audtatious wrote:Yet the "tested and scientifically proven" theory behind the IPCC report is constantly shown wrong via actual occurrences. Add in other scientists who disagree with the theory and you have what? Sorry, I don't see how something can be proven when other climate scientists do not agree and data has been shown as incorrect in the first place. You simply can't conclude "fact" when you admit you are still learning in the first place.
Observed surface temperatures are not the only indication of an increase of presence of more energy. Consider first of all, that the fundamental basis for Global Warming Theory is energy conservations. That is, more energy in than energy out means the planet absorbs more energy. The difficult thing to pinpoint appears to be where all this energy goes with respect to time. But on longer timescales, the net effect of the increased amount of energy that exists on earth will show itself. Think of it this way. When you boil a pot of water, you can turn the heat up as high as you want, but the temperature of the water will remain the same...it will remain at the boiling temperature. All excess energy goes to evaporating water. Turning up the flame merely increases the rate at which it evaporates. So can you measure seek to measure how much energy is absorbed by the water by measuring its temperature? Nope. In this case, the model is relatively simple\so you can simply measure how much water evaporated and left the pot to calculate the amount of energy. A similar example is the melting of ice. Its conversion into water absorbs energy without a corresponding increase in temperature of the ice (local to where it melts). There are of course many other factors, but this is merely an example to show that we can't detect global warming so directly. The earth is quite dynamic so the movement of energy through it is difficult to track. But over the long term a net energy increase will means there will be an increase in heat at some point.
audtatious wrote:Yet they did predict weather changing on the short term. When you look at the timescales they are focusing on in contrast to the years the earth has been in the universe it is a micro-dot in history. Stating "X" is going to happen within 20 years is still a short term. What about the oceans heating up? Per robotic survey there seems to have been a slight cooling and not heating (here's a reference:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...20025 )
I responded to this mostly above, but consider what the entirety of that article states. There are things unknown. Sure. But one major point they addressed that you have to consider is that they have noted a significant increase in the level of the ocean. And they can't account for all of it (the implication was that they accounted for melting glaciers). So is the temp data they recorded accurate? Is there some other factor that is causing the ocean levels to rise more than they expect given the data? Who knows. But typically, the volume of water doesn't normally expend with cooling or with no net difference in temperature. Think beyond the simplest data. Its like trying to solve a rubik's cube by looking at only one side.
Also, how old the earth is has no relevance to the timescale necessary to determine if we are causing the earth to warm or not. The timescale that is relevant is the one that allows the full effect of a certain amount of carbon to have its effect realized.
audtatious wrote:I guess I will just agree and listen to the kooks. Maybe I would have less reason to doubt if whacko-environmental groups, the UN, and people looking to line their pockets were not behind a lot of this. Maybe the kooks make more sense to me than those running off their computer models and theories which are constantly changing from warming to cooling. Maybe I believe the probability of MMGW but not to the point where anyone who screams "the end of the world is near" should be listened to but believe that technological advances will naturally steer us away from the end of the world.
I could just as easily say the deniers work for oil companies, etc, but that's a non-issue if you try and stick to the science.
audtatious wrote:To the point where we have to turn over power to the whim of the UN I sure as hell am going to call it a hoax for more reasons that scientific reporting. Where we implement policy which will bankrupt the economies of the world based on what might or might not be happening, yeah, I will call it a hoax. At this point I believe turning over lead to the UN and politicians is FAR worse to the worlds population than the chance of a 1-2 degree increase in global temperatures. Then again, maybe we should just get rid of all our pets in order to save ourselves?
End justifies the means? Aside from the obvious moral aspects there, what credibility are you going to have if the evidence becomes undeniable to the public? The irony is you are going to hand over the politics to the other side to do whatever they feel like. Perhaps that's already what happened as a result of Bush's inaction to try and address this issue. Might be true fo a lot of other issues as well. To be fair, this isn't one sided...both sides do it. Doesn't mean it should be perpetuated.
That's pretty extreme, but doubtful that's something people would adopt. One of the points of seeking solutions to MMGW is such that we can try and live our lives more like we do today. Consider where we might be had we done more during Bush's term. Changes made now may not seem as much of a shock. Instead, it seems like we are playing catch up. Problems rarely go away by ignoring it.
AZhitman wrote:Here - I'm not going to sit here and stick my head in the sand and say we're not having an impact. I believe we are, to a very small extent. (I believe the Earth can shrug off our effects within a century and there'll be little evidence we were ever here, too... Mother Nature is tough ol' broad.)
The problem is our effects are compounding. Overall CO2 levels aren't based on our yearly output on a year by year basis, but like energy models there is a net effect. There is a limit as to how much nature can absorb CO2 in its various sinks (consider we are removing many of the natural sinks by destroying forests). That means on an ongoing basis, if the earth cannot absorb the CO2 as fast as all the sources are feeding it, then the levels of CO2 will increase. CO2 is a GHG. This is undeniable. And you might point to its small effects, H20 is a much more significant GHG whose levels are sensetive to temperature. My understanding is that this is a major positive feedback component that drives MMGW.
AZhitman wrote:Hell, I'm even gung-ho for certain green technologies, until they're mandated by governing bodies, or represent knee-jerk responses without thorough investigation and testing.... But I digress.
Let me ask you this then. If MMGW were proven and its severity were pretty large, how do you propose we tackle this issue from a political perspective. Most businesses now are taking action because of legislation (technological forcing) and touting it as their own decisions. Think most would do it on their own? I doubt it. Perhaps to some extent, but likely at a very slow rate.
AZhitman wrote:However, you have to understand, Chano - We HAVE to have something to use as "brakes". The madness over this issue is absurd. We're talking about an issue that has taken 100+ years to develop, and will take 100+ years to rectify (less, actually, given technology).
Forgive me if I misunderstand your intent here but are you saying its okay to lie to achieve a goal?
As for taking less than 100 years, lets not be naive. The population is growing. The rate of carbon consumption, as a result, it likely to increase. And as I pointed out above, the effects are compounded. If we stopped emitting all carbon completely today, there would be a rapid decline in CO2 initially, but the rate of decline would also decline with time. Remember that nature is also still adding carbon into the atmosphere as well.
AZhitman wrote:When China is responsible for 10x the GHG that we are, and yet the US funds the bulk of climate research and spearheads any efforts towards change, it's no surprise that people like me see a simpler solution: Tell China to KITFO.
AZhitman wrote:See, we have the EPA, and I believe we are responsible for leading by example to a certain extent. But if this indeed a global problem, and we spend trillions addressing it, and sacrifice certain liberties, then why the HELL should China continue to work against our efforts, thumbing their nose at the international community?
Which is likely why the push for international consensus is being sought. Its hard to make one person follow the rules of you can't enforce the rules against that particular person. You have to figure that we are probably China's biggest export market. If even only a few of the major players placed pressure on them, they would have to follow suit. Not saying this is the best or only idea, but if we know of a problem, do we try to fix it or do nothing?
As for how much we spend, sure, that's a concern. But weight that against trying to solve the problem later (as it becomes more severe). Consider one of the things thats being discussed at the research level. They are looking into placing aerosols into our atmosphere at high altitudes (I forget at which level). The effect they are considering is to have a similar effect that major volcanic eruptions do by blocking out certain electromagnetic waves to create a cooling effect over the ice caps. The ice caps are most ideal as its easier to implement (don't have to worry about protests from other countries) and because the higher lattitudes is where the largest increases in temperatures have been measured. Not to mention they can control the ice cap size helping to reduce rising ocean levels. At least this is a very basis synopsis based on a presentation from someone researching this directly. But its not a cheap solution by any means. Its not like the equipment is cheap (even the retired refueling planes that were mentioned in the presentation). There would be a need for a lot of the chemicals (sulfur specifically). And bear in mind, this isn't actually not a solution for carbon but rather for controlling how much heat can be retained on Earth.
AZhitman wrote:No, I am all for greening it up. But NOT the way it's being proposed.
Ok? What do YOU propose then?
