Global Climate Change

[wdyasq]

As I read about the new global warming I can't help but remember the last great crisis, the "New Ice Age" that was to hit about.... now.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=2752676



81833290

Things like this sure make one wonder. Of course all of our data is less than 200 years old or speculation. And, the climate is under continual change.

Some of my views are not shared by others. One is an ex-politician who sells carbon credits, rides about in private jets, buys some of the carbon credits he sells to offset his lavish abode and lifestyle and uses the media to advance his scare tactics and agenda. (while enriching his bank account).

I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce waste and conserve resources that are quite possibly limited. But, I think the scientists are using a very short ruler to predict quite complicated processes. And, I have my doubts if they have the proper knowledge and equations to solve a 'problem' that a blown database may have falsely created.

However, it the politicians continue to 'educate' the masses to the level they do today and use whatever tools they have to stay in power rather than serve in the interests of the folks who elected them, this should be expected.

Bringing cheer,

Ron

[feral air]

Personally, it's the toxic chemicals that forces my stance on the issue, whether global warming is real or not.

If you're not pro-change, move downwind from a coal fired power plant or spend an hour each day in a locked garage with your car running. If either of those things sounds like a bad idea then maybe you can agree that some change would be good.

What do we lose if we change our energy-producing ways? What do we lose if we don't change our ways?

It would help if you could forget global warming and climate change when thinking about those questions.

[gizmo]

To me its not a case of is the science right or wrong, its a case of what if its right.

If the science is wrong, and this is a natural event, then all is fine and by changing our ways at least we have saved a few watts and cleaned up this little planet we are on. Its like wearing a seat belt in my car, I may never need it, but if I do need it, I'll be glad I took the precaution of putting it on.

Fact is, chances are if you can read this then you are in the lucky small percentage of humans on this planet with easy access to power/food/water. And its us who have the biggest foot print. People die so we can put petrol in our cars.

It is time to look at our way of life, and cut back on our excesses. Be aware that we have an effect, and it just may be that we are killing our home.

Yeah the science may be wrong, but what if its right.

Glenn

[dinges]

The question whether it's man-made or not is an irrelevant one, as we have only limited resources with which to react to the phenomenon of global climate change.

If it's not man-made, we can spend all those resources on building dikes, dams, etc.

If it's man-made, the resources may have to be split into counteracting the cause (reducing pollution, reducing energy usage) AND taking countermeasures to the consequences of the heating (dike, dams, etc.)

So, the question as to the cause is not an irrelevant question at all...

People tend to forget that it takes valuable resources to counteract the effects of global climate change. Once the resources are used for one thing (like carbon-credits ?), they can't be used for other, possible more effective measures anymore (things that might possibly solve the real problem at hand; what good is it to change our behaviour if global climate change is just one of those cyclical things of this earth ? Which I think it is).

Don't get me wrong, I think there are other reasons why our current way of living is not long-term sustainable, but I don't think global climate change has anything to do with it.

Yet, there are people (politicians and others with agendas/interests) that claim there is a link between human behaviour and global climate change and use the scare to further their own cause. It seems like many people don't mind being (ab-)used in that way. If I were in a cynical mood I'd say that most people are fools, but I'm not. At least, not today.

No worries. The earth and life on it will still be here long after the humanoids are gone.

I wouldn't worry about CO2 emissions and the need to tax it either (carbon 'credits' = tax...). Rising fuel prices will solve that issue far better than any (international) government could. The economic principle is a much more stringent force than any U-turn-making politician ever could be. The economic principle doesn't care about re-elections either, it just does its job, ruthlessly.

[dinges]

correction:

"The question whether it's man-made or not is NOT an irrelevant one [...]"

[ZooT]

Quote: To me its not a case of is the science right or wrong, its a case of what if its right.

To me it's more of a case of whether it's actually even science, or instead just propaganda.........designed to make one feel guilty while they're being fleeced..........

[rossw]

I think we all know that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Meaning, you can make a bunch of numbers say whatever you want it to.

Dig enough environmental data out, you can prove the earth is getting hotter, getting colder, getting more unstable, getting more stable, remaining much the same....

Similarly, you can find links to human activity, human inactivity, volcanic activity, changes in sea life (plankton etc) that fits the measured data. And when it doesn't fit, throw in a meteor or two.

I'm absolutely sure we, as a species, are living waaaay beyond any sustainable level at the moment (globally sustainable that is, sure, we could have one country living it up, if the rest of the world stay in their caves and eat berries etc).

The answer is not so much "finding new energy reserves", as "reducing our energy consumption" - and that is something individuals and families need to do. Still, as you say, Peter, "supply and demand" will take care of the petroleum situation - as it becomes more scarce, people will stop using as much (because they will be simply unable to afford it).

Alternative power sources (solar, wind, tidal ideally), but also renewable (wood, other bio-processes (digesters etc) will be the way we have to move. Those of us who are "early adopters" will have the jump on others, perhaps.

Sadly, with the money and politics involved, I don't see petrolium and coal being substantially reduced until the big oil companies have wrung every last dollar out of it.... by which stage, we will almost certainly be in a major energy crisis - with so much denial of any imminent energy problem, peoples power use/demand will continue to increase (especially in developing countries) right up to the end "crunch day"... and we will NEED huge amounts of energy. Not free energy. Not green energy. Not efficient energy. Just plan watts, and lots of them. I think we will (as a species) be forced (by greed and ignorance) into short-term nuclear to make up the (massive) energy shortfall when it inevitably comes. It's that, or social collapse. (Or perhaps that AND social collapse).

My 2c worth (less if you include carbon credits!)

[DanB]

I guess you lured me into arguing on this one Ron...  I read the article at investers.com there.  Funny how the author isn't even given credit - but most of their 'editorials' are politcally slanted and they're definitely not scientists - they probably do have motivation to appeal to a mostly 'conservative' audiance though.  'Conservative - liberal' - kind of stupid terms with lots of baggage attached to them in my opinion.  In many ways I would consider myself politically 'conservative' although I tend to find myself in agreement more often with 'liberals'.  Our current 'conservative' govt has somehow come to be the largest - and biggest spending/nation building govt we've ever had so I really don't know what these terms mean.

Back to the point though - it is ashame this stuff gets so political and I guess it's only expected that politicians would use it all to their advantage when they can.  In my mind it's not so much about politicts though - it is about science and the article you listed is really BS in my opinion - it talks about a couple of people and really makes no good point in my mind.  If you want to read about climate change there's lots better stuff out there.

"As I read about the new global warming I can't help but remember the last great crisis, the "New Ice Age" that was to hit about.... now."

That was really a controversial thing and did not generate near the concern that climate change does now.  The science behind it was also much weaker and less understood.  And - even today, many scientists disagree about what will happen, how quickly - etc, but there is very little argument that human beings - and our consumption of petroleum is having a pretty significant impact on the atmosphere.

"Things like this sure make one wonder. Of course all of our data is less than 200 years old or speculation."

All our recorded data is less than 200 years old and there is a lot of good data - samples from ice cores, tree rings, ability to look at what sorts of plants & animals lived where when (fossil records) etc.. that gives some pretty good data and there is a lot of agreement between these different sources of data that tends to paint a fairly consistant picture..  It is science - not speculation.  

 "And, the climate is under continual change."

That is true.  It does seem rather odd though that we have the highest CO2 levels in our atmosphere in about 350,000 years and this has spiked significantly since the begining of the industrial revolution.  There is also a direct correlation between temp. and CO level, or at least there is a lot of evidence to support that - and we know that it is a 'green house gas' so it makes sense that it should happen.  There are lots of variables though and many things are hard to predict, there are lots of theorists, there are lots of good scientists who are happy to say 'I dont know'.

"Some of my views are not shared by others. One is an ex-politician who sells carbon credits, rides about in private jets, buys some of the carbon credits he sells to offset his lavish abode and lifestyle and uses the media to advance his scare tactics and agenda. (while enriching his bank account)."

I know you don't like Al Gore - that really has nothing to do with the issue though.

"I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce waste and conserve resources that are quite possibly limited. But, I think the scientists are using a very short ruler to predict quite complicated processes."

I think they're using the best ruler they have and most of them are coming to agree about this stuff.

" And, I have my doubts if they have the proper knowledge and equations to solve a 'problem' that a blown database may have falsely created."

There is a lot more than one data base looking at this stuff.  

"However, it the politicians continue to 'educate' the masses to the level they do today and use whatever tools they have to stay in power rather than serve in the interests of the folks who elected them, this should be expected."

Yes, unfortunately politicians - large coorporations and even individuals will try to profit any way they can without concern for the common good.  I do think this is important stuff though and I wish people could at least educate themselves.  Lots of this carbon offset stuff is BS - there is a lot of bad stuff going on, but there is a lot of good science and you won't find it in a conservative business magazines editorial section... or on the Rush Limbough show ;-)

Bringing cheer,

yes.. thank you!

[Mary B]

Whatever the argument the use of fossil fuels is bad news. Most of the money is going to countries that harbor terrorists. And the biggest reason to conserve and find new sources, it is the right thing to do. Oil won't last forever and politicians will talk it to death before doing much to help. Individual people can make the biggest difference if they do some simple things to conserve energy. CFL's alone can cut a huge part of the home energy use. Unplug the electronics over night to turn off all the standby power supplies made a HUGE difference in my electrical usage. The stereo and TV draw 2 amps on standby, and my computer systems are just as bad. I dropped 25% of my electrical usage just by doing some simple things that any American family can do without buying solar panels or a wind generator. I added solar and am working on wind because the local power company can't seem to keep the grid up here. I have had 17 outages over an hour so far this year. The solar panels and 225 amp hour of batteries will at least give me 3-4 hours of backup on the corn stove.

[DanB]

Yes - cant argue with the idea of conservation, that is necessary no matter what.  We can add up all the solar - nuclear - wind -etc etc...  and all of it combined will never put more than a small dent in the sort of cheap fossil fuel energy we're currently used to.

Pretty scary stuff...  climate change is definitely serious stuff, OK - if some consider it controversial thats fine but even if theres a small chance it's true we should be changing our lifestyle.  The other big one (OK - maybe Im a liberal conspiracy theorist/doomsayer) is 'peak oil'.  Our world economy (and our american dream so to speak) is dependant on constant 'growth' and that's fairly dependant upon cheap energy which I believe is running out.  Unfortunately - if this climate change stuff is true then I fear the oil and the coal may not run out quickly enough...

[TAH]

There are a couple of interesting points in the global warming issue. First the surface temperature on Mars has increased just about the same as here. Second if CO2 is the cause of the warming and you look at decay times of atmospheric CO2 even if 100% of fossil fuel use stopped today the temperature would continue to increase at the current rate for 50 to 100 years yet. This is from reading various reports on global warming and not the anti stuff. So even if Kioto (sp?) was followed everywhere right now we would still be doomed.

It seems to me that the question of polution needs to be fixed now. We know where that comes from and what would make it stop. Every lake in North America now has mercury in the fish and probably the rest of the world too. This is from coal fired plants, many of them in Asia where they would not be affected by any current clobal warming plan that I have seen.  

[DanB]

A few comments...

"There are a couple of interesting points in the global warming issue. First the surface temperature on Mars has increased just about the same as here."

Well - faster actually from what I've read.  There are all kinds of little things that people who I tend to think are in 'denial' (or maybe they just think its a politcal isue and they don't like the side thats talking about climate change) like to publish and talk about.  Volcanos - cosmic rays  - mars - etc...  

Here's a good one about 'global warming on mars': http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

 "Second if CO2 is the cause of the warming and you look at decay times of atmospheric CO2 even if 100% of fossil fuel use stopped today the temperature would continue to increase at the current rate for 50 to 100 years yet."

Humans are mostly like (in my opinion) a big contributor to the situation - and yes...  the CO2 stays there for a long time.  And - warmer oceans absorb less CO2 so it may be even worse than some speculate.  Heck - I don't know ;-)

" This is from reading various reports on global warming and not the anti stuff. So even if Kioto (sp?) was followed everywhere right now we would still be doomed."

Well - maybe... maybe not.  I expect it will be inconvenient, not sure if we'd be doomed or not!  Unfortunately I think a lot of people are doomed -now- by current climate conditions and I expect that will get worse.

"It seems to me that the question of polution needs to be fixed now. We know where that comes from and what would make it stop. Every lake in North America now has mercury in the fish and probably the rest of the world too. This is from coal fired plants, many of them in Asia where they would not be affected by any current clobal warming plan that I have seen."

Yes I agree.  Tricky stuff and there is likely no graceful solution.  What bugs me are the people in denial who think that 'good old capitalism' will solve the problem and think that business as usual will solve all the problems.  They mean no harm by thinking that way but that thinking is part of the problem, not the solution (and there may actually be no good solution anyhow) in my opinion.  Let capitalism and  the free market economy take care of all this and you suddenly find wealthy oil people in charge of the most powerful country in the world which is very scary stuff in my opinion.  

[DanB]

I guess this little snip says it all about the article you posted there...

"Isn't it true that scientists in the 1970s said the earth was cooling?

-- (several readers)

Wallace: I remember the brief flurry of excitement about global cooling during the late 1970s. I think that most of it was prompted by the media hype about the 1976-77 and 1977-78 winters, which produced some remarkably cold weather over the United States. There were a few scientists at that time who were promoting the idea that these cold winters were harbingers of a trend towards a new ice age. They pointed out that the temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere had been cooling slightly since the 1950s, and they postulated that this was the beginning of a long-term cooling trend that could culminate in an ice age.

Most of us were very skeptical of these claims and largely ignored them. Within a few years, the pendulum had swung the other way and scientists were beginning to recognize that the worldwide climate had actually been warming quite dramatically since the early 1970s.

The cooling scare involved a handful of scientists and lasted only a few years, until evidence proved it wrong. In contrast, nearly the entire scientific community is concerned about global warming and this concern has been steadily getting stronger as the evidence accumulates."

The whole discussion is here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002552576_qa_globalwarming.html

[Mary B]

the winter of 96-97 (97-98?) in SW MN had some saying global cooling. Snow drifts over houses, major floods when it thawed etc. But at the same time that winter was warmer than normal and the moisture pattern had shifted and this part of MN had record snowfall levels. What is warming in one spot can trigger oddball weather patterns in other places.

[Volvo farmer]

Cool, a debate! and nobody has called each other derogatory names yet :-)

I'm agreeable to the replies from Dinges and rossw, I especially impressed by Dinges' post and agree with most of his points, well said!

I do think it's quite possible that mankind is changing the climate by burning up all sorts of fossil fuels, maybe trees too :-0 However, where things get tricky is in what people decide to do about it.

If you really buy the science, the way it has been presented by Al Gore, I think the only honest assessment of the situation is that the human race is doomed. We can make as many wind turbines and solar panels as we want, we can buy and sell carbon credits, we can enact legislation to encourage people to conserve... None of it is really going to stop our current predicament, which is that there are too many of us here and that all the industrialized world needs a large amount of energy to survive day to day, more energy in fact, than can ever be generated by renewable means. This can ONLY mean more carbon into the atmosphere... or a 100% nuclear fueled energy system.

The way I see it, we are tied to the train tracks. Some people swear they hear a train coming and start chipping at the steel rails with toothpicks. Others say there is no train coming and don't want to be forced to use their toothpicks to wear away the steel rails, cause they got food in their teeth. Myself? I think I'll open another bottle of wine, I think maybe I hear a train. I do know that I enjoy a good wine buzz, whether or not I'm going to get hit by a train.

When in Rome...

[TAH]

"Let capitalism and  the free market economy take care of all this and you suddenly find wealthy oil people in charge of the most powerful country in the world which is very scary stuff in my opinion."

The problem we have now is that all of the "viable" candidates on either side and a good portion of all office holders in general are controlled by the wealthy whether oil or otherwise. All politics now seems to be either pandering for votes by promising more money spent or selling out for campaign money to be able to pay for the pandering.  

[DanB]

I agree with most of Dinges post too...

except these bits:

'I wouldn't worry about CO2 emissions and the need to tax it either (carbon 'credits' = tax...).'

I dont know about taxing CO2 -  or charging the 'real cost' (or maybe a small bit of the real cost) of energy.  The government (I guess thats us - its govt of the people isn't it) gives away our land to energy companies and spends our tax dollars to subsidize cheap fossil fuels.  

 'Rising fuel prices will solve that issue far better than any (international) government could.'

Perhaps...  

 'The economic principle is a much more stringent force than any U-turn-making politician ever could be.'

Hmmm...  who runs this country at the moment?

 'The economic principle doesn't care about re-elections either,'

You think?  Again - who is currently running our government and who got re-elected about 3 years ago, and who is profiting from all that and what is the cost to most citizens of this country and the world?  If Im not mistaken we have 'oil people' running our country at the moment and they are very worried about re-election.  It was the 'economic principle' that put them there.

[TomW]

Volvo;

Stop stealing my thoughts. It is not considered very friendly, you know.

Scary stuff when that happens.

Pass the Spliff.

Cheers.

TomW

[feral air]

Weird, for sure...a discussion about global warming/climate change that hasn't turned into a flame fest. It's a first!

I like your analogy...

But if I'm stuck to the tracks as well then I guess I'm the idiot that's suggesting we brainstorm on a way to use the toothpicks more effecitvely. "Maybe there's a politician somewhere that would like an acupuncture session?", being my first suggestion. ;-)

[DanB]

I'm not really interested in politcal veiws or any of that - and the origional article posted was very political and really not telling the whole story at all.  This is an allright site for people who are interested in what might be really going on.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Global

and there are lots of others and some very good books I've read on the topic.  I forget the author, but a very good book I read last winter was called 'the weather makers'.  It was not politcal - it just discussed the science, and the controversy.

This all reminds me a bit of Darwin and evolution.  Good science - lots of people in denial who hate the idea and look for anything they can find to disprove it.  Lots of religious people and political people got involved (theyre still involved).  Al Gore may have done more harm than good just because he is a political figure and lots of folks dont like him and will go way out their way to find reasons to disbelive anything he says.  Fact is - all that stuff he said is fairly old, none of it's his - and lots of people are currently thinking he was painting a bit of a rosey picture compared to what may be really happening.  I liked his movie though..  most of it was based on pretty solid science and I'm glad that so many people saw it.

[Volvo farmer]

Remember, this is equinox time. the sun is moving fastest along the horizon at sunrise  on Sep 21, and also in August about this time.

I respect you a lot, I even idolize you sometimes. But I ain't afraid to argue ideas in public to see who has the best idea.

I read some Ayn Rand back when I was young and impressionable. Ayn Rand was a capitalist, because she got socialist stuff shoved down her throat when she was growing up. You say maybe carbon emissions should be taxed in this nation. I see a big smokestack coming out of the otherpower HQ powering a steam boiler. What would you think if the government grabbed some of your money and gave it to me, because I wasn't burning any carbon in my eco-friendly house?

Again, respectfully, in the spirit of discussion and debate... sometimes fueled by the spirits of wine.

VF

 

[DanB]

Well..

If Im actually burning trees in my steam engine, (dead ones) then it's a bit of a break even deal.  Left to decay in the forest over just a few years they would emit exactly the same amount of Co2 (maybe slightly less along with some methane which is even worse!) as my steam engine does.  Sort of the same thing as burning veggie oil or bio diesel - its break even.  The tree takes a certain amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere - it goes back when I burn it.  Totally different than burning coal or gasoline and 100% carbon neutral.

[DanB]

actually bio diesel, ethanol and veggie oil (unless its recycled) are quite a bit worse than me burning wood in the steam engine.  They require a good bit of human energy to create and they require good crop land.  I'm just burning dead wood from the forest - mostly stuff thats laying on the ground.  So if you're worried about 'CO2 footprint' - this engine is pretty hard to beat.  If you're worried about man hours/KWH...  there's lots better ways to go.

[PHinker]

  Quite an eye opening series of posts.  What's most remarkable to me is the level of self-importance that many place on the influence and impact of human activity.  The amount of solar energy striking the earth in one minute's time is greater than all the human produced energy in an entire year.  And yet, when someone asks if solar output might have something to do with the minor temperature changes being measured, that person is labeled a 'denier'.

   When I was a kid, I was told by my grade school teacher that due to the 'population explosion' by the time I was 30 there would be wide-spread starvation in the United States and all over the world because the earth simply wouldn't be able to support 4 billion people.  I spent years being secretly happy when I heard there was an earthquake or some other major disaster which killed a large number of people (that's how much I believed that clap-trap that was fed to me).

   When I was in high school, the next ice age was going to freeze us all, prevent farmers from growing crops, and cause the deaths of millions.  Now, of course, noone really believed that but this is different.  

   In college, Ted Danson and his ilk were running around telling everyone that if we didn't do something RIGHT NOW the oceans would be massive bodies of raw sewage unable to sustain life by 1990.

   I'm sorry, the fear mongers no longer get a free pass in my mind.  The simple fact that the majority of the mainstream media are absolutely certain that human activity is the major cause of global climate change causes me to doubt.  They have successfully conditioned me to disbelieve them and actively search for my own answers.

   I'm not ready to admit that moderate global warming is a bad thing.  Who's to say that having a longer growing season further north of the equator is a bad thing?  I'm also not self-centered enough to believe that my own life span is so important that if something changes during that time, it must be bad/good/significant.  I'm sure we've all heard people say, "Well, it must be global warming since when I was a kid, winters were much colder."  How extraordinary.

[DanB]

I guess I shall try to be persistant in this argument for now...

"Quite an eye opening series of posts.  What's most remarkable to me is the level of self-importance that many place on the influence and impact of human activity.  The amount of solar energy striking the earth in one minute's time is greater than all the human produced energy in an entire year. "

Yes, that's an interesting statistic but it's beside the point.  A little bit of human generated fossil fuel energy changes the atmosphere to really help that solar energy along.

" And yet, when someone asks if solar output might have something to do with the minor temperature changes being measured, that person is labeled a 'denier'."

All I can say is just look at the numbers.  Plenty of very good science going on out there I think.  What does it say?  You can choose to deny it or not.

   "When I was a kid, I was told by my grade school teacher that due to the 'population explosion' by the time I was 30 there would be wide-spread starvation in the United States and all over the world because the earth simply wouldn't be able to support 4 billion people.  I spent years being secretly happy when I heard there was an earthquake or some other major disaster which killed a large number of people (that's how much I believed that clap-trap that was fed to me)."

That was your grade school teacher.  Yes, lots of people have had misconceptions and sometimes good science has come to wrong conclusions but...  usually good science advances and moves towards the 'right explanation' of how things work and what's really going on I think.

   "When I was in high school, the next ice age was going to freeze us all, prevent farmers from growing crops, and cause the deaths of millions.  Now, of course, noone really believed that but this is different. "

Yes, there's always some bad ideas out there...  

 "  In college, Ted Danson and his ilk were running around telling everyone that if we didn't do something RIGHT NOW the oceans would be massive bodies of raw sewage unable to sustain life by 1990."

Well - he might have been a bit over the top but look what's going on right now with coral reefs - and... world wide fish population.  There are some real problems with that stuff and he may not have been too far off the mark.

  " I'm sorry, the fear mongers no longer get a free pass in my mind.  The simple fact that the majority of the mainstream media are absolutely certain that human activity is the major cause of global climate change causes me to doubt.  They have successfully conditioned me to disbelieve them and actively search for my own answers."

I think paying attention to what other folks are doing/discovering - good science is wise, and what they're saying now is interesting in my mind.  Some will be fear mongers and try to take advantage of the situation, but I guess we all have to try/read between the lines to some degree.  There will always be people crying 'wolf' - there will also always be some real wolfs out there.  I think if you consider statistics about world population growth, CO2 emmissions, existing reserves of fossil fuels,... and a few other things ;-) - then there may be some really serious stuff to be considering that's never come along before in the history of this planet.

  " I'm not ready to admit that moderate global warming is a bad thing.  Who's to say that having a longer growing season further north of the equator is a bad thing? "

I guess that depends on where you live.   It will benefit some and be a real pain to others I expect.  Hopefully the folks who enjoy the longer growing season have the water they need to go along with it.

" I'm also not self-centered enough to believe that my own life span is so important that if something changes during that time, it must be bad/good/significant.  I'm sure we've all heard people say, "Well, it must be global warming since when I was a kid, winters were much colder."  How extraordinary."

Yes - I think it really boils down to... are we making a mess and refusing to clean it up or not?  We've evolved to be the way we are because of how this planet is/has been - and if a couple of generations of humans are going to make significant changes and not care because they're worried about the next election... or their own life time, then that's a sad thing I think.  You make a mess - or realize you've made a mess - it's polite to stop doing it and better yet... try to clean it up!  I'm fairly convinced that future generations will think our generations were the most foolish in history.

[Mary B]

excellent points, and as coral dies the oceans ability to absorb carbon dioxide becomes less. It is all part of a feedback mechanism. The oil we are using up was laid down by the decomposition of plants over millions of years and we are using it up in a few hundred years. Thats a LOT of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere.

[windstuffnow]

  Mom always said " waste not want not ", I'm sure someone said it before her and I've always tried to live by those rules... maybe that's why I'm such a pack rat.

  "Energy can not be created or destroyed, only changed in its physical form"

  My theory is very simple, Global warming is created from waste.  Inefficienty backed by the wholy dollar.

  Don't worry though, mother nature will use this changed energy to re-balance things and make it right again.  Of course, we may not like how she does it.  

  Short and simple...

.

[DanB]

nicely said - I agree 100%.

[Dave B]

I think more people care about today than tomorrow. My day won't change tomorrow if I burn more fuel today or at least not enough to care about. Let's be honest, we've all placed the environmental issues on the back burner a day or two. I care about my taxes going up, not being able to afford health care and the rise in crime and terrorism within our own Country. Who gets my vote ? Our leaders sell them selves into office. The winner will be the one who makes the most people believe that their life will some how be better if they're elected into the driver's seat. Better when ? The sooner the better is understood by the majority with promises such as lower taxes, affordable heath care and lower crime rates. The winner will not be the one who pitches energy plans that will greatly reduce our dependence on Foreign Oil over the next 10-20 years as a priority. I am sure that this election again will go to the candidate who can sell the quick fix ideas for me me, my my as priority with maybe an expressed concern for the enviroment thrown in for good measure. Do I believe that certain levels of CO2 can affect the weather ? Yes. Do I believe that since  more accurate readings of these levels have been recorded that we have increased levels of CO2 ? Yes. Do I believe that for millions of years certain levels of CO2 have affected the weather ? Yes. Do I think it's critical to address environmental issues today ? Lower my taxes then let's talk. I wish I had answers instead of sarcasim but I couldn't let this topic go by without a comment. Dave B.  

[thefinis]

Years ago my brother was studying to be a meteorologist and his take on global warming was that its main effect was to make more energy available to the mechanics that drive the weather. Higher highs lower lows drier droughts bigger floods stronger storms changes in patterns.

I can't help but feel that the world will heal itself. It may be that as the ocean warms and expands it will evaporate more and cloud cover over the earth will help shade it. The American Indians believed that the earth would cleanse itself and from what little I have seen I kind of think so too. It does not mean that civilianization will make it or even that all species of critters will make it. Sometimes it pays to remember how great and big we are: We are tiny short lived bio-chem cancers on a small rock circling a minor star which is just one of millions of stars in our galaxy which swims in an ocean of galaxies. Mankind's history is just a tiny piece of the time line of our world and the mechanical age is just a dot on that line.

A meteor or a major volcanic event can make a very major impact but tends to be more of a one time event and things soon start to right themselves. Our fossil fuels are pumping out carbon removed and stored long ago from the atmosphere and doing so over decades and with an increasing rate. It will keep on happening as long as it is economically feasible because of those in power with vested interests.

I fear the poisons we have released and made and the genetic mutations we are developing more than the CO2 and global warming. Yet I as a farmer burn the diesel spray the chems when needed and at times plant genetically modified crops. I try and conserve. I burn less diesel per crop than in the past. I spray less of the pesticides. I only use genetically changed seed on nonfood crops(cotton) but still I contribute to the decline in global conditions. I like my AC and my computer and my electric lights and the ability to jump in my truck and go to town any time I feel like it. I hope to make power from the wind to offset some of these power hungry luxuries but it may fall to the next generations to pay for our excesses.

A problem with most fixes for our ills is that so seldom is the whole picture ever taken into consideration. CFLs were touted as a major evil and removal from production and replacement by other chemicals started not that many years ago now it seems that the replacements are a major contributor to global warming. Ethanol use is being ramped up to replace gas but a spike in corn production acreages is lowering water quality in some areas. No matter how good the intentions it seems we slide one step back for every step or two we go forward.

Finis

[ruddycrazy]

   Firstly I must say this is one top topic and some of the posts are a top read. When we purchased our farm and bought the PV array we never thought RE and conservation would such a big concern. Our small investment well 20K all up has us 100% off the grid and pretty well self sufficient.

   Now Oz is considered the drieset continent on earth and this year for the first time our natural spring didnt run. The mass's in the lowlands are forced to water their gardens with buckets, no drippers or sprinklers allowed yet the multi nationals are still allowed to take water out of the muarry at a rate more then our whole state uses in a year every 6 months. The roxby downs uranuim mine takes around a gigalitre a day out of the atician basin freely and no-one bat's a word.

  Sure this is just south Oz's delimina but when not if mummy nature turns off the rain in area's reknown for high rainfall will man be made responsible. I say NO!!!

  People are just a pimple on the face of this planet and no matter what we do short of nucin the world we won't have any real effect on the planet. Politicians will preach and make laws but Mother Nature is our keeper and we can't do a thing to stop her fury/kindness. We are just pawns in the whole scene and no govt will ever change the fact.

Always ruddycrazy

Cheers Bryan

[jacquesm]

Correlation != Causation, no argument there.

But the supporting data is fairly strong and the chances that we - humanity - are not somehow involved in this are fairly small.

That said there are lots of people out there what will use any hint of a crisis for personal gain.

If global warming is caused by humanity then we owe it to this 'blue/green ball floating around the sun' to do our bit and to conserve and regulate where we can.

And even if we don't in the interest of those who will come after us I think that would be good practice anyway.

I've noted a funny thing, which is that most of the 'global warming skeptics' do not have children and those on the 'better safe than sorry' side have a one or more descendants.

For me personally it's a simple choice, either it's real and we should drastically change our ways or it is a fluke of statistics (but an unlikely fluke by now) and then even if it won't cause any real difference we will have left the planet slightly cleaner for future generations.

The only really good argument for holding off judgement came from 'dinges' above, that we only have so much resources to spend on this. The answer to that in my opinion is that as long as we have the $ and E to wage war in the name of freedom we probably could

have spent that on hedging out bets in the global warming gamble.

my $0.02, without carbon credits, I don't believe in financial solutions because

they will just be abused by the rich and super rich (corporations).

best regards,

   Jacques.

[feral air]

"The only really good argument for holding off judgement came from 'dinges' above, that we only have so much resources to spend on this."

The fact that we have limited resources is one of the best argument for renewable energy. If renewable energy doesn't pan out we can always go back with pick-axes and donkeys to get the coal if that's what needs to happen.

Seriously, our government spends billions like we spend thousands. If just a couple of those billions went toward RE it would make a dent...no, scratch that...a crater.