are humans causing global warming?
rose-colored-coolaid wrote:I'm not going to argue that some of the diatribe regarding global warming is exaggerated (Al Gore, I'm looking at you), but it's extremely well documented that the climate is changing. It's also rather clear that human activity has played a role.
I noticed that RCC mentioned how it is "rather clear" that human activity is causing climate change. I seriously would love to see this evidence. I agree that there seems to be plenty of evidence showing that the climate is changing, I just haven't seem much that proves human activity is a significant factor in this.
I have been very disappointed to find that precious few of the papers, or presentations, I have seen on global warming ever delve into explaining how we know that people are the cause. I saw an Al Gore presentation once, where he went on and on about examples of global warming (glaciers shrinking, etc), but then spent the rest of the time railing on critics who deny global warming. He constantly talked about how his critics are just ignoring the "evidence". What was frustrating to me, however, was that Gore never actually stated what this evidence was (i.e. that proves mankind is causing global warming).
This is what I am eagerly waiting to hear.
To be upfront, I am skeptical as to how much of an impact man has on the global environment. When one considers that there have been DRAMATIC climate changes in human history, long before the advent of the internal combustion engine, I find it hard to then jump to the conclusion that humans are therefore responsible for the current climactic changes we are facing (hence my desire to see evidence of this).
I've read stories about how northern Europe was significantly colder than today back in Roman times (Gibbon talks about German barbarians eating reindeer and crossing the frozen Rhine every year in about AD 200), then warmed up a lot to the point where the settlement of Greenland was possible (around AD 980s). Then Europe got a whole lot colder again in the late 1300s. Greenland was abandonded, The Thames and Seine regularly froze, and crops were poor for decades.
How do we know that the current changes in climat are due to these naturally oscillating patterns that we know have caused massive alterations without the intervention of man?
Comments
Please don't mischaracterize my statement. What I said is it is clear that human activity has had some effect on climate. This is much different than saying all climate change is caused by humanity. Wikipedia has a reasonable write-up on greenhouse gases. It's quite clear that more greenhouse gases would have some effect on trapping heat, and it's simple to show that humanity has increased the total quantity of greenhouse gases in the biosphere. Again, I think anyone who puts all blame on human activity is probably a simpleton, but I've yet to hear anyone argue convincingly that none of the change is due to human activity.
We have dead zones in our oceans from pollution run off (One big one is near New Orleans). We have an ozone hole that has been slowly shrinking due to actions taken. And yes, global warming is "very likely" caused by humanity.
One very interesting (though I can't verify it) study I saw suggested that human activity actually may have prevented a general cooling pattern worldwide as recently as the middle ages. The explanation was that methane from agriculture served as a greenhouse gas. This is in the same vein as what sniglet pointed out. By the way, if true, this was a good thing!
But this is good:
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf
Ok, we agree that human activity is not the ONLY factor behind climate change. As I said earlier (see quote below) I acknowledge that man can impact the environment.
The real question is to what degree human activity is impacting the global climate. Or to put it another way, could any of the various environmental proposals floating around significantly alter the cimate changes that are under way?
These are flip-sides of the same issue. If human action (e.g. banning internal combustion engines, etc) can't prevent global warming, then it would seem that civilization hasn't really been as impactful as is supposed.
Agree completely, and I think you and I probably also agree that the human impact on global climate is somewhat less than one of the 2000 presidential candidates suggests and somewhat more than the other.
This is perhaps a more difficult line of questioning to pursue. One of the many aspects of climate we don't yet understand is how susceptible it is to feedback. Here's two geeky examples.
1) Imagine a block tower (like Jenga). It is stable, but if you push it a little in any direction the tower collapses epically.
2) Consider a swing. Push it as much as you like, but in a short period of time it will return to its stable resting position.
I think the natural assumption is that climate behaves more like #2, but there is evidence that some aspects of the biosphere are susceptible to collapse instead. One concern is that ice reflects a lot of light, so less ice means we might have pushed one tower over.
Another possible concern is the increase in CO2 sequestered in the oceans. It's looking like the ocean will not be able to dissolve more CO2 as readily as before. If true, this would be the case of something that looked self regulating turning out to be overwhelmed by human damage.
All I'm pointing out is that it's possible that humans initiated warming, and that stopping all new harmful activity might not prevent further warming.
This is a ridiculous dichotomy, and a false example. It is blatantly false that the only two options a government can make on any issue are to stay out or to force uniformity.
Let's talk about Toyota for instance. Guess who helped along sales of the Prius? The US Government. It's imperative to consider that tax subsidies for hybrid automobiles have contributed to their popularity. $4 fuel this last year has helped even more, but prior to that the subsidies were a major engine for change.
So, the combination of subsidizing decisions we like (to increase demand of "good" decisions) and punishing bad decisions with higher costs is proven to be a highly effective engine for change. We need to do the same thing with other smart technologies.
Let's subsidize solar panels and wind farms! But where do we get the money for that? We should tax coal or oil at a higher rate.
Like any real decision, this is not either or. We need sustainable energy, but we need to use fossil fuels in the short to moderate term. The real question is how should we incentivize sustainable energy. And don't let the conservative talk-show hosts confuse you that this will destroy our economy. If done properly, sustainable energy will be big business. It will pay good wages and it will make the US a more secure nation.
Wouldn't that be a cruel joke: to implement costly environmental policies that hurt the economy only find that they don't wind up helping. This is what bothers me about many of the environmental policy suggestions: we just don't know if they will work, yet they come with real pain and costs.
By the way, I ride my bike to work year-round (sold my car 7 years ago). I am not "pro" polution, I just don't want the government taking drastic action that can hurt (and cost) people without strong evidence supporting it.
I think this summarize the real crux of the argument. Which is, just how much action is wise and how much is overkill.
I look at our current energy policy as being akin to a guy eating french fries for every meal, and figuring the ketchup counts as a vegetable. He could die from heart attach at age 49 or he might live into his 80s.
The problem is that you really don't know all of the negative side effects he's likely to have until it's too late to do much about them. The fat guy might not realize how bad his health is until he's in his mid 30s. But then he has to make drastic changes. No french fries at all, and no brauts either, exercise 6 days a week, and the list goes on.
Sometimes, you need to take reasonable action in advance even if the evidence isn't all in. Climatology is complex, and we'll never have a 100% explanation, which is why it's better to do reasonable things now than wait. By the way, I'm not an advocate of higher fuel efficiency standards. I think we should ditch those and instead put a $2 a gallon tax on gas.
Well then you should stop. You know how much fossil fuel goes into making the extra food you eat because of your elevated baseline metabolism? Sit on the bus. :x
AlsoI firmly agree with your statement, "It is blatantly false that the only two options a government can make on any issue are to stay out or to force uniformity." When absolutely necessary, the government needs to get involved - WWII comes to mind.
But the whole global warming farce is just that: a farce. And it's purpose is control. To control, ultimately, every aspect of our lives. It is a manufactured crisis that literally does not exist. At all. Most people know that, which may be why this congress, for the first time in history, has less than a 10% approval rating. There seems to be a disconnect between the people and their representatives. It will probably be rectified this November.
This seems more true than ever: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
And more on GW from MIT. Heck, it isn't even "new" news. It's almost four years old, but apparently nobody reads:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
Sounds like you and I both take to heart the phrase "Think globally but act locally."
You nail a lot of my sentiments in your last statement. Sad thing is that there is absolutely NO real evidence of man made "GW", nor is there evidence that there is any long term GW at all.
Our chicken littles are like an insect with an 8 hour lifespan that was born at 5:00 AM in Death valley and at about 8:00 he notices it is getting warmer and panics. It doesn't matter though, because at 8:30 he is eaten by a lizard.
Resources ARE limited. We should be focusing more of our resources on lizards and less on the mysterious and "unexplainable temperature increase".
His initial argument basically said that because the effect of global warming could be catastrophic for the human race, it meant that even if we did something about it (drastically meddling in the lives of "free" people and crushing some economies) and it turned out that there was no global warming, that was better than accepting the potential downside.
I have a simple answer. The effect of an airliner ramming into a building can be catastrophic. So why don't we harden our buildings or stop building them? It is about the risk analysis formula, and it has three competing areas of consideration:
1. The impact of the risk.
2. The likelyhood of the risk.
3. The cost of eliminating or mitigating the risk.
The guy on youtube focussed on number one and ignored 2 and 3. The formula that results in analyzing the three is the reason buildings are not hardened agains airliner or meteor strikes.
If we took Mr. Youtube's argument to heart. Those of us that drove cars would always wear a helmet, and most would never drive. Allowing children in cars would be out of the question. And yet that is not the case even though we kill over 40,000 people a year on our roads!
It is the formula that matters. And the interesting thing is that as the debate becomes more open, number one looks less and less likely. I suspect future generations are gonna laugh at us as much as we laugh at the "Doctors" that cured their patients via leeches and bloodletting.
Yeah, I know we're "modern", but not for long.
And what about the evil carbon dioxide he exhales?! :evil:
I think this logic is quite misstated. Many of the "think green" initiatives lean toward putting power into the hands of people. True, some are overbearing legislation goals, but you've also got the goals to get people on solar power and help disconnect them from the grid. I'd call it all a wash with some positive civil liberty aspects and some negative ones. Certainly anti-terrorism and facebook have done far more to forcibly control your life than Al Gore has.
The other problem is arguing that this congress has such a low approval rating due to the tie between democrats and environmentalism. Come on! You've got to be joking. Their approval rating is low because gas prices are high, housing prices are plummeting, the economy is in/heading toward recession/depression, we're in two protracted wars, the dollar has fallen significantly against other currencies, etc.
1) Are global temperatures rising? I think the consensus here is yes, but correct me if you disagree.
2) Do so-named greenhouse gases (in sufficient quantity) actually increase global temperatures? Measurably so? Follow-on should we worry (for non-GW reasons) about CO2 sequestered in the ocean? My answers are yes, yes (but estimates are often exaggerated), and unsure with a slight lean towards concerned.
3) If 1&2, are humans the primary (or at least a significant) source of CO2? I say yes again.
4) Is global warming a problem? Here's were I will actually break with convention. I think so long as the changes are gradual enough that life will adjust. In fact, higher temperatures might just increase overall biosphere diversity. Tropical regions usually have significantly higher biodiversity (amazon) compared to more temperate areas (Washington state).
So, to summarize my opinion. I think the evidence is stronger that GW exists and that human activity is a significant part of that change. I think we're better off nipping this in the bud as best as we can, but I'm not terrified by what will happen if we don't. A temperature increase of even 5 degrees fahrenheit won't destroy the world.
Yeah, I remember learning in grade school (early 60's) that in europe and the USSR, when crops failed, it meant the people would want a new government.
One thing though. You said " Certainly anti-terrorism and facebook have done far more to forcibly control your life than Al Gore has." To that I can only add two words, "So far". If things stay the same, I completely agree with you (I fly a lot and feel like a Jew in 1936 Germany sometimes). I'm just tryin' to nip this ludicrous GW thing in the bud before your statement becomes NOT true.
BTW, on a side note, I figured late last year that GWB would allow gas prices to skyrocket and then they would plummet a couple of months before the election. The "people" really are not that bright and it just might work.
Agreed. Of course, the tax should be phased in otherwise it would never be acceptable and would never get voted in. Perhaps 50c every year until we get to where we want to be, and additional increases to ensure it never goes below $4 again. If we force too many people to use less gasoline, that might have the perverse effect of reducing the price and we're back to SUVs again.
The critical thing about this tax is deciding where the money goes. It absolutely must NOT go into any kind of general fund. We don't want to rely on this money, as the whole point of it is that it should decrease over time and eventually go away. Funding education from a gas tax is a stupid idea.
Instead, the money should go towards funding alternative energy research, tax incentives, etc. For example, we could pick the 10 biggest problems facing alternative energy roll-out, and put out absolutely massive prizes for US companies (with US resident employees) to solve those problems. Part of the money should go towards a tax credit for the poor, as they will otherwise experience the brunt of this taxation in a regressive way.
My 2 cents...
As to whether humans are contributing to global warming. The answer is "no". End of story. Thanks for listening.
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/04 ... -hysteria/ I disagree
Here is some nice light BS on the subject: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
And here is something with meat:
http://glowarmers.blogspot.com/2007/07/ ... ve-it.html Well, since I said no to 1 and 2... Here we agree. I have ticked off a few GW alarmists by saying, "Hey, even if it IS true, that is a GOOD thing - Especially if you live in Russia and would like the opportunity to grow a bit more wheat. Also, a warmer planet is a wetter planet, for obvious reasons. Maybe the Sahara would become a forest again.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
It is on two pages and is also fascinating in that it is about ten years old now, yet still VERY relevant.
BTW, global warming is caused by...drum roll please...the sun. And the lack of sunspot activity is strongly suggesting we are in for a period of "relatively severe" cooling: http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... 1&Itemid=1
Maybe the government should force us to drive SUVs and heat our homes with wood.
Yes, yes, yes, yes. Regardless of whether you are worried about global warming, the economic cost of purchasing oil, or just hope to pull the rug out from under Arab nations because you don't like seeing them grow so wealthy, what you laid out is exactly the approach (or set of approaches) that we should take.
And the tax breaks for the poor are essential. Hell, I'd even send them a "gas rebate" in the mail every month in exchange for the high price. They don't have to use it on gas if they have a better alternative though.
My perspective can be summed up with this: If I could go back in time and see Adam one second after God created him, how old would I "guess" that he was, based on observation? Probably more than one second by a couple decades at least...
Uh...this is moving off topic, but I think it's an essential insight. So, please let me rephrase this to see if I understand what you said. You think God created the world 6,000 years ago, but he must have made it look like there was an ice age 18,000 years ago?
Always a tough question. I figure he must have had an outie. It's pretty obvious once you think about it.
He just had that nasty rib scar, but I understand God is a pretty good plastic surgion.
Using the genesis account as literal geological information would cause a bit of confusion based on the way we currently interpret information. We're not talking about spiritual stuff here, after all.
I took this particular link and did a back of the envelope check on what they say to see if we can make this meaningful for people.
1) A 0.7F increase in temperature during the 20th century seems to be scientific consensus. You linked a blog that denied this, but I'll going with the peer reviewed journal results instead. I also found an average surface temperature of 57F-58F has been the recent norm.
2) The link posits that 0.2%-0.3% of total greenhouse effect is caused by humans, and that average global temperature would be -0.4F with no atmosphere. I think his atmosphere number is wrong (by perhaps 100F), but let's just accept them for the time being.
Now it's simple math.
0.25%*(57 - (-0.4)) = 0.14.
0.14/0.7 = 20%
These numbers would suggest that 20% of global warming over the last century is from humans.
I do not endorse the numbers used here, but I wanted to use "denyist" numbers to prove that even if you pick your own numbers the effect is measurable.
I think in reality the percentage of change impacted by humans is higher (as I don't trust his numbers), and the overwhelming scientific consensus agrees.
Don't believe me, then ask why global boards keep announcing that we need to act.
Or ask why nearly no peer-reviewed articles are published for the "humans have no impact side".
Or maybe you think the real scientists feel pressure to go along with establishment and announce they agree global warming has a human source.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060407.html
Okay, it's from a couple years back, but it kind of sums up the debate.
The whole point of this thread is to find a source that backs up that number that isn't just a link to a footnote somewhere else, and doesn't begin with either "It is clear that ..." or "Algore said that ...".
If you have one, please share.
sustainable energy is nuclear...do you favor building nuclear plants
Substainable energy is Solar...but it is not practical... YET
substainable energy for automobiles could be electric but someone still has to invent a battery that has good range (400 miles) and a quick turnaround (recharge in 1/2 hr or less)....Do you own a Prius? I do and it is a great transition between Gas and Electric....
Wind is a possibality but Kennedy and Kerry but the Eastern swells in Boston don't want it were they can see it...in fact they have spend milions preventing a wind mill farm 15 miles off the cape code coast (where they have summer mansions)
It will take decades for anyone to develop practical fuel cells which by the way will be worthless in cold climates because they discharge water (that turns into ice)
We all want practical energy ....Oil/ or oil electric hybrids is the most practical for automobiles today.
Hydro and nuclear are the most practical for electricity for your home and buildings etc but the Lefty crowd oppose both and have for decades....