Global warming doesn't exist, does it?

[cybercoma]

Well we'll see when we have more floods, hurricanes, killer heat waves over the next few years if you don't change your mind. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please, offer me one shred of evidence that more CO2 in the air causes floods, hurricanes and heat waves. I know one thing it does cause: healthy plants.

[err]

Please, offer me one shred of evidence that more CO2 in the air causes floods, hurricanes and heat waves.  I know one thing it does cause: healthy plants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what kind of proof would suffice to alter the opinion of an obvious science genius as yourself.... I doubt we could fool you into believing that the insulating layer around the earth makes it warmer.... You'd have to believe that the earth was round to fall for that one....

[cybercoma]

Please, offer me one shred of evidence that more CO2 in the air causes floods, hurricanes and heat waves.  I know one thing it does cause: healthy plants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what kind of proof would suffice to alter the opinion of an obvious science genius as yourself.... I doubt we could fool you into believing that the insulating layer around the earth makes it warmer.... You'd have to believe that the earth was round to fall for that one....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I were a "science genius" I wouldn't be citing other people, I would be telling you about my own studies. The article I posted explains how CO2 (which is what the kyoto protocal and the supposed global warming effect is about) does not impede the dissipation of radiant heat back through the atmosphere.

[mirror]

Well I think we can put that puppy to rest:

Hot enough for ya?

More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than in 400,000 years. The carbon stays in the atmosphere, acts like a warm blanket and holds in the heat. We are altering the weather. People are doing that. And unless we act now, it will only get worse.

This isn't something far off in the future. This is happening now. The climate has already changed, and is poised for changes far worse. It's not just your grandchildren that will be affected. It's your children...it's grandma and grandpa...it's you.

The problem with the global warming naysayers such as yourself is that you are contributing to putting us all in jeopardy. So I have no use for people who do that. What we actually need are people working on the solution to global warming, not working on ridiculous distractions with no scientific basis in fact.

[Guest eureka]

And maybe more than ever in geologic history. That 420,000 years is merely the furthest reach of time that can be measured.

And, in all that time, CO2 levels are in relationship with temperatures.

[mirror]

It's getting too hot.

Record power demand sparks Calif. blackout scare

[Renegade]

Thank goodness for global warming. We're having our best summer in years

I'd have to take a vacation to the Caribbean to get weather this good.

[cybercoma]

Thank goodness for global warming. We're having our best summer in years  

I'd have to take a vacation to the Caribbean to get weather this good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but...but...the hurricanes and tornadoes and floods and animals going extinct and...aaaahhhhh!!!!

[mirror]

Interesting reading the stats, even here in wild rose country, 11 out of 14, or 79%, believe that global warming is a major concern, that needs to be addressed.

[mirror]

Ferocious Heat Maintains Grip Across the West?

relentless and lethal blanket of heat has settled on much of the western United States, forcing the cancellation of dozens of airline flights, threatening the loss of electrical power, stoking wildfires and leaving 20 people dead in Phoenix alone in just the past week.

Fourteen of the victims here are thought to have been homeless, although the heat also claimed the life of a 97-year-old man who died in his bedroom, a 37-year-old man who succumbed in his car and two older women who died in homes without air-conditioning.

Daytime highs in Phoenix have remained near 110 degrees for more than a week, and municipal officials acknowledge that it is almost impossible to deal with the needs of the estimated 10,000 to 20,000 people living on the streets. The city has barely 1,000 shelter beds, and hundreds of them are available only in the winter.

The lack of preparation for the homeless here is obvious to those sweltering on the sidewalk outside the Society of St. Vincent de Paul relief center in a zone of desolation between the office towers of downtown Phoenix and the State Capitol.

Quite the reverse of having to look after the homeless in the cold winter. Somehow we must be able to create a better society than this. The USA, the greatest country in the world, we have been programmed to believe. Well if this is the best we can do, we are not in any position to brag about much. Someone mentioned in a previous post that I was crying wolfe about global warming. I don't think so, and I don't think it is fair, especially to the disenfranchised, if we don't start taking some drastic measures immediately towards reducing global warming. I don't think people realize how serious this is. It is not something that we can just turn off or turn on like a tap.

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

Hunting Witches

God help us all.

[for_liberty]

I don't know if global warming is happening or not, but i do think we should all pitch in a little. I know the enviromentalists always say that all scientests agree that it is happening but when was the last time all scientests agreed on something. I remember i read a while ago that one of the professor's that wrote the IGCC report said he found it funny that all the politicians was so sure that global warming was happening but the scientists themselves did not.

[Guest eureka]

Scientist are sure. There is no disagreement at all except by the paid stooges of the energy industry. The only disagreement now is the rate of increase and the timing of the collapse of various ecosystems and geophisical sustems.

Only complete fools, outside of certain economic interests, now dispute climate change.

[for_liberty]

Scientist are sure. There is no disagreement at all except by the paid stooges of the energy industry. The only disagreement now is the rate of increase and the timing of the collapse of various ecosystems and geophisical sustems.

Only complete fools, outside of certain economic interests, now dispute climate change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for not attacking. I am not like other people and say that it is not happening, what i said was we should be careful and take precautions.

I was always find it funny that people assume if someone says they are not sure about global warming it is asssumeed you are in big businesses pocket. What about the other way if you say it is happening you must be in big goverment's pocket. Did you ever notice the only time scientists get money from the goverment to do research is when it is something negative and the only solution is for big government to get bigger by regulating and taxing.

[mirror]

Scientists are usually paid money for research to solve a problem that we are encountering in society, so of course it is going to be perceived as working on negative issues. You know the old expression - if something works, don't fix it.

I think that probably the best source for accurate details about issues are the science journals. Realistically how can we expect newspaper/TV/Radio reporters to be experts on the multitude of different topics they report on? It is impossible. Our society would be a lot heathier if we all read more of these science journals and spent less time following the news on TV/Radio/newspapers.

Another huge advantage is that scientific journals always publish who paid for the reasearch funding so we can decide what kind of biases are already built in.

[Guest eureka]

Big governments have not funded research until recently. Governments are latecomers to the acknowledgement of the reality. Big Business has, however, funded the deniers from the first indication of scientific concern. That Big Business has been, primarily, the energy industry although there are a couple of major oil companies that have been long time believers and have been doing their part for several years - Shell and BP.

Big government in the US has deliberately falsified scientific findings and shelved reports commissioned by the government that forecast horrific probabilities.

There is no scientific body in the world that is now not certain that the change is upon us and that it may be too late to save many of earth's assets - interms of human needs. There have been several scientific conferences in the last few years where there has not been a single dissenting voice.

The only dissent comes, as I said, from paid stooges.

The reason that there is so much perceived dissent is that scientists do not have the PR association and their conferences are only reported as conferences and findings. The naysayers have the wealth of the corporate sponsors and their PR facilities to preach their apostasy.

In other words, a handful of deniers get as much Press as the whole world scientific community. This gives the impression of an uncertainty or scientific question that does not exist.

I don't think that there is a single reputable scientist with any expertise in related fields who now denies Global Warming or that it is man-made.

[Riverwind]

I don't think that there is a single reputable scientist with any expertise in related fields who now denies Global Warming or that it is man-made.

I agree but the debate is really about what can be done. I have heard one argument that the problem is a function of the number of people living on the planet and that the only effective way to combat global warming is to do something about the number of people. Since our options are fairly limited in that regard we should focus on living with the consequences of the warming instead of wasting resources trying to prevent the inevitable.

[mirror]

Australian government is still in denial. We need to crack a few heads over there, what can those people be thinking?

Climate change wake-up call

If the UN were wise, they would focus a lot of their energy on global warming as it looks like we are probably going to need a world government to save us from being fried like a egg before too long.

[Guest eureka]

The problem, Sparhawk, is that the human race cannot live with or adapt to the possible consequences. They are too severe for human tolerance. Should the Atlantic Conveyor Belt collapse, to use one extreme but possible consequence, how could half a billion or so humans survive in Arctic conditions?' How could hundreds of millions who depend on the fish from the oceans in warmer regions survive if the world's coral reefs die and with that, the fish disappear.

That is just a couple of likely problems to which we could not adapt except in small numbers.

What could be done is to embark on a massive publicity program to enlighten people worldwide to the fact that Bush and some other deniers are worse than war criminals: to show that they are endangering the existence of all humanity. Then, Kyoto could be immediately implemented.

Kyoto is now a small step on the way and far more will have to be done. It is, however a start that will bring the world community into a serious consideration of how much has to, or can, be, done.

Nothing is enough to restore a livable climately in the near future. But, there is probably still time to hold us to a tolerable situation while the planet's own restorative capacity slowly heals its wounds.

[Riverwind]

The problem, Sparhawk, is that the human race cannot live with or adapt to the possible consequences. They are too severe for human tolerance. Should the Atlantic Conveyor Belt collapse, to use one extreme but possible consequence, how could half a billion or so humans survive in Arctic conditions?' How could hundreds of millions who depend on the fish from the oceans in warmer regions survive if the world's coral reefs die and with that, the fish disappear.

My understanding is climate change caused by:

1) Energy production and consumption

2) High intensity agriculture

3) Urbanization

All three of these things are necessary to sustain 6 billion+ people on the planet. Even if we fixed problem 1) we would not be able to address 2) or 3). Mother Nature is a brutal mistress and we will likely see several billion people die in the next century as the effects of climate change start to bite. I can understand the desire to 'do our best' when it comes to minimizing the consequences before they happen but I believe that we also need to figure out how to keep our global economy functioning in the face of natural disasters that will make the boxing day tsunami seem like child's play.

[mirror]

US in plan to bypass Kyoto protocol

The United States and Australia have been working in secret for 12 months on an alternative to the Kyoto protocol and will reveal today a joint pact with China, India and South Korea to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The deal, which will be formally announced by the US deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick in Laos today when the five "partners" hold a press conference, comes a month after Tony Blair struggled at the G8 summit to get George Bush to commit to any action on climate change.

Details of the agreement are not yet public but it is clear it is designed to give US and Australian companies selling renewable energy and carbon dioxide-cutting technologies access to markets in Asia. It is thought the pact does not include any targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which the rest of the developed world has signed up to under Kyoto.

Well I guess Bush has no choice with all those corporate lobbyists funding his party.

[mirror]

I suppose our fragile planet is going to have to wait now until we have a major catastrophe before we will get serious about this issue:

Strangling the son of Kyoto

[Nemo]

deleted

[BHS]

I suppose our fragile planet is going to have to wait now until  we have a major catastrophe before we will get serious about this issue:

Strangling the son of Kyoto

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your supposition is based on the premise that Kyoto is a serious attempt at reducing temperatures due to a man-made increase in the percentage of carbon gases in the atmosphere. It is not. It is an excuse to provide supplementary income to Russia and other third world countries, and to provide our strutting politicians with another international venue for self-congratulation and rock-star comradery.

Strangely, your post also completely ignores the main point of the article, that America and Australia and China and India are interested in halting climate change, and are developing a new treaty to deal with it.

But I forget, that the only right way to do something is to stick with whatever the Americans aren't doing, because they're always wrong about everything.

[Pateris]

Truths about this issue:

1) The climate of the planet Earth appears to be changing relatively quickly. However this is based on a limited set of data regarding the climate of the past. That said, there are some clear clues, such as the glaciers that have generally been retreating since the 1850s. There are of course exceptions.

2) The Kyoto Protocol will have little or no impact on the climate. This is because even if the Kyoto Protocol were fully implemented, the atmospheric composition would not be significantly altered. Business as Usual indicates that a 450 ppm CO2 level will be reached in 2100. Implementing Kyoto would reach that level in 2106. Therefore Kyoto will NOT affect the climate

3) Implementing the Kyoto Protocol will be VERY expensive. Reducing CO2 emissions means either: (a) capturing CO2 and sequestering it underground, or ( not making CO2 in the first place. Capture and Sequestration is expensive, costing in excess of $25 per tonne. This would significantly increase the cost of electricity generated from fossil fuels. It is also nigh impossible to do for transportation systems. Not making the CO2 would mean not burning fossil fuels. Which leads to:

4) What are the alternatives to fossil fuels? National Geographic has a good summary on this in the latest issue. Solar power still costs far too much. Wind power is getting cheaper, but it a maintenance and reliability headache (the wind doesn't always blow). Nuclear is slightly more expensive than fossil fuels, but it has it's downsides (ie. waste products, limited planetary uranium reserves). The uranium reserves issue can be partly rectified by building breeder reactors and reprocessing spent fuel to recover plutonium.

Therefore, any short term reduction in fossil fuel use will mean either:

SHRINKING the economy

ACCEPTING higher costs for energy and accepting the requirement for many new nuclear facilities, as well as spending billions on research into nuclear fusion reactors (the holy grail of power generation)

[BHS]

Good post, pateris. What do you think of the new fusion reactor being built in France? How do you think nano-engineered materials might fit into the picture?