]

Have you done your own research? Or do you believe everything the media tells you?

I believe in science

[unipsychler]

you are joking me right? Global warming is real, it is here it is now and we need to do something to fix it. As it stands America and Australia havent ratified the kyoto protocol treaty and the Earth will suffer for it.

Buddy, you better turn off the evening news and get back to your video games. When you grow up you will have your chance to worry about global cooling or some other crisis like that.

[timbob1907]

Buddy, you better turn off the evening news and get back to your video games. When you grow up you will have your chance to worry about global cooling or some other crisis like that.
thats what you want him to do only because hes listening to the right people. if he was like you and only played video games hed be as clueless as you. People learn things by being active not sitting around doing nothing.

The thing is though that there really was a Y2K problem. None of the computers that controlled things like bank accounts, electricity, and weapons had the date planned for 2000. If this had been left as is all the world wide computers could have crashed. Luckly though some people who actually know what they are talking about (unlike you) like the government foresaw the problem and had most if not all of the major computers fixed. Thats why there was no problem caused people realized it and made changes before it was too late. So basically your story of there being no Y2K crisis goes against your point and shows that we must fix global warming before it becomes to late to deal with it.
And another thing even though I dislike the president you would have to through him and almost everyone else in power in jail. Because everyone now excepts global warming as a fact. The world would no longer have any scientists to do research and we would make no progress.
People like you deserve to be thrown in jail for your lack of knowledge and assumption that every other person on this earth is against you.

[timbob1907]

Have you done your own research? Or do you believe everything the media tells you?
The point isnt to believe everything the media tells you but to choose what. If someone who has been a climatology expert their whole life and has made other major contributions to society says that global warming is true I would believe them. Since you cannot do your own research and tests to prove global warming either way you have to listen to the people who can. And they have. Right now the only people who support the idea that global warming is not happening are oil and car companies. It might just be me but I would think that would be a tiny bit biased. The only other people who believe it are the people to stupid and ignorant to accept the truth and to scared to make a little change.

[kington99]

Do you smell that...? This whole global warming thing smells kind of familiar. I know I've smelt that smell before but I can't quite place it and it's driving me crazy...Ah YES! I've got it! It has the familiar smell of Y2K all over again. Remember Y2K? Remember how scared the Y2K conspirators had us? Remember the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars we spend and others made on the Y2K SCAM? I, for one, didn't buy into the Y2K scare but I do remember feeling a little anxious at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2000 and what happened? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! NOT EVEN A LIGHTBULB FLICKER! THE NATIONAL POWER GRID DIDN'T COLLAPSE! RUSSIA'S NUCLEAR MISSLES DIDN'T LAUNCH! MY BANK ACCOUNT DIDN'T GET WIPED OUT! NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING! So the average temperature has risen 1/2 a degree over the last gazillion years. SO WHAT! These con men and women should be rounded up and put in jail just like the Y2K conspirators should have been.

Did you ever think that maybe the billions of dollars spent was why nothing went wrong on Y2K? Whether it would of had the money not been spent is a different matter. Also the two aren't terribly comparable, the earth's climate is a chaotic system completely out of our control, whereas the Y2K problem was a pretty simple one created by man. Also you tell a 16 year old to get back to his video game but rant like a spoiled child, it smacks terribly of someone who is running purely on the strength of their own convictions, rather than any logic or proof.

[timbob1907]

Did you ever think that maybe the billions of dollars spent was why nothing went wrong on Y2K? Whether it would of had the money not been spent is a different matter. Also the two aren't terribly comparable, the earth's climate is a chaotic system completely out of our control, whereas the Y2K problem was a pretty simple one created by man. Also you tell a 16 year old to get back to his video game but rant like a spoiled child, it smacks terribly of someone who is running purely on the strength of their own convictions, rather than any logic or proof.
Seriously. I think he expects that if we spent lots of money on it it should still go wrong. Like maybe a certain war thats being fought. Fortunately we had a different president befor Y2K.

[Gilby]

Dupont and the other chemical manufacturers fought the research (that showed a potential problem) tooth and nail. Exactly, until they had their new solution and their patent ran out in 1992. And I misstated above, it was their refrigerant freon, not an aerosol. In any case, they got their new refrigerant a monopoly to be used in every automobile AC, refrigerators, etc. The ozone issue, like global climate change, was a highly political issue, and that makes it where so called scientists can't be counted on because it is possible to fudge the numbers to support whatever side they happened to have been lured to.

The ozone hole has been gradually getting better and should be gone in a couple of decades, a timetable that was predicted by the computer models.

Really? The hole hasn't gotten smaller since the 80s. Unless I'm reading the data wrong, 2006 ties for the biggest hole since 1979 when this data starts according to this from nasa:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_annual.png

[Gilby]

And another thing even though I dislike the president you would have to through him and almost everyone else in power in jail.

That'd be awesome! We don't need their corporatism and empire building. War is peace. Slavery is freedom.

Because everyone now excepts global warming as a fact.

Yes it's a fact that there has been a slight increase to global warming. What the causes of it is is not a fact.

Humans? (that's what politicians want us to believe)
Hotter sun? (mars is warmer now too)
Regular cycles? (it's happened many times before)

The world would no longer have any scientists to do research and we would make no progress.B.S. Keep the scientists, lose the politicians.

[unipsychler]

Because everyone now excepts global warming as a fact.

Everyone? So far there's you, Cool-Bananas, Al Gore, and...oh yeah, Sheryl (One Square of TP) Crow.

[unipsychler]

Also the two aren't terribly comparable, the earth's climate is a chaotic system completely out of our control, whereas the Y2K problem was a pretty simple one created by man.

I agree with you that the earth's climate is a chaotic system completely out of our control. This statement screams LOUD AND CLEAR that man is incapable of causing a global temperature increase and henceforth incapable of any change that would cause a decrease in global temperature.

[unifreak7]

Well look at it this way. We should fix our problem no matter what the hell it is.

Man made Global Warming - Fix it: Back to normal, heathier, we wouldn't melt the poles killing many people. Don't fix it: Well, stuff will go down, not pretty.

Regular Cycle - Fix assumed global warming: Cleaner air. Don't fix assumed global warming: More pollution. Either way we aren't screwed, however I want cleaner air.

General Warming of the Sun - Fix assumed global warmer: Cleaner air. Don't fix assumer global warmer: More pollution. We are screwed in this case either way. Since if the sun gets hotter, we get hotter, and that's not good either way we look at it.

So let me get this right. It seems to those that don't believe in global warming, believe that we are screwed anyway, because of the general warming of the sun. (It is pretty easily shown that everything is getting warmer, yes 1900 was hot, but we've had years over and over and over that are getting hotter and hotter, if it is a cycle, this is a big ass cycle that will damage the earth a lot worse than any other cycle, which in turn says we are screwed anyway. This isn't a controdiction to what I said above, this is just what I think here, and up top, the basics of it.) I'd rather believe in global warming in this sense, so I know there is atleast something I can do to save myself as well as others. Come on people, even if this isn't real, there is nothing but good to come out of trying to save the planet (unless you are a penny pincher, then you'll hate to spend alittle money).

[Gilby]

Regular Cycle - Fix assumed global warming: Cleaner air. Don't fix assumed global warming: More pollution. Either way we aren't screwed, however I want cleaner air. Yes, cleaner air. But the global warming crowd are making a stink about CO2, which has nothing to do about cleaning the air. CO2 is not directly harmful to us or other animals. I would love for all the particles put into the air from energy production to be prevented. CO2 is something that is regulated quite a bit by nature as plants will thrive on it assuming everything else is right for the plants (like letting the government destroy the land).

[Dr. Science]

Exactly, until they had their new solution and their patent ran out in 1992. And I misstated above, it was their refrigerant freon, not an aerosol. In any case, they got their new refrigerant a monopoly to be used in every automobile AC, refrigerators, etc. The ozone issue, like global climate change, was a highly political issue, and that makes it where so called scientists can't be counted on because it is possible to fudge the numbers to support whatever side they happened to have been lured to.
Freons were used as propellants in aerosol cans prior to the ban in the mid 1970s. The Chemical Manufacturers Association fought that ban. They eventually caved in and actually started supporting research on CFCs. I have no great love of Corporations or Corporatism (the economic arm of Fascism according to Mussolini), but I take exception to the way you have portrayed this issue. The end of freons has actually thrown open the whole industry and many companies have developed replacement compounds. Because of the openess of the process, researchers have been able to get samples of compounds in the development stage and at least in two cases have been able to tell the CMA that a particular compound was bad and should not be pursued.

Really? The hole hasn't gotten smaller since the 80s. Unless I'm reading the data wrong, 2006 ties for the biggest hole since 1979 when this data starts according to this from nasa:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_annual.png

Thanks for showing the data, always a good thing. You don't have to be Leibniz to see that the time rate of change has slowed and is now pretty much flat. This is comfirmed by detailed measurements of Chlorine compounds, which have a fairly long lifetime (decades) in the Stratosphere. This has led people to conclude that the problem is getting better.

[johnfoss]

I agree with you that the earth's climate is a chaotic system completely out of our control. This statement screams LOUD AND CLEAR that man is incapable of causing a global temperature increase and henceforth incapable of any change that would cause a decrease in global temperature.Your statement above doesn't prove anything, other than your *belief* that we are incapable of making a large impact on our environment. I believe we can. Neither is loud and clear, though as our population increases my argument will only get stronger. Do you believe there's a hole in the ozone layer, for instance, and that it's man-caused? Or that this is just "cooked" data?

You also believe there was no Y2K problem, which indicates to me you never knew what the problem was. Was there fraud in some of the Y2K repairs? I'm sure there was. Probably huge amounts, especially for government and larger corporations. The existence of fraud does not disprove the existence of a problem that needed fixing. It needed fixing. In a nutshell: Tons of old but very important software had been created using two digits to indicate the year. At the time, this was not considered a problem because most programmers assumed newer and better stuff would come along in the 80s or 90s. But instead, lots of this old code was incorporated into even bigger, more sophisticated systems that were the foundations of banking and other huge software systems in the late 90s. When your bank suddenly thought it was 1900 instead of 2000 do you think this may have been a problem? Should your bank have waited to find out, and maybe saved tons of money? You say yes, but I'm glad my bank said no.

Fortunately this was a problem very easy to understand, though not so easy to fix. Legions of retired programmers were brought back, sometimes at very high dollar amounts, to reprogram systems that were created in programming languages that are no longer used, such as FORTRAN. Real problem, real solution.

Gilby talks about how large issues, like ozone and freon, become political. They do. Any time there's going to be tons of money involved, especially if it's going to be public money, stuff becomes political and it gets harder to separate truth from special interest. There are scientists on bot sides of most political issues. But when you follow the money, it often becomes a little more clear as to why one group of scientists is acting one way and another group is saying something else.

Today, the scientific community at large agrees that global warming is real, and that it's on an upward curve. What they don't agree on is how fast, and why. But you want us to ignore it. Maybe it'll go away? I for one think that using less fossil fuels is a good idea in general, aside from the global warming/pollution aspect. The less we can use, the sooner it will be before we have viable alternatives for transportation. I can't wait to have a car that doesn't need anything from oil companies to get around, especially after paying $62.25 to fill up yesterday! There are a lot of things we can do, just becuase they're a good idea, without necessarily going crazy with solutions that don't have a clear benefit.

[podzol]

Yes, cleaner air. But the global warming crowd are making a stink about CO2, which has nothing to do about cleaning the air. CO2 is not directly harmful to us or other animals. I would love for all the particles put into the air from energy production to be prevented. CO2 is something that is regulated quite a bit by nature as plants will thrive on it assuming everything else is right for the plants (like letting the government destroy the land).

Methane is as big or bigger deal. Do you like methane?

[Gilby]

Methane is as big or bigger deal. Do you like methane? Oh yeah, bottle that stuff up so we can use it instead of natural gas. Get the anaerobic digesters to work to produce more from organic waste...

[Gilby]

But when you follow the money, it often becomes a little more clear as to why one group of scientists is acting one way and another group is saying something else.

There is very big money on both sides of the global warming issue.

[skate4flip]

I found this pretty interesting (documentary by CBC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&mode=related&search= (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&mode=related&search= (part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&mode=related&search= (part 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&mode=related&search= (part 5)

[podzol]

Oh yeah, bottle that stuff up so we can use it instead of natural gas. Get the anaerobic digesters to work to produce more from organic waste...

But do you like it in the atmosphere to breathe? It's kind of hard to tell a cow or a pig to bottle it.

My only point was that there are other greenhouse gasses that are not an innocuous as CO2, and scientists are well aware of these.

Yes indeed, methane is a good fuel.

[johnfoss]

There is very big money on both sides of the global warming issue.That's what I meant. An issue being politicized is more about money than about its level of importance otherwise. Why are our armies all over the Middle East while Africa is traditionally left to rot?

So the oil/energy/pollution companies have their scientists, and the green energy/anti-pollution/anti-growth/etc. industries have their scientists. When the best scientists on both sides or, even better, scientists that can be shown to *not* be on a side all start agreeing, then you have a real consensus...

As for methane? I'm not in favor of it at all. P.U.! :)

[Gilby]

But do you like it in the atmosphere to breathe?

I'm not aware of any negative health effects other than asphyxiation. That would not occur with the small amount of methane in the atmosphere.

It's kind of hard to tell a cow or a pig to bottle it.

Some farms put the manure in anaerobic digesters, which processes the manure more and outputs useable biogas. In a sense, bottling it up.

[podzol]

Some farms put the manure in anaerobic digesters, which processes the manure more and outputs useable biogas. In a sense, bottling it up.

It's the farts that make the methane, not the manure, so they would need bottles or balloons. Unless they raise them in a wetland, the carbon in the manure will go to CO2 because its degradation is an aerobic environ. That's why anaerobic digesters are req'd to make poop into biofuel. It's a great idea and I wish more places would do that.

[Gilby]

So the oil/energy/pollution companies have their scientists, and the green energy/anti-pollution/anti-growth/etc. industries have their scientists. You think those are the sides? If global warming is purely a political thing, I think it goes down like this: Government gets bigger to be able to tax everyone for their CO2 footprint and regulate us on everything (as pretty much everything involves energy). All the industries race for the patents of new technologies, giving them monopolies. Governments ban older technologies (like incandescent bulbs), to strengthen the monopolies profits. Oil companies love it, because it takes more energy to produce this stuff than the output gain currently is, and they also will own much of the new technologies. War in the middle east increases oil costs today while the new technologies are being made. It's all about extracting more money from the working class and bringing more power to the politicians and money masters. Yeah for corporatism!

[timbob1907]

Everyone? So far there's you, Cool-Bananas, Al Gore, and...oh yeah, Sheryl (One Square of TP) Crow.
Every one who knows what they are talking about. And even if it isnt a big threat I dont see why we shouldnt go for cleaner air. Whats wrong with not wanting to get lung cancer.

[timbob1907]

Yes, cleaner air. But the global warming crowd are making a stink about CO2, which has nothing to do about cleaning the air. CO2 is not directly harmful to us or other animals. I would love for all the particles put into the air from energy production to be prevented. CO2 is something that is regulated quite a bit by nature as plants will thrive on it assuming everything else is right for the plants (like letting the government destroy the land).
Yeah but too much CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere changing the temperature. After a while as we can see in the south pole and greenland major glaciers will melt. Once they are gone they will no longer reflect the sunlight and will absorb more heat. After all the ice is gone many people along the coast will be homeless and the earth will be getting much hotter. This has been proven by the basic laws of physics. You cant argue physics cause it has been proven. If you deny these basic facts then you obviously have not taken physics and are uneducated and not really worth arguing with.

[timbob1907]

You think those are the sides? If global warming is purely a political thing, I think it goes down like this: Government gets bigger to be able to tax everyone for their CO2 footprint and regulate us on everything (as pretty much everything involves energy). All the industries race for the patents of new technologies, giving them monopolies. Governments ban older technologies (like incandescent bulbs), to strengthen the monopolies profits. Oil companies love it, because it takes more energy to produce this stuff than the output gain currently is, and they also will own much of the new technologies. War in the middle east increases oil costs today while the new technologies are being made. It's all about extracting more money from the working class and bringing more power to the politicians and money masters. Yeah for corporatism!
Then why would GWB just now admit to the possibility of global warming? He has been against it but now you say he was planning to use global warming to gather power. And if we use alternative energy how can oil industries gain power? they wouldnt be used as much. Either Im missing something or your just putting alot of sentences together that should not have any connection. I agree that corporations are bad but oil corps are not behind the idea of global warming.

[Gilby]

Basic laws of physics? I'm still waiting for those basic physics to accurately tell us the weather for the next week.

So, if the globe is warmer, wouldn't there be more evaporation of water, so the sea level will actually go down instead of up as you claim? :) Isn't that consistent with basic laws of physics? And wouldn't that result in precipitation to allow more plants to thrive and consume that horrible CO2. Also, wouldn't some of that precipitation occur on the poles therefore restoring the glaciers?

Basic physics tell us that there are a ton a factors and they all have to be looked at. To my knowledge, there is no consensus yet on it, except in politics.

[Gilby]

Then why would GWB just now admit to the possibility of global warming? He has been against it but now you say he was planning to use global warming to gather power.Was he? He was pushing hydrogen a few years ago. Now he's pushing ethanol from corn.And if we use alternative energy how can oil industries gain power? they wouldnt be used as much. The oil industry owns a lot of technologies and companies, and if the new innovations don't happen there, they can easily buy those companies or technologies up. The Rockefellers have a lot of political power.

[timbob1907]

Basic laws of physics? I'm still waiting for those basic physics to accurately tell us the weather for the next week.

So, if the globe is warmer, wouldn't there be more evaporation of water, so the sea level will actually go down instead of up as you claim? :) Isn't that consistent with basic laws of physics? And wouldn't that result in precipitation to allow more plants to thrive and consume that horrible CO2. Also, wouldn't some of that precipitation occur on the poles therefore restoring the glaciers?

Basic physics tell us that there are a ton a factors and they all have to be looked at. To my knowledge, there is no consensus yet on it, except in politics.
Okay first. CO2 holds in heat. It is proven. If there is alot of CO2 in a room a thermal camera cannot see any animals or objects giving off heat.
There would be but the water has to come down when it reaches a certian level and all the ice in the world cannot be evaporated at the same time in the near future. And plants cannot grow where there are buildings and at this rate that doesnt leave much room. So more plants would help unfortunately people usually value their mansions and oil refineries over jungles and plant life.
And if an article proving global warming is peer reviewed by worldwide scientists and nothing is disproven it is probably a concensus.
Just because one basic law cannot describe what is happening doesnt mean its not. If one law can explain most of the things that are happening then id say its a good idea to pay attention to it.
Some facts are:
CO2 does not release heat back into space
Ice absorbs heat before it melts and if its starting to melt once its gone the heat will be absorbed elsewhere and affect the climate
Just because there is a ton of co2 doesnt mean that plants will use it all.

You bring up some good point but unfortunately they cant disprove global warming in any way.

[unipsychler]

While it may be true that, at this point in RECORDED meteorological history, the average temperature of the global atmosphere may be 1/2 a degree warmer than EVER RECORDED, there is no proof that it is the result of anything done by mankind. In addition, if you believe that the earth is billions of years old (not to open a new debate on evolution vs creation), we have no idea what the global temperature was during pre-recorded meteorological history. So since recorded meteorological history is enormously short compared to pre-recorded meteorological history I think the 'global warming' proponents are full of hot air. Ha! I just made a funny! :D

[unipsychler]

You bring up some good point but unfortunately they cant disprove global warming in any way.

Timbob, you also bring up some good points but unfortunately they can't PROVE global warming in any way.

[forrestunifreak]

Climatologists say that the 2006/2007 winter was the coldest on average in like 114 years.

[unipsychler]

Climatologists say that the 2006/2007 winter was the coldest on average in like 114 years.

More proof of global cooling, I mean warming.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

While it may be true that, at this point in RECORDED meteorological history, the average temperature of the global atmosphere may be 1/2 a degree warmer than EVER RECORDED, there is no proof that it is the result of anything done by mankind. In addition, if you believe that the earth is billions of years old (not to open a new debate on evolution vs creation), we have no idea what the global temperature was during pre-recorded meteorological history.

Actually we do have proof of temperatures from pre-recorded meterological history. If you looked at the actual science involved you would know this.

The fact that you have to say "if you believe the Earth is billions of years old" also shows that you have no place joining in on any sort of scientific discussion.

Your lack of actual information on the subject as well your (assumed by me based on the statement mentioned above) denial of scientific evidence in general again shows that you really aren't worth listening to.

[unipsychler]

Actually we do have proof of temperatures from pre-recorded meterological history. If you looked at the actual science involved you would know this.

The fact that you have to say "if you believe the Earth is billions of years old" also shows that you have no place joining in on any sort of scientific discussion.

Your lack of actual information on the subject as well your (assumed by me based on the statement mentioned above) denial of scientific evidence in general again shows that you really aren't worth listening to.

Oooo! I guess you told me.

[Gilby]

Okay first. CO2 holds in heat. It is proven. Yes.
There would be but the water has to come down when it reaches a certian level and all the ice in the world cannot be evaporated at the same time in the near future. A warmer climate would melt ice and at the same time evaporate seawater, right? Are you saying that the melting rate is larger than the evaporation rate?
And plants cannot grow where there are buildings and at this rate that doesnt leave much room. So more plants would help unfortunately people usually value their mansions and oil refineries over jungles and plant life. There is a lot of land that is not inhabited.

And if an article proving global warming is peer reviewed by worldwide scientists and nothing is disproven it is probably a concensus. Cool, where's this article?

You bring up some good point but unfortunately they cant disprove global warming in any way. Nor have you proven it.

Other than I already mentioned, here are a couple more things to prove:
That humans have caused the majority of the CO2 increase.
That these CO2 emissions did not simply displace other greenhouse gases (like ozone:)).

[monkeyman]

Well look at it this way. We should fix our problem no matter what the hell it is.

Shaun, this is your best post ever. Seriously.

I think the one thing we can all agree on, is that our environment needs some TLC. I don't think global-warming is man-made. It's a natural cycle, that almost certainly has something to do with the sun. However, the sun is not what made all the ocean water in the world radioactive. The sun didn't cause the hole in the ozone. The sun doesn't cut down trees and burn fossil fuels.

No matter what you believe about global warming, step up and do something, even if it's just a little bit, to conserve energy. There are 300 million people in this world. I'm no environmental scientist, but if every one of those 300 million people used 1 hour less of electricity each day (turning off lights, computer, etc.), that would add up to a very large amount of energy saved. And that's just America...that's not including the rest of the 6 billion people.

[sugarloafur]

This is really discouraging. A professor of mine last semester gave me some very valuable insight on the whole situation, so I'm going to repost what I posted in one of the many other global climate change threads and maybe you 'non believers' can get something out of it...

OK, I haven't weighed in on this issue yet... so here goes my weak attempt to rationalize so many ideas...

For starters, I have recently finished a course on ocean science taught by Dr. David Townsend. He's the director of the School of Marine Sciences here at the University of Maine. He conducts a lot of research in the Gulf of Maine with fish stocks, as well as tracking ocean currents, temperatures, salinity, and many many other very intriguing things. Yesterday he gave a very very influential eye-opening lecture. He cited many many statistics and facts that are very much evidence of global climate change and that the oceans are getting warmer. (If you're going to read this, you'll want to get the lecture material (http://grampus.umeoce.maine.edu/sms-100/Class-28-Slides-Dec-14-2006.pdf) that he used). It's no big secret.

We all know that the greenhouse effect is very important, in moderation. If we didn't have this effect, Earth would more or less turn into a planet like Mars. If there are too many greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) being emitted into the atmosphere, Earth will (give or take a LOT) turn more or less into Jupiter, with a very dense atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is very important to the climate on Earth, and it's important to have carbon dioxide in it. HOWEVER, over the past century (since the industrial revolution really...), the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere has been increasing, exponentially. This spells danger. More on this in a moment...

First, one of the main ways that we know anything about the earth 450,000 years ago is through ice cores. These ice cores contain air pockets. The deeper in the core, the older the ice. These air pockets, when tested, let us determine the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at certain times in Earth's history.

Back on topic... carbon dioxide levels over the past 450,000 years are illustrated in the link provided, on page 12, third sheet. This clearly shows a cyclic pattern. Keep in mind that's 450,000 years. In all of those 450,000 years, the level of carbon dioxide barely, if ever, went above 300 ppm (parts per million). Look at the graph above it. This graph, page 12 of document, chart 2, is temperature plotted with carbon dioxide levels in ppm over the past 160,000 years (the last ice age). It shows a VERY strong relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature.

Now, on page 13, charts 1 and 2 show the carbon dioxide levels (again, in ppm) over the past 300 years, and the past 50 years, respectively. Notice where the 300 ppm mark is. Over the past 300 years, this 300 ppm mark was broken around the year 1900. Since then, the amount of carbon dioxide has been increasing. See chart 2 on page 13... that's from 1958 to 2004. There is clearly a positive trend (the fluctuation is the seasons).

I'm not going to explain this very well, but here it goes… The ice caps are indeed melting. Look at page 15 of the notes, chart 1. Basically, they're melting from below. The added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reflecting more radiation from the sun into the Earth, especially the oceans. This is causing a general warming trend in the oceans. To over simplify a very complicated phenomenon and try to make it conceptual, the Gulf Stream moves towards the North pole, gets cooler, sinks, and circulates back to the Northern Pacific Ocean before resurfacing... When the water is warmed, the current warms up. When the current warms up, it goes to the North Pole with warmer water, therefore melting the ice cap. The diagram shows the ice cap in 1979 and again in 2003. It is getting smaller. As the cap melts, the fresh water that is coming from the melting is much less dense than the ocean water as it is cooling. This melted water is staying on the surface, and, in theory, slowing the gulf stream, which contributes greatly to global weather. Whew.

As for solutions, reducing dependency on fossil fuels is crucial. Not only reducing, but eliminating. My goal with this post was to convey the message that my professor got through to me yesterday. I hope I did it justice. It was the most amazing and beneficial hour of lecture that I have ever attended.

I'm providing a link here to some of the lecture material. All of the numbers I've used have come from this lecture, December 14, 2006. Specifically, look at pages 10-16. Lecture Material (http://grampus.umeoce.maine.edu/sms-100/Class-28-Slides-Dec-14-2006.pdf).

A lot of this is questionable, as most things are. If you've made it this far, thank you for reading it. I've done my best to convey the messages my professor conveyed to me.

DISCLAIMER: The science behind global climate change is not conclusive, and therefore most of what I just said isn't conclusive. But, since the vast majority of climatologists are saying the same thing, I'm going to trust them on it. (And, I might have made some errors, too)

If you took the time to read that, I'm impressed.

[timbob1907]

Yes.
A warmer climate would melt ice and at the same time evaporate seawater, right? Are you saying that the melting rate is larger than the evaporation rate?
There is a lot of land that is not inhabited.
Cool, where's this article?
Nor have you proven it.

Other than I already mentioned, here are a couple more things to prove:
That humans have caused the majority of the CO2 increase.
That these CO2 emissions did not simply displace other greenhouse gases (like ozone:)).
Im saying that the water level will rise. Once the ice has melted then the earth will get hotter cause its not using the heat to melt the ice.
Sure but at this rate how will a central city like New york or others get their CO2 taken care of.
Ill find it later but if you ever read a magazine called science im sure you would see one along those lines.
I havent proven it becuase others already have. :D
Where else has it come from? It already has been proven by the way. They dig up ice from the glaciers and measure the CO2 levels for the different years. Since the Indus Rev the CO2 levels have gone up dramatically.
Not sure about your last question though sorry.

[john_childs]

I want a fast plug-in electric hybrid car and I also want lots of nuclear power plants so I can get power for my fast little electric car. Nuclear power doesn't cause greenhouse gases or spew out carbon. Electric cars are zippy.

If I have to believe in global warming to get my dream then so be it.

[Gilby]

Im saying that the water level will rise. Once the ice has melted then the earth will get hotter cause its not using the heat to melt the ice.
Wait a second. But the earth has already gotten hotter and there is still ice to melt... Not all the extra heat is absorbed in to the ice.

Sure but at this rate how will a central city like New york or others get their CO2 taken care of.The whole question here is, do they need to?
I havent proven it becuase others already have. :DReally, I'm still waiting for the unbiased article and conclusive data.Where else has it come from? It already has been proven by the way. What's proven? That CO2 and heat are correlated? Still doesn't prove what caused the other.

More questions:
Is CO2 causing the warming, or is the warming causing the CO2? Basic science tells us that water holds CO2 better when it is colder, so if the earth is getting warmer, then the CO2 in the ocean would be released as a result.
Is human-produced emissions resulting in most the CO2 emissions? A lot of CO2 is released from decaying matter, volcanos and other natural occurances. Some data shows that accounts for almost all of it with the human produced CO2 being relatively minor.
Is CO2 the significant greenhouse gas here? Water vapor accounts for the majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Conveniently excluded by the IPCC because we can't control water vapor, but we can control our CO2 emissions... politics!
How do we know that we aren't coming out of a cool period? According to data, late 19th century was a very cold period and we are rising from there. During the medieval period, it was much warmer than it is now.
What about the temperature decrease after WW2? WW2 was a huge industrial period, with CO2 emissions, yet it was a period of cooling.Ah, global warming, a complex subject to confuse the masses and justify international taxation and power. Until science proves it, I'm going to assume it's just politics as usual.

[Gilby]

This is really discouraging. A professor of mine last semester gave me some very valuable insight on the whole situation, so I'm going to repost what I posted in one of the many other global climate change threads and maybe you 'non believers' can get something out of it...

What's the source of the data? Hopefully something other than the data produced for the UN's IPCC by Michael Mann.

[sugarloafur]

What's the source of the data? Hopefully something other than the data produced for the UN's IPCC by Michael Mann.

The graph of the CO2 levels over the past 50 years came from the NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory (http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/), as stated on the top of one of the charts. The graph showing CO2 concentration in ice cores over the last 450,000 years came from Jean-Marc Barnola, who has published reports for the NOAA, based on my brief research and a little help from Google. I'm guessing that he got most of this data and charts from this observatory and/or NOAA. See if you can find more small print on those charts. That's what I found from 2 of them. They seem like reputable sources to me.

[Gilby]

So today's measurements are taken from a sample above sea level in a very tropical zone, and it's being compared against samples of air trapped in ice from the antarctic? Wouldn't the distribution of CO2 be different, similar to how ozone is? And wouldn't different weather conditions and surrounding conditions cause them to be different as well?

[sugarloafur]

So today's measurements are taken from a sample above sea level in a very tropical zone, and it's being compared against samples of air trapped in ice from the antarctic? Wouldn't the distribution of CO2 be different, similar to how ozone is? And wouldn't different weather conditions and surrounding conditions cause them to be different as well?

All good questions. Too bad I'm not an expert or I could give you sound reasons as to why those measurements were taken there. I'm sure it's not arbitrary, and I'm sure that those who know what they're talking about chose that location for specific reasons.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/4431.jpg (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/25h.html)
Global CO2 distribution and annual and mid-term variation
© NOAA / CMDL (click on image to go to website I found it on)

To me, that looks like nearly anywhere globally CO2 levels are higher than 300 ppm, which is the level that they've never exceeded before.

I forgot to include a link to Dr. Townsend's website: http://grampus.umeoce.maine.edu/dave/homepage.htm

[Gilby]

Nice graph, I was looking for data like that, but all I found on the noaa site was the global average data.

But, it still doesn't solve my earlier question though... it does get more complicated. My premise is that the CO2 data measured from the ice is shifted down for some reason. All that ice in the Antarctic undergoes extreme pressure under all the snow and ice above it. Ice melts under pressure and CO2 is absorbed better in water under colder temperatures and higher pressures. Therefore, during these melting times, the CO2 from the trapped air gets absorbed into the melted ice (possibly forming a clathrate hydrate compound??).

[sugarloafur]

Nice graph, I was looking for data like that, but all I found on the noaa site was the global average data.

But, it still doesn't solve my earlier question though... it does get more complicated. My premise is that the CO2 data measured from the ice is shifted down for some reason. All that ice in the Antarctic undergoes extreme pressure under all the snow and ice above it. Ice melts under pressure and CO2 is absorbed better in water under colder temperatures and higher pressures. Therefore, during these melting times, the CO2 from the trapped air gets absorbed into the melted ice (possibly forming a clathrate hydrate compound??).

That's interesting. I'm not sure how scientists determine when the CO2 was frozen into air pockets. Perhaps the pockets that they have found haven't been compressed that much yet? and it'd be harder to tell if they got a core from deeper... It'd be nice to know exactly how those numbers are determined, but for now, I'm going to trust the people who do it for a living :) .

[steveyo]

Global warming is neither a hoax nor a corporate plot. I just wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper and posted in JC about here. (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60110)

A very pertinent portion of my letter is this:

There were 928 peer-reviewed articles on climate change published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. (Peer-review is where other experts in the field review and verify articles). None -- not one article -- disagreed with the premise that current warming trends are caused or worsened by human activities.

Every major scientific association has issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

[Gilby]

That's interesting. I'm not sure how scientists determine when the CO2 was frozen into air pockets. Perhaps the pockets that they have found haven't been compressed that much yet? and it'd be harder to tell if they got a core from deeper... It'd be nice to know exactly how those numbers are determined, but for now, I'm going to trust the people who do it for a living :) .The deeper you go, the older it is. And of course those older samples mean everything in determining whether today's co2 is higher then ever before. The charts shown do not show the corresponding high current temperature in the same proportion as the older data does.

[Gilby]

There were 928 peer-reviewed articles on climate change published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. (Peer-review is where other experts in the field review and verify articles). None -- not one article -- disagreed with the premise that current warming trends are caused or worsened by human activities. 75% of the 928 accepted the view either explicitly or implicitly. Some of those 75% were evaluating the implications of that being the case, and others on how to mitigate the problem.

In any case, I stand by my solution. Eliminate the biggest polluter, and don't let them regulate and give subsidies to losers, or anything because they just get it wrong. So far, the US government proposed hydrogen, which is a loser, and corn-based ethanol, also a loser. Ethanol would become feasible if it were not corn based.

[sugarloafur]

The deeper you go, the older it is. And of course those older samples mean everything in determining whether today's co2 is higher then ever before.

I realize that the deep you go, the older the ice and air is. I'm saying that with your whole compression and absorption of CO2 idea, maybe they've only dug deep enough to find CO2 that hasn't already formed a different molecule. Perhaps if they dug a core from even deeper, they would no longer be able to find traces of CO2.

The charts shown do not show the corresponding high current temperature in the same proportion as the older data does.

I see what you're saying, but based on some of the other charts over the past 160,000+ years (page 12, chart 2 of the pdf file), there is a clear and distinct correlation between CO2 levels an the average global temperature.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

Here's another chart from MLO showing the mean monthly global CO2 levels.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html

Sorry for this blurry chart... It's the mean global temperature from 1850 to 2000
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/images/cl110f08.jpg
It was found here http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/cl110.htm from the IPCC report (so far I have been avoiding this...)

This might be more what you were looking for:
http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/109s/karl0720_files/image006.jpg
http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/109s/Karl0720.htm

Sorry for just pulling charts, but they illustrate the point a whole lot better than I can explain it.

[timbob1907]

Dont think that ethanol will work at all. It goes the complete wrong way. Im not sure the figures but it takes a heckuva lot of energy and land to create ethanol. Its just not worth it. Instead of having our cars spit out CO2 or not as much, they just spit it out elsewhere and destroy rainforests and wildlife with the crops of corn. Also it will spike the price of corn everywhere. Its not a good idea.

[Gilby]

I see what you're saying, but based on some of the other charts over the past 160,000+ years (page 12, chart 2 of the pdf file), there is a clear and distinct correlation between CO2 levels an the average global temperature.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif
I don't disagree with the correlation, but that graph shows a high spike in the past century and that data is from a different source. The temperature did not move significantly with it like the rest of the graph implies. Therefore, I would guess that the co2 measured from the ice is offset in comparison to the atmospheric measures of today.

[Gilby]

Dont think that ethanol will work at all. It goes the complete wrong way. Im not sure the figures but it takes a heckuva lot of energy and land to create ethanol. Its just not worth it. Instead of having our cars spit out CO2 or not as much, they just spit it out elsewhere and destroy rainforests and wildlife with the crops of corn. Also it will spike the price of corn everywhere. Its not a good idea.
Exactly. Ethanol would probably be energy efficient if it's derived from industrial hemp, or other more efficient plants. I think hemp can be harvested 4 times a year. Here in Minnesota, the U has had good results with prairie grasses.

I'm waiting for the day when I can have a little automated lawn mower that bags the clippings and puts them in an anaerobic digester or fermenter. Then get myself a biogas powered car and go vroom...

[sugarloafur]

I don't disagree with the correlation, but that graph shows a high spike in the past century and that data is from a different source. The tempurature did not move significantly with it like the rest of the graph implies. Therefore, I would guess that the co2 measured from the ice is offset in comparison to the atmospheric measures of today.

Ahhh, now I understand what you're saying. That is an interesting observation. Maybe it has to do entirely with lack of science and attention to details, or maybe it's due to the industrial revolution... your guess is as good as mine.