The american denial of global warming...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Here I though I posted on the inability of the present proposals to make a serious impact and called for an answer as to why more logical plans are not forthcoming. instead I must have posted something about not liking consequences...

My apologies. I think maybe I'll try re-reading a dictionary. I hate it when they change the language...

TheRedneck

Yup, must be a language thing, you know what they say about people divided by a common language or whatever.

I interpreted you comments as, and I paraphrase - Assume it was true that CO2 is an issue. Two things can be done to reduce impact. Because I see people suggesting the one I don't like. I don't believe it.

That is, you are assesssing the integrity of the science from its implications and consequences. But maybe not, that might just apply in the UK.

Assuming this is true, would the wise solution be a) to raise taxes, implement a commerce-based system to tax those who produce CO2, force people to spend their tme and money on a myriad of proposed projects to reduce the amount of CO2, or b) scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere?

I say (b). But that hasn't even been put forward as a solution by anyone I have heard. Instead, we have a carbon footprint cap and trade system, basically a way to allow CO2 production as long as someone (the government) gets paid for the privilege, a demand that newer, more expensive technologies are used under penalty of law, and cries for additional taxes.

Want to convince me that this is a problem? Show me someone who is trying to solve it rather than milk it. Until then, I will not believe.

ABE: and just to add, many people have already suggested capture and storage, and sequestration of CO2. I suppose that means you should 'believe' now.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by melatonin]

George W. Bush, who doesn't believe in any kind of GW (who also was a C minus average student) regularly has the White House delete whole pages of information proving GW exists, just because he doesn't agree with it. Excellent scientists with brilliant reputations have been fired by the Bush admin, because it doesn't coincide with his views. Ask the scientists if you don't believe me; Liz Blackburn was one who was fired by Bush. She's very well-respected and has one every science award there is except the Nobel Prize (which is probably only a matter of time).
There is no reputable info coming from the companies who support oil, corporations, etc. They in fact, put out disinformation and cleverly hide their biased associations. But if you research their connections, you will see that this is correct.
The science behind GW is solid. The only scientists who don't believe it are the ones working for the govt. or corporations or are being paid for fabricating science, to "disprove" GW.
Also: of course CO2 causes warming, we've known that for a very long time. I was taught that in sixth grade over 40 years ago. We knew it then, and we know it now, it's just that there is so much disinformation out there, some don't believe it is true.

reply to post by melatonin

I interpreted you comments as, and I paraphrase - Assume it was true that CO2 is an issue. Two things can be done to reduce impact. Because I see people suggesting the one I don't like. I don't believe it.

That is, you are assesssing the integrity of the science from its implications and consequences. But maybe not, that might just apply in the UK.

It's not that I don't like the solution of reducing emissions, as much as I don't see that as having as substantial an impact. After all, the concern is that CO2 levels are too high now, not just that they will become too high (I know, this is also a concern). The point being that cleaning the air of CO2 will solve BOTH, while simply reducing emissions will only affect the latter.

To illustrate.. suppose someone is tossing garbage into your yard. You could build a brick wall around your property to prevent anyone from doing it again, but the garbage is still in your yard. You could put up signs that stated only so much garbage could be thrown in your yard. But wouldn't you clean up the yard?

Ironically I heard a statement on XM today while driving, I believe on CNN. Sorry I didn't get the details (was concentrating on not killing the idiot that was trying to drive under my truck), but a statement was issued that CO2 could be extracted from the atmosphere and the carbon reused for energy production, if it was economically viable. Eureka! Finally an idea that makes sense.

Cap and trade is nothing more than a money-maker for a government that wants money and power more than solutions. An Inconvenient Truth is so full of scientific inaccuracies and downright misrepresentations of data that it should be labeled a comedy. And as far as climatologists saying what will happen in 100 years, I'd be happy if they could just tell me if it's going to rain Saturday. They keep getting that wrong.

I simply reject solutions that do not make sense when compared to the problem, and observations/assessments that do not have a solid root in verifiable scientific fact. It's not a question of not liking a solution. It's a question of honest assessment of that solution.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It's not that I don't like the solution of reducing emissions, as much as I don't see that as having as substantial an impact. After all, the concern is that CO2 levels are too high now, not just that they will become too high (I know, this is also a concern). The point being that cleaning the air of CO2 will solve BOTH, while simply reducing emissions will only affect the latter.

They probably are too high now, but I think maintaining current levels would be bearable. Indeed, most efforts to reduce impact are aiming to just level off our impact. It's where we are heading that is the big problem. But it's not just a GHG thing, we are having impacts in other ways too.

Various solutions have been proposed. I'm not an economist or a politician, just a plain scientist, so I don't know the best solution to mitigate our impact. But we do need to do something. I don't care whether we cap and trade, introduce carbon tax, use sequestration etc etc, but a solution is required if we want to ameliorate our future impact.

Cap and trade is nothing more than a money-maker for a government that wants money and power more than solutions. An Inconvenient Truth is so full of scientific inaccuracies and downright misrepresentations of data that it should be labeled a comedy. And as far as climatologists saying what will happen in 100 years, I'd be happy if they could just tell me if it's going to rain Saturday. They keep getting that wrong.

Well, you've just jumped from mitigation issues to scientific issues. I think Gore's documentary was less than perfect, but it wasn't that bad - he overstated the science on some issues. But, ultimately, Gore is not a scientist - so what you perceive as his failings has no impact on the scientific position.

You also appear to equivocate weather prediction and climate prediction. I think chaotic noise is more a factor for weather prediction. For example, a prediction that the temps on the 21st august will be higher than today, is more likely to be correct than a prediction of today being colder than next thursday. Same for a prediction that all being equal, doubling the levels of CO2 will result in a warmer climate.

and observations/assessments that do not have a solid root in verifiable scientific fact. It's not a question of not liking a solution. It's a question of honest assessment of that solution.

TheRedneck

But the solutions and the science underlying the problem are different things. For instance, the recent suggestion of sequestration of CO2 to produce more fuel sounds great. But it also requires a lot of energy. Unless we find cleaner methods to fuel this process, there is no benefit. But this has no impact on the scientific fact that GHGs result in warmer temps due to radiative processes.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
They probably are too high now, but I think maintaining current levels would be bearable. Indeed, most efforts to reduce impact are aiming to just level off our impact. It's where we are heading that is the big problem. But it's not just a GHG thing, we are having impacts in other ways too.

According to Gore, they are higher than they have ever been. And I don't like the idea of allowing a major problem to remain at the 'bearable' stage. If something is broken, especialy to thepoint that some people are becoming hysterical, or to the point where entire economies are being threatenend, it should be fixed. If it is 'bearable', it is not so great an emergency.

Various solutions have been proposed. I'm not an economist or a politician, just a plain scientist, so I don't know the best solution to mitigate our impact. But we do need to do something. I don't care whether we cap and trade, introduce carbon tax, use sequestration etc etc, but a solution is required if we want to ameliorate our future impact.

Since this is a scientific issue, would not a scientific solution be preferable to a political/social solution? Is the real question not one of preventing GHG-induced warming? That would appear to be a scientific concern to me.

I think Gore's documentary was less than perfect, but it wasn't that bad - he overstated the science on some issues. But, ultimately, Gore is not a scientist - so what you perceive as his failings has no impact on the scientific position.

I actually laughed out loud at it. Leaves breathing out CO2 during the fall?

But you are right in your assessment of Gore, and I admit that my views on him changed during the movie. I now see him as merely misinformed, rather than purely power-hungry. But I disagree as to his impact on the situation. An Inconvenient Truth has become a social call to arms for anyone who promotes the catastrophic side of the GW argument. As the spokesman for this issue, I believe he carries some responsibility for being accurate.

You also appear to equivocate weather prediction and climate prediction. I think chaotic noise is more a factor for weather prediction. For example, a prediction that the temps on the 21st august will be higher than today, is more likely to be correct than a prediction of today being colder than next thursday. Same for a prediction that all being equal, doubling the levels of CO2 will result in a warmer climate.

I simply point out in a common way that no climatologist, meteorologist, or scientist of any kind can honeestly tell you that they understand the atmosphere completely. There re far too many variables involved, in both the long and short range forecasting.

Higher CO2 levels do tend to create higher temperatures in static lab experiments, true. however, plant life absorbs CO2 as part of the life cycle, in a process we are just starting to understand. Plant life's impact also tends to increase as they receive higher CO2 levels, higher heat, and more moisture in the air. Warmer air temperatures also tend to increase evaporational cooling from large bodies of water. CO2 also is heavier than air, and tends to remain close to ground, thereby minimizing the greenhouse effect.

This is not to say GW isn't real, but rather to say that we do not have perfect knowledge of the situation as of yet. I am all for continued observation, more testing, and even test programs to measure impact. I am not in favor of throwing an entire economy into disarray because of incomplete analysis.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by melatonin
But the solutions and the science underlying the problem are different things. For instance, the recent suggestion of sequestration of CO2 to produce more fuel sounds great. But it also requires a lot of energy. Unless we find cleaner methods to fuel this process, there is no benefit. But this has no impact on the scientific fact that GHGs result in warmer temps due to radiative processes (in laboratory experiments).

Italicized parenthetical comment added by me.

Oh, but the solutions must be based on the science! Otherwise the solutions can actually make things worse. At one time in history, the accepted science to combat sickness held that the primary cause was 'bad blood'. so the obvious solution was to remove the blood from the patient. the result was almost certain death. This was not a failure of the bloodletters, but rather a failure of the science that told them to do it. And now, before we drain the blood out of this patient, I advocate a more thorough understanding of the problem before we begin using the solution in wholesale fashion.

And as stated before, I see no benefit in raising taxes, unless of course, that money is to be used to combat the problem itself. Nowhere hve I seen anything addressing this, in any form other than catch phrases with no details. Giving up your money will not affect the CO2 levels, nor their impact.

TheRedneck

Ok, I have to just say this, since it's bugging me. Every thread I read about Global Warming, I want to say this, since it comes up again and again.

AL Gore did not invent Global Warming. For crying out loud, I read articles and books, had heated discussions and interesting conversations about the topic A DECADE or more before this little movie came out.

So he decided to make this his crusade. Great. But what I see happening very frequently, is, people are focusing on Al Gore, attacking him in some misguided tactic to discredit him and the topic, as if he and the topic were interchangeable AND untangleable and as if the topic did not have a long history LONG before anyone even knew that Al Gore had an interest in Global Warming.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Italicized parenthetical comment added by me.

If you think that means anything, cool. But a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule. It's physical properties don't change between the lab and the atmosphere. That's why we have a 'greenhouse' effect which ensures the earth is not a snowball.

Oh, but the solutions must be based on the science! Otherwise the solutions can actually make things worse.

You're just obfuscating now. Of course the solutions are aiming to reduce CO2 levels because the science highlights that this is an issue. However, the method we use to achieve this has absolutely nothing to say about the validity of the science.

Which has essentially been my point from when I showed you are arguing from consequences. It's no different to saying that cancer doesn't exist because you don't like the idea of having chemotherapy.

And as stated before, I see no benefit in raising taxes, unless of course, that money is to be used to combat the problem itself. Nowhere hve I seen anything addressing this, in any form other than catch phrases with no details. Giving up your money will not affect the CO2 levels, nor their impact.

TheRedneck

In some ways I agree. If the money that could be raised from taxes was being fed into new technological and scientific research etc, then that would be cool. But ultimately, the idea is to motivate people to use less fossil fuels. I don't think it will work that well, especially as we appear to readily absorb 300% increases in oil costs with little real impact. So it doesn't appear to be the best approach.

But, again, this has nothing to say about the science underpinning AGW.

ABE:

Originally posted by TheRedneck
According to Gore, they are higher than they have ever been. And I don't like the idea of allowing a major problem to remain at the 'bearable' stage. If something is broken, especialy to thepoint that some people are becoming hysterical, or to the point where entire economies are being threatenend, it should be fixed. If it is 'bearable', it is not so great an emergency.

Way to miss the point. Also, Gore doesn't say what you think he does. He uses the ice-core data to show it hasn't been this high for either 650,000 or 400,000 years depending on what core he used. If we can hold temp increases at 2'C, that would be better than 4'C, or 6'C, or 8'C.

Since this is a scientific issue, would not a scientific solution be preferable to a political/social solution? Is the real question not one of preventing GHG-induced warming? That would appear to be a scientific concern to me.

At this point we don't have a scientific solution. Lots of possible ideas. But none are ideal. For instance, we could pump out SO2 aerosols to introduce cooling - but this has negative secondary effects, plus we'd need to keep pumping out sulphur to maintain this level.

The most effective method is just to reduce our emissions. Like a fat lazy man with an addiction to big macs, the most effective way to protect from future diabetes and heart disease is for him to lead a healthy lifestyle, not pump him full of ACE-inhibitors and statins.

But I disagree as to his impact on the situation. An Inconvenient Truth has become a social call to arms for anyone who promotes the catastrophic side of the GW argument. As the spokesman for this issue, I believe he carries some responsibility for being accurate.

He isn't the spokesman. Of course he has a responsibility to be accurate, and in the main he was. In a few places, I think he did overstate the science and make boo-boos. But it wasn't that bad a documentary, the issues weren't major.

CO2 also is heavier than air, and tends to remain close to ground, thereby minimizing the greenhouse effect.

Heh, where did that come from? It is heavier than air but that doesn't really matter. It is well-mixed throughout the troposphere due to convection etc. And plant growth stuff is not going to be our saviour - the biosphere is already taking in about 50% of our emissions.

This is not to say GW isn't real, but rather to say that we do not have perfect knowledge of the situation as of yet.

We don't have perfect knowledge of anything, tbh. That's just an attempt to set a high bar for climate science that doesn't apply elsewhere.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Jadette


Gore is a big part of the problem when it comes to convincing the US public about global warming.

Al Gore is a divisive US political figure. The people that don't like Al Gore or his politics are not going to believe a word he says about anything. That's just human nature. So when Al Gore more or less appointed himself as the messenger on global warming, he seriously damaged the credibility of the issue with many in the US public just by his close association with it.

That's not necessarily fair, mind you, but if you don't trust the messenger, its hard to trust his message.

Originally posted by forestlady
..
Also: of course CO2 causes warming, we've known that for a very long time. I was taught that in sixth grade over 40 years ago. We knew it then, and we know it now, it's just that there is so much disinformation out there, some don't believe it is true.

identifying an effect is not enough to derive an call for action, you must also know its significance, taking into account all known factors.

the fact is that all truely dire warnings are based on computer simulations, which may or may not be true and that there is conflicting evidence, which cannot be stressed enough, but i've typed that all out before, so:

see www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

web.archive.org...

as well as

www.climate.unibe.ch... (.pdf

just in case anyone managed to miss all of it.

PS: you know what is bleaching corals? for the longest time it was GW, any doubts were considered ridiculous (= denial). you know what the real culprit is? Sunblocker. so much for your authority and infallibility. the source can be found via the ATS url, it's near the bottom of that post.

[edit on 22.2.2008 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
the fact is that all truely dire warnings are based on computer simulations, which may or may not be true

If you are talking about predictions for climate sensitivity (i.e. doubling of CO2), then that is not actually true. Annan & Hargreaves (2006) might be an article worth hunting down if you think this is the case.

ABE:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259, 2006

Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity

J. D. Annan
Frontier Research Center for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan

J. C. Hargreaves
Frontier Research Center for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan

Abstract
Climate sensitivity has been subjectively estimated to be likely to lie in the range of 1.5–4.5°C, and this uncertainty contributes a substantial part of the total uncertainty in climate change projections over the coming century. Objective observationally-based estimates have so far failed to improve on this upper bound, with many estimates even suggesting a significant probability of climate sensitivity exceeding 6°C. In this paper, we show how it is possible to greatly reduce this uncertainty by using Bayes' Theorem to combine several independent lines of evidence. Based on some conservative assumptions regarding the value of independent estimates, we conclude that climate sensitivity is very unlikely (

Thanks for the reply

Heheh...too funny. It might be a good idea to at least deal with the most recent, credible scientific findings - instead of wallowing into these bizzare analogies that clarify nothing to anyone. You can fool some of the people some of the time - but you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time my friend..

I was just stating something people often forget in this debate, not trying to fool anyone.


I am just sick of people dwelling on the correlation and graphs.

My 'Bizarre' analogies and definition of correlation are pretty mainstream. WIKI
ANSWERS

Flame on!

Originally posted by melatonin
...a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule. It's physical properties don't change between the lab and the atmosphere. That's why we have a 'greenhouse' effect which ensures the earth is not a snowball.

Yes, the molecule remains the same, but not the conditions surrounding it. Paper is flammable, but in a laboratory under water, it would not burn. The paper is still paper...

It's no different to saying that cancer doesn't exist because you don't like the idea of having chemotherapy.

Actually, I would liken it to saying that a growth is not cancerous because there has not been appreciable malignant tendencies proven. Therefore, we are not going to remove your leg.

If the money that could be raised from taxes was being fed into new technological and scientific research etc, then that would be cool. But ultimately, the idea is to motivate people to use less fossil fuels. I don't think it will work that well, especially as we appear to readily absorb 300% increases in oil costs with little real impact. So it doesn't appear to be the best approach.

We absorb these increases because it is a requirement of this society to use energy. And therein lies the real problem. You will never mandate a reduction in fuel usage until you make it practical for people to use less energy. You do this by innovation, not by taxation.

I hope I am wrong here, but you sound like you are in favor of higher taxes first, and solving the problem second. The use of those taxes going to fix the problem is more than just 'cool', it is an absolute necessity IMO. Otherwise, you have done nothing more than funnel more money from hard-working people to non-working people (politicians and regulators). I repeat, raising taxes alone has absolutely no bearing on the CO2 levels.

Way to miss the point. Also, Gore doesn't say what you think he does. He uses the ice-core data to show it hasn't been this high for either 650,000 or 400,000 years depending on what core he used. If we can hold temp increases at 2'C, that would be better than 4'C, or 6'C, or 8'C.

Here again, apparently I have no grasp of the English language. My bad. I could have sworn that I earlier claimed he said just that.

At this point we don't have a scientific solution. Lots of possible ideas. But none are ideal. For instance, we could pump out SO2 aerosols to introduce cooling - but this has negative secondary effects, plus we'd need to keep pumping out sulphur to maintain this level.

My point exactly! No scientific solution is being presented! I am simply calling for a scientific solution to a scientific problem.

The most effective method is just to reduce our emissions. Like a fat lazy man with an addiction to big macs, the most effective way to protect from future diabetes and heart disease is for him to lead a healthy lifestyle, not pump him full of ACE-inhibitors and statins.

Unless the subject is in immediate cardiac arrest. If you listen to the cries of doom and gloom coming from your side of the argument, I'd say the planet is definitely in the throes of such a condition.

He isn't the spokesman.

Really? A major motion picture is made from his presentation. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to educate the people about GW. And he's not a spokesman for the argument? I'd say he is definitely a spokesman.

(If I am wrong on this, please don't tell Mr. Gore. He would no doubt be devastated to learn that all the energy he has spent on private jets and heating his private mansion did not warrant him the title of 'spokesman'.)

TheRedneck

Global Warming Denial, it's not just for Americans anymore.

Funny how some folks would much rather save the planet than save the world. I think Terrorism Deniers are a bigger threat right now.

Originally posted by melatonin

CO2 also is heavier than air, and tends to remain close to ground, thereby minimizing the greenhouse effect.

Heh, where did that come from? It is heavier than air but that doesn't really matter. It is well-mixed throughout the troposphere due to convection etc. And plant growth stuff is not going to be our saviour - the biosphere is already taking in about 50% of our emissions.

I'm not going to even try to describe density and it's effects...

Plant growth isn't going to use up the CO2. And we are not going to remove the CO2. Where does the CO2 go? You have just refuted your own argument.

I started posting in this thread with the simple suggestion that a way to scrub the excess CO2 from the atmosphere was preferable to taxation without any proven benefit. You disagreed. Now you state that the only known natural absorber of CO2 will not be sufficient. Please, please, explain to me how you plan on solving abnormally high CO2 levels without removing the CO2. Please.

This is not to say GW isn't real, but rather to say that we do not have perfect knowledge of the situation as of yet.

We don't have perfect knowledge of anything, tbh. That's just an attempt to set a high bar for climate science that doesn't apply elsewhere.

It does apply elsewhere. It applies in all branches of science. One cannot repair a system without knowledge of how that system works. It doesn't matter if you are trying to fix a toaster, an automobile, a human body, or a planet. One cannot fix what one does not understand.

There are many positive feedback mechanisms in nature that are not considered in the arguments I have heard. Higher temperatures combined with higher CO2 levels and high moisture levels have a direct exponential effect on plant growth and CO2 usage. Higher temperatures also tend to allow more moisture to be evaporated from bodies of water, thereby introducing a cooling effect at the surface and accentuating the plant growth. Plants themselves tend to reduce the surrounding temperature through respiration from the leaves, a byproduct of photosynthesis.

Also not considered are the recent reports of other planets in the solar system heating up. Mars, Titan (a moon before someone thinks ponting that out will discredit me), Saturn, Neptune, just to name a few have shown signs of higher temperatures in recent years. I promise you, this is not due to humans driving too many SUVs on planet Earth.

If the planet is warming, as recent data could be found to suggest, the best course of action is to find out why, not through political distress cries for more regulation and taxes, but through unbiased scientific study. The we will know what to do to actually produce the result we are all looking for, rather than simply destroying everything we come across in a vain hope of stumbling on the truth.

Perhaps this is considered to be a call for more pollution in this politically-charged era, but I see it as the opposite: a sane approach to dealing with pollution, and removing pollution without creating more side effects.

TheRedneck

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, democracy and capitalism are bonded in marriage. Climate change is a problem that flies in the face of that bond; it requires economic growth to slow, instead of the current standard 3% per year growth rate.

People don't like to hear that they have use less, that they have to consume less. Neither do the banks and all the other financial institutions. The economy will ALWAYS, ALWAYS take priority over the environment. That's just a fact of humanity.

Everything you use, everyday, in some way or another uses oil to be made, or to be transported to you. Obviously this sudden release of carbon into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. Perhaps we'll all just have to wait 50 or so years for the effects to be more apparent.

The corporate world has a vexed interest that everyone keeps consuming. In our system, you're not a person, you're a consumer.

Global warming is head-on with the American Dream/Western World - that's why it can never be solved.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by mattguy404]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, the molecule remains the same, but not the conditions surrounding it. Paper is flammable, but in a laboratory under water, it would not burn. The paper is still paper...

Such a bad analogy. We know that CO2 acts as a GHG in the atmosphere. Its properties don't change between the lab and the atmosphere. If we dissolve CO2 in water, then, yeah, it might make a difference.

What are you trying to argue here? That the greenhouse effect doesn't exist or something? That we can't observe the effects of increasing GHGs?

Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo and Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).


The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

www.nature.com...

So we can see the effects of anthropogenic GHGs.

I hope I am wrong here, but you sound like you are in favor of higher taxes first, and solving the problem second.

Nope, you must have missed what I said earlier - I don't care how we go about it, we need to reduce our impact. Indeed, I actually said that taxes would probably be ineffective just a couple of posts ago.

And for the Gore issue -

Me:

Also, Gore doesn't say what you think he does. He uses the ice-core data to show it hasn't been this high for either 650,000 or 400,000 years depending on what core he used. If we can hold temp increases at 2'C, that would be better than 4'C, or 6'C, or 8'C.

Your reply:

Here again, apparently I have no grasp of the English language. My bad. I could have sworn that I earlier claimed he said just that.

Your original words:

According to Gore, they are higher than they have ever been.

The earth is a tad older than 650,000 years. They are higher for at least 650,000 years, and probably much more. But not ever.

My point exactly! No scientific solution is being presented! I am simply calling for a scientific solution to a scientific problem.

No, that's not what I said. I said:

At this point we don't have a scientific solution. Lots of possible ideas. But none are ideal.

There are lots of possible science-based ideas. None are ideal. For example, emitting sulphates, releasing tonnes of iron into oceans, mirrors in space etc etc. We could emit billions of tonnes of sulphates, it would work, it would induce a negative forcing (i.e. cooling). It is a science-based solution, but this in itself would have negative impacts in other ways.

The most effective method is to just stop emitting at the levels we are.

Really? A major motion picture is made from his presentation. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to educate the people about GW. And he's not a spokesman for the argument? I'd say he is definitely a spokesman.

Heh, I guess the 'language' issue raises its head again...

You said:

As the spokesman for this issue, I believe he carries some responsibility for being accurate.

I replied:

He isn't the spokesman

And he isn't the spokesman. I suppose you could say he is a self-appointed spokesman. But this is not the same as the spokesman.

Gore is just one person speaking about climate change. In fact, I concur with the person above - I'd rather he didn't. He is primarily viewed as a politician, and there is too much mixing of politics and science on this issue already. However, his presentation wasn't that bad. In fact, it was generally good, but less than perfect.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by melatonin]

I don't believe in 'global warming', but I do accept climate change.

Right before the "little ice age" in the 1700s there was a warming event.

That is where I think we are ultimately headed, although it could be another "big ice age."

We are damaging the planet more and more everyday, that much I know for certain.

We dump millions of tons of CO2, methane, sulfur, and other gases into the atmosphere that shouldn't be there in the first place.

The cause isn't clear to most as they don't see the land destruction, can't comprehend the number of tons of greenhouse gases, etc etc.

We are a part of 'climate change' (I don't like that word much, its implications are too broad).

But we are not the entire cause.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm not going to even try to describe density and it's effects...

Good, because this is a silly line of argument.

Plant growth isn't going to use up the CO2. And we are not going to remove the CO2. Where does the CO2 go? You have just refuted your own argument.

I started posting in this thread with the simple suggestion that a way to scrub the excess CO2 from the atmosphere was preferable to taxation without any proven benefit. You disagreed. Now you state that the only known natural absorber of CO2 will not be sufficient. Please, please, explain to me how you plan on solving abnormally high CO2 levels without removing the CO2. Please.

What are you on about? The biosphere is removing about 50% of our emissions. 25%ish in oceans, 25%ish in the terrestrial biosphere. The remainder accumulates in the atmosphere.

I don't think I did disagree. This was what you said in your first post:

Assuming this is true, would the wise solution be a) to raise taxes, implement a commerce-based system to tax those who produce CO2, force people to spend their tme and money on a myriad of proposed projects to reduce the amount of CO2, or b) scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere?

I say (b). But that hasn't even been put forward as a solution by anyone I have heard.

And I showed you that sequestraton has been proposed. I have no issue with sequestration. It would be a good solution. Studies are being performed, and many mechanisms to acheive this has been suggested.

It does apply elsewhere. It applies in all branches of science. One cannot repair a system without knowledge of how that system works. It doesn't matter if you are trying to fix a toaster, an automobile, a human body, or a planet. One cannot fix what one does not understand.

Don't be silly. Surgeons remove brain tumours without perfect knowledge of the brain. We have very good indications of why we are seeing warming.

I'll ignore most of the denialist talking points, they are pretty boring. But I always like this one:

Also not considered are the recent reports of other planets in the solar system heating up. Mars, Titan (a moon before someone thinks ponting that out will discredit me), Saturn, Neptune, just to name a few have shown signs of higher temperatures in recent years. I promise you, this is not due to humans driving too many SUVs on planet Earth.

Of course it won't be due to SUVs. It might sound a great rhetorical point, but a silly one. What about uranus? That's cooling. What about mercury? Venus? All the other moons? So a handful appear to be warming, so what? Unless you can show they are all related it means nothing. Indeed, mars appears to be warming due to dust storms. Neptune and triton due to seasonal effects.

Also, I don't think it's saturn. The normal 'skeptic' arguments is pluto and the others you have.

If the planet is warming, as recent data could be found to suggest, the best course of action is to find out why

That's what scientists have been doing. The issue is that some don't like what they have found.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

edited to remove a minor outburst...

I apologize to all who saw this post before I deleted it.. I try to maintain a calm demeanor, but it is a human weakness to become frustrated at a circular argument. A weakness that alas, I am subject to.

In place, let me say that it is never a good idea to attempt to debate with a moving target. Thank you for your responses melatonin. I wish you well.

TheRedneck
(I need another cigarette...)


[edit on 23-2-2008 by TheRedneck]