<p>You’re confused. Global warming per se refers only to the period in the last ~100 years where CO2 PPM have hugely increased, and a mild warming trend has been seen. The ice ages and climate changes in the Earth’s past are actually the result of orbital changes/solar patterns, and in these examples, higher CO2 levels are the result, not the cause, of those warmer periods. What is different about today is that there are far, far higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to those past periods that are somewhat the result of human activity, and we are not sure how much of an effect that will cause with temperatures in the near future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Geothermal heat, which (today) is mostly the result of radioactive decay, has rather little effect on surface temperatures actually.</p>
<p>It still comes down to a certain point when you travel upward, you run out of atmosphere to breathe. We’re in a jar of sorts, and things only go so far and the earth can be expected to only clean so much. Cutting polution isn’t a bad thing, so why pretend that it is? The planet could give a crap about republicans, democrats, buddists or communists… Why people get hung up on political affliation to ignore the earth is just sad. </p>
<p>We were given this place and given the role of caretakers. Some get the idea leave it better than you found it. Others apparently don’t. You guys can argue pro and con of evironmental needs, but I guess we might be able to agree on one thing…they ain’t building any more of it. At some point we’ll have no place to hide the trash and little ability to clean it up. Yea, it will be after most of us are gone… but why have children if you don’t care?</p>
<p>I’m not saying cutting pollution is a bad thing. In fact I think we should, and in general use less fuel and have more efficient cars, etc (and save money in the process!)</p>
<p>The only thing I am saying is that I have yet to see conclusive proof that the pollution is the only explanation for the warming taking place. Things like sun spots, solar output, etc. have not yet been conclusively discounted. It could quite possibly be a combination of factors, including pollution. Temperature has oscillated before we began polluting, so to suggest other forces may be at work is not that far-fetched.</p>
<p>Instead of marketing the push for greater efficiency and less pollution as a response to global warming, I think it would be better to market it as a way to save money, the environment, and the air we breathe. I definitely support that.</p>
<p>“The only thing I am saying is that I have yet to see conclusive proof that the pollution is the only explanation for the warming taking place”</p>
<p>You have eyes don’t you?
“I’m not going to ask to get on the ark until the water is at least “this high” because I have not seen conclusive proof that it won’t stop raining.”</p>
<p>Does your arguement sound familar? ;)</p>
<p>That’s why I don’t “get” you guys. “I’m all for cleaning the environment…except when somebody I don’t like says I should.” </p>
<p>Tomato… Tamato… you’re only going to back the concept if it’s named the right way? </p>
<p>Maybe the village idiot sounded the warning, but that is when we use our eyes and look, because the other guy is the village idiot…no?</p>
<p>Did you read the sentence? Did I saw warming was not occurring? No. I just said there is no conclusive proof that CO2 is the ONLY cause of global warming.</p>
<p>For the SUV-bashing set, did you know that less than 20% of CO2 emissions in the US is from automobiles? Why the intense focus on a minority contributor? Even if all the SUVs were magically converted to Honda Fits, that would only reduce US CO2 emissions by 6%. I don’t think that’s going to make much difference in a world where the Chinese are (reportedly) firing up one new coal-fired electrical plant per week.</p>
<p>Disclosure: I do not now, nor have I ever owned an SUV. Or a hybrid.</p>
<p>No, but we can control our individual controlables. What does the world copy? the west? If we do, they will follow, especially if we share knowledge. </p>
<p>My point all along was I didn’t need AG to tell me stuff’s bad, I have eyes. I see the crap in the water, I see the stuff in the air. If I decide to change some things that I do, I help alittle. If others do the same, it helps alot. We didn’t need AG to tell us this, but I can’t find fault in him reminding us, because some have adopted the “what me worry” approach to life.</p>
<p>for those who are interested in hearing the science, I’d suggest “Earth in the Balance” by Al Gore. It’s actually VERY scientific (I got it because I thought it would be more political) and consistent with my science textbook (Miller’s “Living in the Environment” for AP Environmental)</p>
<p>Opie, I don’t think anyone would disagree with your reaction to visible pollution. Just a couple of points. First, CO2 is invisible and odorless. The debate is to what extent it is contributing to global warming. If it wasn’t for that, CO2 would not be considered a pollutant. Second, even the largest SUV meets exactly the same smog control regulations as the smallest Kia. On the EPA’s green index, for example, the Chevrolet Suburban is cleaner than a standard Honda Civic (not counting CO2). If CO2 turns out to be harmless in terms of global warming, it’s not nearly as much of a concern as NOX, diesel particulates and other tailpipe stuff. Large size does not mean more smog.</p>
<p>That’s an awful lot of explaining that I don’t think I asked for? I think I just said control yourself and your choices and others will follow. I didn’t say you couldn’t own a suburban. You may have a need. Now if you’re using it to drive to the end of the driveway to get the paper… then we should talk.</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> In atmospheric concentrations, carbon dioxide is a clear, odorless gas. In very high concentrations it has a faint bitter odor. Does that make you happy?</p>
<p>As for “too much,” I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.</p>
<p>The science of global warming is very thin. In order to collect useful data we would need a test system and a control. We would need a test Earth where we alter the environment and another identical Earth left as a control. We might also need a few centuries for this experiment. Unfortunately, there is only one Earth. Much of the global warming theory comes from a simple correlation of atmospheric changes in CO2 and methane to the observed changes in global temperature. The factors can be approximately measured over the past century or so. Much of the global warming research involves computer modelling to project observed changes to predict future changes. These computer models are very complex and often attempt detailed predictions about changes which will occur in different parts of the Earth. It is not surprising that there is a consensus of scientists working in this field. It is no surprise that they believe their research is worthwhile - and should be funded. There is very little science to demonstrate a causal relationship between CO2 and global warming. In fact there is considerable evidence to indicate that large global temperature shifts have occurred prior to man’s alteration of the atmosphere. There were rapid changes equivalent to the current change; e.g., the Middle Age warm period and there have been much larger shifts including the ice ages and warm periods between. The science to account for these shifts is again pretty thin. Altered solar output is the most likely explanation. We tend to think of the sun as some distant and constant source of radiant energy. That is not the case. Observation from Earth and from space show that the sun is very turbulent. Of special interest are “solar storms” which eject massive quantities of charged particles. These impact the Earth’s atmosphere and create changes that we barely understand. </p>
<p>Let’s say we have decided that the risks are too high and we cannot wait for scientific understanding. If we really believe that CO2 is causing global warming, then we need something more than do-good environmentalists who want to set a good example by recycling paperclips. If we want to make significant changes, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. No more oil and gas for heating. No more oil and coal for production of electricity. We need alternate energy sources. We have already dammed up most of the major rivers so we have little potential for hydroelectric power. With our current technology, even massive solar arrays and wind farms would produce negligible amounts of energy. We have only one alternative: nuclear power. That prospective is a tad worrisome.</p>
<p>Well, Edad, you’ve included a diverse array of logical fallacies and false assertions in one place, so it’s kind of hard to even know where to start.<br>
Logical fallacy: Yes, the Earth has had dramatic climate changes in the past. Ice ages, warm periods, etc. That doesn’t tend to disprove global warming theory at all. What it demonstrates is that it is possible to tip the balance of correcting factors which tend to keep the overall temperature of the Earth relatively stable so as to have significant long term change. It doesn’t imply that we’re due for a change now for any particular reason other than increase in CO2. Since change is occurring, visible now pretty graphically in glaciers and polar region ice caps, there is a cause. You posit sunspots. We actually monitor solar activity pretty thoroughly, on lots of levels. Sure the sun’s output varies. Don’t you think we’d have noticed? Don’t you think there’s plenty of grant money available to link warming to solar variation? Lots and lots of grant money? In fact, there’s a ton of money waiting to be showered on any reputable scientist who can come up with a scientifically defensible explanation for climate change that doesn’t impact the bottom line of immensely wealthy corporations. Funding legitimate scientific research into issues which could damage your company’s profits is not only reasonable and routine, failing to do it would be irresponsible to the point of corporate malfeasance. Rest assured, the huge upside in climate change research is in proving the CO2 link wrong. Yet that evidence hasn’t surfaced, at least not from reputable scientists able to defend their theories to their peers. All we get are the kind of “pop science” sound bites and "Well, we’re really not suuure arguments that you’ve repeated in your post. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>We “barely understand”…“wait for scientific understanding…” This is exactly the same argument used by the tobacco industry to successfully forestall effective action based on the fact that smoking causes cancer. In fact, we don’t know why for sure. Tobacco has a complex group of molecules, human bodies are similarly complex - certainty is not ours to be had. The simple fact is that scientists are never “certain”. Scientific “understanding” is always a matter of degree. On the issue of global warming, the consensus of qualified scientists is that the evidence is sufficient. You disagree. Why? As UC-UCDad posted above, why not “consult the scientists” instead of your gut (or whatever the source is for your opinion that the science is “thin?”) </p></li>
<li><p>“It’s coal or nukes: Environmentalists are do-gooder paperclip recyclers.” What’s the source of your opinion that “even massive solar arrays or wind farms would produce negligible amounts of energy?” Why do you limit your analysis to “huge arrays” and “farms”? A typical single family home can easily provide over 100% of its annual power needs on site through roof-covering PV cells - exporting to industry in the day time, drawing down hydro power at night. A large scale conversion to on-site, small scale PV power production would result in massively distributed and redundant power production, requiring no new land and no new transmission grid - and be far from “negligible.” Would it be possible to replace 100% of our fossil fuel power plants with alternative sources? Not overnight, no. But an actual push to do so, with the necessary social and political will and capital behind it, could go a long way towards that goal. It would certainly be possible to reduce CO2 releases below current levels. And that’s why recycling the slick but actually empty pre-packaged arguments you’ve repeated above, which are repeated ad nauseam on every right wing blog on the internet, is actually being part of the problem.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>My favorite distillation of the “skeptic” argument comes from Dirk Vander Ploeg, the editor and publisher of UFODigest.com:
<p>kluge,
I would agree that previous climate shifts, not associated with man’s release of CO2, do not disprove the current speculation. I do think it is important to understand the past shifts and the same forces may be shaping the current climatic shift.</p>
<p>There is indeed a lot of research on solar radiation. Sun spots, solar flares, solar wind and effects on magnetism are being studied. Unfortunately there were no advanced measurements being made before and after the past ice ages and other climatic shifts.</p>
<p>“A typical single family home can easily provide over 100% of its annual power needs on site through roof-covering PV cells …” I don’t know what “power needs” you are talking about, but I can tell you that PVs are not going to heat my house in the winter. Nor are they going to provide the vast amount of energy needed for agriculture or industry or transportation. PVs and other clean power sources have a place but the current technologies cannot come close to supplying our energy needs. Now maybe if you could cover the State of Wyoming with PVs and figure how to store and transmit the power…</p>
</p>