Global Warming

[The Architect]

The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"[1]. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.

An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and tornados. Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Although the combination of scientific consensus and economic incentives were enough to persuade the governments of more than 150 countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (notably excluding the United States and Australia),

What do you guys think about this and what could be done, short and long term?

[Jason]

The Architect, can you please provide your sources?

[The Architect]

Wikipedia.org Type in global warming

[Milton Bradley]

It is also considered good form to use the search option in at the top of the page to see if any existing threads deal with the topic you wish to discuss.

[Nathan Struth]

It definitely exists due to historical cycles of temperature increase. THe main question is if we're the ones who initiated it, or are accelerating it. and if we can actually stop it? My view is that it's a natural cycle and that we're accelerating it by 10% faster.

[Pooeypants]

Where do you get this 10% figure from?

[JohnMK]

If I could answer that question: The Oracle. Ethylene gas, you know the ritual.

CO2 at roughly 390 ppm is about 90 ppm above its average, and about 70 ppm above its cyclical peak. We're in record territory here folks, the geologic record shows that in the past million years or so we're really setting quite the trend. In ~1960, we were at roughly 330 ppm. A lay understanding of atmospheric chemistry should make the obvious implications of such a growth trend clear: manbearpig.

[Chris]

Quote by: Milton Bradley It is also considered good form to use the search option in at the top of the page to see if any existing threads deal with the topic you wish to discuss.

Yes, However there are probably 30 threads on global warming. To merge them all would not make any sense. But Yes, its best to try and post on existing threads instead of starting new ones that parallel existing ones.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: JohnMK If I could answer that question: The Oracle. Ethylene gas, you know the ritual. CO2 at roughly 390 ppm is about 90 ppm above its average, and about 70 ppm above its cyclical peak. We're in record territory here folks, the geologic record shows that in the past million years or so we're really setting quite the trend. In ~1960, we were at roughly 330 ppm. A lay understanding of atmospheric chemistry should make the obvious implications of such a growth trend clear: manbearpig.

Have you considered the Earth's mass completely and a possible way of it healing itself as one big organism? We surely don't know what's @ the center, nor have we gotten past the crust so it's impossible to tell that Global Warming even exists, although it's a decent theory.

[JohnMK]

Yes that's all considered. I hope it's not as bad as the scientific community consensus, but hope and doubt don't rationalize Russian roulette.

[Nathan Struth]

I agree with John MK, it may not exist; but based on the data; it has a high probability of existing. Personally, I think it's a natural cycle and I saw in Al Gores movie different data MK. I also saw in a sciam the peak hitting far above what we're at now and the expected trend going out to 20 years. Please cite your source. Mine is the July 2006 Sciam on global warming. Where's yours?

[JohnMK]

I'll go out on a limb here and assume you're asking for this type of material. You are correct, there have been relatively HUGE fluctuations in the level of CO2 going back hundreds of millions of years, up to probably around 4000 ppm IIRC.

The evidence for the past several hundred thousand years is more concrete; fewer variables are unaccounted for, so these data are more illuminating on our present situation.

TRENDS: ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

[Nathan Struth]

It's definitely cyclical. Another question is why? What's causing this?!?! Some have said it's sunspots. But...did you see my other source? Al Gore also soudned like an idiot in his movie stating that time went backwards on one of his graphs...another question is how we're going to stop it. If my 10% increase rate is right, then perhaps if it was going to 10 years at a temp of 150 F, it would take 9 years if we stopped our human impact...

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Nathan Struth It's definitely cyclical. Another question is why? What's causing this?!?! Some have said it's sunspots. But...did you see my other source? Al Gore also soudned like an idiot in his movie stating that time went backwards on one of his graphs...another question is how we're going to stop it. If my 10% increase rate is right, then perhaps if it was going to 10 years at a temp of 150 F, it would take 9 years if we stopped our human impact...

Disregarding your Al Gore comment (which has nothing to do with this thread as he doesn't actually research Climatology himself and that your own point is moot), I'd like to see the working outs for your postulations. Or are we grabbing figures from thin air again and presenting them like you know what's actually going on?

[JohnMK]

The human influence on present warming is probably far in excess of 10% of any underlying warming/cooling trend. The unprecedented (in at least the last million years) rapid and consistent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is very good evidence for this. The accurate figure for how you have defined it, would be on the order of (absolute value) 200-600% quite likely. But that's not how climate scientists talk about it so I wouldn't discuss it in those terms if you wish to be immediately comprehended.

[xyzer]

This topic has been discussed fairly thoroughly on the science thread "those crazy liberal scientists...."

I concede we are in a warming trend but question the assumptions made, by so called scientists using flawed data, that human caused emisssions have a major affect on the warming trend!
I also abhor the alarmism used by the MSMedia and greedy entrepreneurs like Gore trying to sensationalize the uproven data for cash?

[Pooeypants]

By the way, can you show me how Al Gore is earning from his film?

[JohnMK]

Quote by: xyzer This topic has been discussed fairly thoroughly on the science thread "those crazy liberal scientists...." I concede we are in a warming trend but question the assumptions made, by so called scientists using flawed data, that human caused emisssions have a major affect on the warming trend! I also abhor the alarmism used by the MSMedia and greedy entrepreneurs like Gore trying to sensationalize the uproven data for cash?

Your minor is in Economics. Do you have a degree in Atmospheric Chemistry?



7000 million metric tons is a lot of carbon to be emitting into the atmospheric. Where do you think it all goes?

By and large the constituents of our atmosphere are diatomic. That means two. You can wiggle around a bit, but potential energy for diatomic molecules is comparatively less than triatomic molecules, which can wiggle around in many more ways. They store heat like a blanket and we're pumping 7000 million metric tons PER YEAR of carbon (usually -dioxide) into the atmosphere. That does stuff. It is doing stuff.

I think it's kind of cool that things do things. If things didn't do things I wouldn't see a reason for living.

[JohnMK]

Quote by: JohnMK 7000 million metric tons is a lot of carbon to be emitting into the atmospheric. Where do you think it all goes?

I should have mentioned that roughly 45% of it goes into the ocean, give or take. I'm sure there's a saturation point but I have no idea how close or far we are, haven't researched that particular aspect. Anyway, 55% of what goes up into the atmosphere, on a net basis, stays up there.

[xyzer]

Pooey..
If you question my contention.."By the way, can you show me how Al Gore is earning from his film?" Its up to you to prove he didn't get paid for his participation in this travesty of truth? I don't have to do it! Prove I'm wrong.
Just remember not much in the entertainment/media is done without some sort of recompense..If President Clinton receives 6 figure payouts for short speeches and appearances I think you might find Gore is getting similar payoffs. Any way prove I'm wrong...You haved the internet at your disposal if you know how to use it.