'What can we do about global warming?'

[itinerant1]

Hello! global warming debaters. I’ve glanced over your comments and realized there is one angle to global warming that has been overlooked. I will explain.

What if global warming has been occurring, but then it temporarily or permanently stopped? Accordingly, this could account for why some scientists see no current evidence for global warming and conclude that the entire theory of global warming is misguided.

On the other hand, different scientists might be observing and measuring actual effects of global warming such as polar ice reduction, changes in water levels, and so on. However, at the same time they may not realize that the climatic causes of the changes being studied actually began a numbers of years ago, but have since stopped. One way to know if this is the case is to crunch lots of climate temperature numbers gathered over a span of many years.

Now the kicker is this temperature tracking has been done, and the findings lead some people to conclude that global warming has temporarily or permanently stopped. Furthermore, this is the very topic of a recent article in the New Statesman:

*“Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt? *

*“Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp. *

*“With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months. *

*“But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No. *

“The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.”

Chill out, read the rest of this article, and see what you think: [

](http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004)Cheerio,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[RWMorris]

Hello! global warming debaters. I’ve glanced over your comments and realized there is one angle to global warming that has been overlooked.

We have overlooked tons of things that affect global warming. Global warming is absolutely necessary for life on earth. Without global warming, the greenhouse effect, the average temp on earth would be about -10 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current 50+ degrees. This simple scientific fact is taught in middle school earth science. So let’s clarify; when we speak of global warming we are speaking of man’s effect.

There are so many factors that contribute to global warming and the dynamics are so complicated that man’s attempts to “regulate” it are silly at best, and most probably pathetic. For instance no one in the postings, and scientists rarely mention that water vapor has much greater effect on the greenhouse effect than CO2. Another simple scientific fact that is taught in high school chemistry. Of course, our efforts to regulate water vapor would be a bigger joke than our efforts to regulate CO2. Can you imagine giant plastic sheets covering the world’s oceans? I’d like to win the government contract for that project; Bill Gates could be my network technician.

Another factor that we’ve overlooked is the effects of hurricanes on global warming. Hurricanes are giant heat dissipators, that rapidly move enormous amounts of heat from the surface of the earth to the upper atmosphere, above the greenhouse effect zone. Hurricanes reduce the effects of global warming.

But, as the article you referenced says,

…we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do…

• David Whitehosue, PhD, Astrophysics

 

[Ender]

Chill out, read the rest of this article, and see what you think:

Thank you for the link; these articles are quite interesting. Here’s another one that I just ran into that attacks the claim of the scientific consensus on AGW.

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

Ender

 

[steveandersen]

Just curious, but is the preponerance of evidence the nine or so proven fallacies in his big “documentary”?

I haven’t seen the film
I do not know about fallacies claimed or proven
I’m not sure if I would trust any hype about it at this point pro or con

I don’t get my science from the movies

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

i think it would be prudent to take reasonable measures to reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere. C02 levels are over 100 ppmm higher than they have been in the past 400k years. this is alarming. it certainly must have an effect. in essence, carbon that had been scrubed from the environment over millions of is being pumped back into it. whatever the ‘natural’ equillibrium would be, we’re pushing it to one extreme.

clearly this is something that needs to be handled in part on the international level. it’s pointless to have the usa alone take meausures when india and china are rapidly industrializing. this also touches on a deeper issue–our unsustainable lifestyle. in effect, cheap oil has allowed us to waste it away. we need as the pope states, to find a sustainable lifestyle. this won’t be easy and most likely will hurt our economy. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

 

[Ender]

i think it would be prudent to take reasonable measures to reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere. C02 levels are over 100 ppmm higher than they have been in the past 400k years. this is alarming. it certainly must have an effect. in essence, carbon that had been scrubed from the environment over millions of is being pumped back into it. whatever the ‘natural’ equillibrium would be, we’re pushing it to one extreme.

The more I read the more convinced I become that CO2 levels have a negligible effect on the climate and are more likely the result of temperature increases rather than the cause.

The internet is a spectacular source for information other than that provided by news services and popular magazines. It is ironic that Al Gore’s scare mongering would surely have worked better if people didn’t have the internet to provide contrary information. I’ll bet he wishes now he’d never invented it.

Read some of this report and compare it with what you currently believe. Here is just one quote:

Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Ender

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

“The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.

thanks for the link. i am skeptical that there is a direct correlation between C02 concentration and global tempreature change. but i support a reasonable plan to reduce C02 emissions out of prudence or at least until C02 is shown to be a harmless emission.

 

[steveandersen]

The more I read the more convinced I become that CO2 levels have a negligible effect on the climate

I’m not sure what you base that conclusion on considering the effect CO2 has on emissivity in the infrared

The equilibrium must be maintained so where does the heat go if it the emissive loss from the ground through the atmosphere is impacted?

and are more likely the result of temperature increases rather than the cause.

So you are agreeing that there is a temperature increase? That is a good first step

What mechanism would produce increased CO2 with increased temperatures?

The internet is a spectacular source for information other than that provided by news services and popular magazines. It is ironic that Al Gore’s scare mongering would surely have worked better if people didn’t have the internet to provide contrary information. I’ll bet he wishes now he’d never invented it.

You really should check stuff like that out in snopes first before you repeat it
The internet is full of great resources after all

Read some of this report and compare it with what you currently believe. Here is just one quote:

Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.

Well according to the graph in Dee Dee King’s post above the concentrations have already gone up 30-50% and we seem to be on our way to doubling soon
So we seem to be quickly nearing the upper limit of Sorochtin’s confidence limit.
Now what?

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Ender

A party political web site is hardly a good place for science information

And while a report from a political body can affect political and diplomatic consensus, I’m not sure how it affects scientific consensus

 

[Al_Masetti]

Please refrain from using the “Hockey Stick” graph. It and the author have already been thoroughly discredited.

Even IPCC has stopped using it.

So, stop!!

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

To paraphrase Mitt Romney, it’s **global **warming, not United States warming. Why do we have to be the ones to deal with the whole thing?

As far as explanations go, I’ve too many to believe 3/4 of them. I go with Larry1700- Adapt or get out of hte way.

 

[Dale_M]

it’s **global **warming, not United States warming. Why do we have to be the ones to deal with the whole thing?

Actually, the situation is more along the lines why is the rest of the world willing to do something, but the United States isn’t? For years, we have been the principle holdout. And after all, until just recently, the U.S. has been the largest producer of “greenhouse gases.”

But now India and China have shifted their economies into high gear. They are now rivaling the U.S. both in CO2 production and also intransigence at curbing emissions.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Actually, the situation is more along the lines why is the rest of the world willing to do something, but the United States isn’t? For years, we have been the principle holdout. And after all, until just recently, the U.S. has been the largest producer of “greenhouse gases.”

But now India and China have shifted their economies into high gear. They are now rivaling the U.S. both in CO2 production and also intransigence at curbing emissions.

Actually, except for Germany, none of the other signatories to Kyoto are meeting their goals. And Germany is because they get credit for cleaning up East (former Communist) Germany.

[Actually a couple of other countries are meeting their goals, but they are either very small, or buying electric power from France (nuclearly generated, by the way) or are former Communist countries.]

 

[Ender]

What mechanism would produce increased CO2 with increased temperatures?

I don’t need to explain the mechanism. I merely point out that over the last 600,000 years temperature increases have preceded increases in CO2, not the other way around as most people suppose. Were you unaware of this fact?

You really should check stuff like that out in snopes first before you repeat it. The internet is full of great resources after all

My comment about Gore was a joke; everybody knows he didn’t invent the internet.

A party political web site is hardly a good place for science information

Any place is a good place for science information if the sources are provided. What makes Inhofe’s site so valuable is that it provides links to a huge number of articles and individuals who have something important to say about global warming. I assume you attack the senator because you are unable to attack the scientists whom he references.

Ender

 

[steveandersen]

I don’t need to explain the mechanism.

so in other words you don’t have one

Your “fact” is of course a faulty interpretation

Quote: *To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago *

The Internet is full of great resources

My comment about Gore was a joke; everybody knows he didn’t invent the internet.

but he was in the Senate when some of the important enabling and funding legislation was enacted and thus had a roll in its development

Any place is a good place for science information if the sources are provided.

maybe…but a party political site will have different criteria than a scientific site as to which sources are included and which are not.
What editorial filters are they using and why?

What makes Inhofe’s site so valuable is that it provides links to a huge number of articles and individuals who have something important to say about global warming. I assume you attack the senator because you are unable to attack the scientists whom he references.

Ender

You could assume that (last year I did put up a long post here refuting one of the papers from that site) But you would be wrong

I did not attack Senator Inhofe in my post nor did I spend any time on the scientists he cited. I even took Sorochtin at his word for argument’s sake and pointed out that we’re quickly reaching the point below which he said we wouldn’t notice the difference.
My question was “then what”

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ender]

so in other words you don’t have {an explanation}

If the scientists can’t explain it how can I? My statement on temperature and CO2 is either correct or incorrect and is not dependent on my ability to explain the correlation.

Your “fact” is of course a faulty interpretation

I am baffled by your statement as your reference makes the same point I made: CO2 concentrations rise following rises in temperature.

This is the very first sentence from your source: “Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb.”

This was my claim which you continue to dispute: “over the last 600,000 years temperature increases have preceded increases in CO2, not the other way around”

I gave no explanation for the facts, I merely stated them. I would expect you to disagree with a non-AGW explanation, I just didn’t expect you to disagree with facts accepted by scientists on both sides of the debate.

Ender

 

[steveandersen]

… I am baffled by your statement as your reference makes the same point I made: CO2 concentrations rise following rises in temperature.
…

No the site said that sometimes the temperatures precede the concentrations and sometimes they do not

It also emphasized that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is property of physical chemistry that is not dependant upon historical data.

 

[Joe_5859]

What can YOU do about global warming?

BUY carbon offsets of course!

And the Church takes flak for selling indulgences in the Middle Ages!

 

[steveandersen]

…
This was my claim which you continue to dispute: “over the last 600,000 years temperature increases have preceded increases in CO2, not the other way around” …

PS

I didn’t dispute it I merely said that it is immaterial to the argument

Especially if you are looking at pre-industrial and pre-human times

 

[Al_Masetti]

What can YOU do about global warming?

BUY carbon offsets of course!

And the Church takes flak for selling indulgences in the Middle Ages!

Alternatively, send ME a thousand dollars and I will plant a tree for you.

In addition, at no extra cost, I will send you a certificate saying that you have some carbon credits AND also that you are a Genuine Good Guy.

You will also receive a photograph of the tree being planted.

And a T-shirt stating that you are a Genuine Good Guy.

Allow 4 - 6 weeks for delivery.

 

[Brian_C]

Al, don’t forget you’d have to plant that tree in some place tropical so that it doesn’t INCREASE warming due to it’s affect on albedo. Might I suggest you charge enough to include round trip airfare to Tahiti?