Latest news: "greenhouse" gases help PREVENT globa

[Perinquus]

Fossil fuel curbs may speed global warming-scientists

Can anyone keep up with all the turns in this issue?

But I'm interested to see the following quote in the article:

Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all.

I've seen people on this board present some new article on this subject, and then say something like: "now let's just wait and see how long it takes some idiot to appear and say some scientists don't agree about global warming. "

Well, some scientists DON'T agree, and people shouldn't be so quick to accuse other people of being idiots who are living in denial for pointing out such a simple fact.

Climate change is not only something the earth has undergone many times before, it's an extremely complex process that takes place over very long periods of time, and we just haven't been gathering data for that long. We just don't know enough about climate change to make hasty decisions.

Now, to echo the other side: now let's just wait and see how long it takes before someone appears and accuses me of advocating that we do nothing.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm all for developing apternate sources of energy. I'd love to see things like orbiting solar power stations, nuclear fusion, and hydrogen powered cars (too bad there's currently no way to produce enough hydrogen to fuel cars without generating as much pollution as petrol-burning cars do, except nuclear power perhaps, which the econazis in this country rabidly oppose - how ironic that the environuts are so vehemently opposed to one definite measure we could take to reduce emmisions). But I'm just not sure that wrecking our economy with something like the Kyoto Accords will achieve anything substantial to compensate for the terrible cost it would impose.

[Perinquus]

Just a side note - why does the thread title box allow you to type in more characters than it will post? I typed in "Latest news: greenhouse ases help PREVENT global warming", and it took the whole thing. Then it posted: "Latest news: greenhouse ases help PREVENT globa"

How irritating.

[Crown]

Well just to add so food for thought, we are still technically part of some kind of Ice Age, and as counter intuitive as it sounds global warming is only going to make the ice age worse.

If that makes any sense.


Source; Bryson, Bill "A Short History of Nearly Everything, Broadway; 1st edition (May 6, 2003)

[Master of Ossus]

Environuts are not pro-environment. They are anti-development. Once you understand that aspect of them, all of their disparate positions make perfect sense.

[Thinkmarble]

Did you actually read the article ?
Or did you just skim the headline ?

"Global Dimming", a BBC Horizon documentary, will describe research suggesting fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide particles reflect the sun's rays, "dimming" temperatures and almost cancelling out the greenhouse effect.

Take away fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide without tackling greenhouse gas emissions, and the extra heat will speed warming, irreversibly melting ice sheets and rendering rain forests unsustainable within decades, Dr Cox said.

Do I have to translate for you ?

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

No sire, no scientific consensus at all.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I posted an article on Solar Dimming in SLAM.

[Perinquus]

Now, to echo the other side: now let's just wait and see how long it takes before someone appears and accuses me of advocating that we do nothing.

Did you actually read the article ?
Or did you just skim the headline ?

Elapsed time: 1 hour 58 minutes.

[Perinquus]

Do I have to translate for you ?

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

No sire, no scientific consensus at all.

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

More than 15,000 scientists, [8/4/98: now about 17,000] two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997. The Petition (see text below) urges the US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States.

More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord

...I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.

-------------------------------------------------------

The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science. The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further. On the basis of the summary, one frequently hears that "hundreds of the world's greatest climate scientists from dozens of countries all agreed that.|.|.|.'' It hardly matters what the agreement refers to, since whoever refers to the summary insists that it agrees with the most extreme scenarios (which, in all fairness, it does not). I should add that the climatology community, until the past few years, was quite small and heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe.

-------------------------------------------------------

Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do.


Richard S. Lindzen -- the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

As I said: "people shouldn't be so quick to accuse other people of being idiots who are living in denial for pointing out such a simple fact." And then Thinkmarble appears and does exactly that, snidely remarking "No sire, no scientific consensus at all."

When someone points out a simple fact (i.e. there are a number of eminent scientist, who are experts in that field, who do not agree that global warming is the enormous, looming problem so many say it is, or that human beings are necessarily responsible for it), why do you feel it so necessary to sneer. Sorry, but it's still a fact, whether you like it or not. I don't understand that attitude, nor do I understand why so many people feel the matter has been settled beyond all doubt.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

While I'm pro-alternative energies and anti-oil and all that jazz, I think I'll just stop following environmental news now. It makes my brain hurt.

[Rye]

I suggest you read the newscientist climate change/greenhouse gas FAQ on the matter, it might clear up any misconceptions that are floating around at the moment..

[Guardsman Bass]

The Reuters article itself doesn't notice a contradiction in the report. It states that the 'cooling effect' comes from by-products of fossil fuels, and that cutting back would cause a massive increase in warming. Wouldn't decreasing the use of fossil fuels also, in addition to the decrease of the 'cooling effect', decrease the supply of the gases that are causing warming?

[TheDarkling]

The Reuters article itself doesn't notice a contradiction in the report. It states that the 'cooling effect' comes from by-products of fossil fuels, and that cutting back would cause a massive increase in warming. Wouldn't decreasing the use of fossil fuels also, in addition to the decrease of the 'cooling effect', decrease the supply of the gases that are causing warming?

At I guess I believe that may have to do with the lag, the by products have immediate and short term effect whilst the CO2 has long term effects at some point further down the line.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This article is for idiots. It just suggests particulates and such may reflect more radiation than we realize and removing them will help the greenhouse effect on.

It does precisely zero to refute the now generally accepted consensus that man-made greenhouses gases, particularly CO2, do have deleterious climate effects. Of course it helps if you're scientifically ignorant and you appeal to authority and terms like "pollution" indescriminantly.

Take the Kyoto Treaty for example; it specifically stated CO2 emissions. This would refute nothing of how that treaty would've helped.

[Perinquus]

Now, to echo the other side: now let's just wait and see how long it takes before someone appears and accuses me of advocating that we do nothing.

Did you actually read the article ?
Or did you just skim the headline ?

Elapsed time: 1 hour 58 minutes.

This article is for idiots. It just suggests particulates and such may reflect more radiation than we realize and removing them will help the greenhouse effect on.

It does precisely zero to refute the now generally accepted consensus that man-made greenhouses gases, particularly CO2, do have deleterious climate effects. Of course it helps if you're scientifically ignorant and you appeal to authority and terms like "pollution" indescriminantly.

Take the Kyoto Treaty for example; it specifically stated CO2 emissions. This would refute nothing of how that treaty would've helped.

And number 2 crops after 10 hours and 2 minutes.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Now, to echo the other side: now let's just wait and see how long it takes before someone appears and accuses me of advocating that we do nothing.

Did I ascribe a position to you, numbnuts? Pull your head out of your imaginative rectum.

The very misleading title given to it by the media outlet itself is a demonstration of what I'm talking about, nevermind what all the right wing polluter apologists will make of it (and we all know what that will be).

[Perinquus]

Now, to echo the other side: now let's just wait and see how long it takes before someone appears and accuses me of advocating that we do nothing.

Did I ascribe a position to you, numbnuts? Pull your head out of your imaginative rectum.

When I opine in this post that there remains room for doubt that global warming is as bad a problem as many people seem to think, and that scientific concensus is not by any means unanimous on this issue, and then you come in and assert that this article is for idiots, that scientific consensus is so overwhelming that the matter has essentially been settled, and people who deny that greenhouse gases are causing global warming are "scientifically ignorant" and that they "appeal to authority"...

Gee... why would I ever come to the conclusion that you are ascribing a position to me, and that you are doing so in a snide and condescending manner? What on earth could possibly give my any such idea?

If you honestly can't see how I could get such a notion then you are far too stupid to have any business taking such an arrogant tone about what someone else might think.

[Illuminatus Primus]

When I opine in this post that there remains room for doubt that global warming is as bad a problem as many people seem to think, and that scientific concensus is not by any means unanimous on this issue, and then you come in and assert that this article is for idiots, that scientific consensus is so overwhelming that the matter has essentially been settled, and people who deny that greenhouse gases are causing global warming are "scientifically ignorant" and that they "appeal to authority"...

It is for idiots, because that article is a red herring with respect to the theory that man-made greenhouse gases have a significant and deleterious effect on the global mean temperature. It is stating that other pollutants if removed without drastic reduction of the greenhouse gases could accelerate global warming.

Gee... why would I ever come to the conclusion that you are ascribing a position to me, and that you are doing so in a snide and condescending manner? What on earth could possibly give my any such idea?

A lust for clever rhetorical points? Like rhetorical questions? I dunno. You tell me.

If you honestly can't see how I could get such a notion then you are far too stupid to have any business taking such an arrogant tone about what someone else might think.

I honestly expect most people to be able to read. A thesis regarding oxides is not a refutation of the global warming by human intervention thesis.

[Coyote]

*REEOOOWWWRRRR......

Catfight! Catfight!

IP's been taking ornery pills of late.

Seriosly, IP, in a lot of recent threads you disagree with, you go immediately for the snide, ornery, most-likely-to-flamebait tone you can. Are having fucking menopause or something? Have you always been this way and I never noticed?

Not once recently have you entered a disagreement with anything remotely resembling an ounce of respect for another's POV. I understand getting snide after repeated exchanges in a thread that have proven fruitless, but you're going for the throat right from the get-go.

What the flying fuck, over?

[Crown]

I think we can all agree that global climate change is a fucking huge and hard theory to accurately predict at this point in time. Simply put we don't know enough about it yet, and all we are doing is trying to guess accurately.

But, on the other hand I think we can all agree the CO2 and CO emissions are bad for us, possibly bad for the environment which makes it worse for future generations, and that making a concerted effort to reduce it would be a good thing.

I think that we can also agree that we are having an impact on the environment with our greenhouse emissions, can't we?

[Perinquus]

I think we can all agree that global climate change is a fucking huge and hard theory to accurately predict at this point in time. Simply put we don't know enough about it yet, and all we are doing is trying to guess accurately.

But, on the other hand I think we can all agree the CO2 and CO emissions are bad for us, possibly bad for the environment which makes it worse for future generations, and that making a concerted effort to reduce it would be a good thing.

I think that we can also agree that we are having an impact on the environment with our greenhouse emissions, can't we?

I never disputed for a moment that emissions levels are increasing, and that there is more CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. What I am less ready to accept is that this is the cause of global warming, or that the Kyoto Accords would have done anything to curb it. The earth's climate has changed before, sometimes getting warmer, and sometimes getting colder. Temperatures in ancient times and the early middle ages were a few degrees warmer than they are today. I am not convinced that we have been gathering data long enough to reach definitive conclusions that make us responsible for this occurence of a phenomenon that not only has happened before, but for which we most certainly were't responsible on any previous occasions.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Seriosly, IP, in a lot of recent threads you disagree with, you go immediately for the snide, ornery, most-likely-to-flamebait tone you can.

Sometimes I feel like venting. Other times (often times) people just post mind-boggingly stupid things.

Are having fucking menopause or something? Have you always been this way and I never noticed?

Maybe my shitty two weeks has been spilling over, I dunno.

Not once recently have you entered a disagreement with anything remotely resembling an ounce of respect for another's POV.

POV is not a pass for saying dumb things. The OP and linked story is not causally related to Per's axe-to-grind on global warming. Its a total red herring and this was shown previously and was brushed off for cheap rhetorical points.

What the flying fuck, over?

Do you intend to post anything on the subject at hand?

[Perinquus]

Seriosly, IP, in a lot of recent threads you disagree with, you go immediately for the snide, ornery, most-likely-to-flamebait tone you can.

Sometimes I feel like venting. Other times (often times) people just post mind-boggingly stupid things.

Are having fucking menopause or something? Have you always been this way and I never noticed?

Maybe my shitty two weeks has been spilling over, I dunno.

Piss poor excuse for rude behavior. If you can't engage in civil debates, maybe you should take some time off.

Not once recently have you entered a disagreement with anything remotely resembling an ounce of respect for another's POV.

POV is not a pass for saying dumb things. The OP and linked story is not causally related to Per's axe-to-grind on global warming.

I see, so expressing one's viewpoint, and presenting as an adjunct to that, an article featuring new evidence that perhaps the issue is not so simple, or as unanimously regarded in a certain light as many seem to think means one has an axe to grind? Or to put it more simply, holding a different viewpoint than yours, and expressing that viewpoint means one has an axe to grind.

It still does not look like you are making any attempt whatever to see the other point of view.

Its a total red herring and this was shown previously and was brushed off for cheap rhetorical points.

I guess providing evidence (in the form of an article written by an MIT professor of meteorology) that maybe the supposed nearly unanimous scientific concensus is not really so nearly unanimous as we are led to believe, and that lay people may not be fully aware just how many scientists disagree with this viewpoint is a cheap rhetorical point.

What the flying fuck, over?

Do you intend to post anything on the subject at hand?

Your statements are not one whit less contemptuous of opposing viewpoints, they are merely couched in phrases where you attempt to justify sneering at other points of view, and make it seem reasonable by dismissing other views as "dumb", resulting from an "axe to grind" (suggesting unreasonable bias), and "cheap rhetorical points". You're right. Others are wrong. And not only are they wrong, they're stupid and biased.

As Thos. Sowell recently wrote in one of his columns:

Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them. If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin.

...we seem to be in an era when the art of disagreeing is vanishing. That is a huge loss because out of disagreements have often come deeper understandings than either side had before confronting each other's arguments.

How right he is.

[Rye]

I never disputed for a moment that emissions levels are increasing, and that there is more CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. What I am less ready to accept is that this is the cause of global warming, or that the Kyoto Accords would have done anything to curb it.

Global warming under normal is caused by the natural cycle of the planet's ice ages. However, CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere always closely correlated the planet's temperature. CO2 is one of the molecules that traps infrared radiation in the atmosphere which in turn warms up the surface of the land and sea. A single molecule of either of the two most common CFCs has the same greenhouse warming effect as 10,000 CO2 molecules.

So yes, of course we contribute to it, even if it is also a part of the planet's natural cycle. Our influence warms it up more than it would've done naturally.

As for Kyoto, I've heard it's fairly unreasonable, but I would prefer it if a ton more money went into renewable power generation, especially here, where we could get lots of tidal and wind power, but also lots more going into nuclear power. Unfortunately, the british government seem to think it's cool to turn off nuclear power stations.

The earth's climate has changed before, sometimes getting warmer, and sometimes getting colder. Temperatures in ancient times and the early middle ages were a few degrees warmer than they are today.

Actually, all of England's weather records going back centuries for highest temperature (in 2003, the previous record was only in 1990!) and wettest years/months have been topped recently.

I am not convinced that we have been gathering data long enough to reach definitive conclusions that make us responsible for this occurence of a phenomenon that not only has happened before, but for which we most certainly were't responsible on any previous occasions.

The most informative measurements about the past have come from air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice. These show that, for at least 400,000 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have closely followed the global temperatures as recorded in ice cores, tree rings and elsewhere.

Also, global warming may not result in warmer ground temperatures everywhere, since the higher evapouration rates of seawater could concievably create dense cloud cover for some areas, much wetter and more miserable all the time.

All scientists believe in the greenhouse effect. Without it the planet would be frozen. And all scientists accept that if humans put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then it will warm the planet. The only disagreement is over precisely how much the warming will be amplified by planetary feedbacks.

However, there is a growing consensus that the average global warming of 0.6°C seen in the twentieth century - and particularly the pronounced warming of the past three decades - is due to the greenhouse effect.

Since the start of the 21st century, the rate of accumulation of CO2 has accelerated. It is now at twice the 1990s level. Nobody is sure why. It is not because emissions have accelerated. It could be temporary natural variability. Or it could be that the forests and oceans are losing the ability to absorb our pollution. If so, then global warming could shortly gather pace.

Information above gathered from the link i posted before.

[Perinquus]

The earth's climate has changed before, sometimes getting warmer, and sometimes getting colder. Temperatures in ancient times and the early middle ages were a few degrees warmer than they are today.

Actually, all of England's weather records going back centuries for highest temperature (in 2003, the previous record was only in 1990!) and wettest years/months have been topped recently.

Sorry to dispute you here, but the early Middle Ages were warmer.

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

It's interesting that Harvard scientists are apparently just figuring this out (or more likely confirming it) because historians have known about it for years. Beginning in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and continuing to the 14th, the climate began cooling, and this was recorded in a suprisingly wide array of sources. Among other effects the falling temperatures had was the loss of much arable land in northern Europe, a change in the fishing grounds that seriously effected the economies of the kingdoms and towns of northern Europe, the invention of the chimney to more efficiently heat homes in the now colder winters, and the destruction of the Norse Greenland colony, as immigration there ceased when previously usable grazing land became buried under ice and permafrost. The balminess of the middle ages is a well known, and well corroborated fact.

[tharkûn]

The actual problem with reducing coal power is that it tends to be replaced with natural gas or imported power. In the former case the level of carbon dioxide emitted is going to remain comparable, the level of "cooling pollutants" will be dramatically reduced. In the latter case you mostly have power production moving from the stringent laws of western europe to the more relaxed laws of Eastern Europe which is likely a net increase in both coolants and carbondioxide.

Hence the moral of the story here is what it always has been:
Welcome to the 21st century here is a nice safe and reliable nuclear power plant.

As far as the whole global warming issue first I doubt that it is entirely due to humans, if for no other reason than that it appears as though Mars is undergoing global warming as well. Certainly recent centuries were in the midst of a little ice age.

Leaving that aside the question about global warming becomes what to do about it? The global climate system is frikken huge and if its woes were caused by humans, you have well over 100 years of effort in dicking it over. At some point it simply becomes more cost effective to adapt society to the new climatic reality than to adapt climatic reality to society.