Living Car Free - CO2 output must cease altogether

CO2 output must cease altogether (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/)

Research points to years of warming even with ambitious emission cuts
By Juliet Eilperin

The Washington Post
updated 10:35 p.m. PT, Sun., March. 9, 2008

The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.

Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.

Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.

"The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about."

Emissions continue to rise
Although many nations have been pledging steps to curb emissions for nearly a decade, the world's output of carbon from human activities totals about 10 billion tons a year and has been steadily rising.

For now, at least, a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the reach of politicians here and abroad. U.S. leaders are just beginning to grapple with setting any mandatory limit on greenhouse gases. The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings "make it clear we must act now to address global warming."

"It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling," she said. "It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves."

James L. Connaughton, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, offered a more guarded reaction, saying the idea that "ultimately you need to get to net-zero emissions" is "something we've heard before." When it comes to tackling such a daunting environmental and technological problem, he added: "We've done this kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take a sufficient amount of time."

Warming may continue despite CO2 cuts
Until now, scientists and policymakers have generally described the problem in terms of halting the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere. The United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the question that way two decades ago, and many experts talk of limiting CO2 concentrations to 450 parts per million (ppm).

But Caldeira and Oregon State University professor Andreas Schmittner now argue that it makes more sense to focus on a temperature threshold as a better marker of when the planet will experience severe climate disruptions. The Earth has already warmed by 0.76 degrees Celsius (nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Most scientists warn that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) could have serious consequences.

Schmittner, lead author of a Feb. 14 article in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, said his modeling indicates that if global emissions continue on a "business as usual" path for the rest of the century, the Earth will warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If emissions do not drop to zero until 2300, he calculated, the temperature rise at that point would be more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit.

"This is tremendous," Schmittner said. "I was struck by the fact that the warming continues much longer even after emissions have declined. . . . Our actions right now will have consequences for many, many generations. Not just for a hundred years, but thousands of years."

While natural cycles remove roughly half of human-emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere within a hundred years, a significant portion persists for thousands of years. Some of this carbon triggers deep-sea warming, which keeps raising the global average temperature even after emissions halt.

Researchers have predicted for a long time that warming will persist even after the world's carbon emissions start to fall and that countries will have to dramatically curb their carbon output in order to avert severe climate change. Last year's report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said industrialized nations would have to cut emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 to limit CO2 concentrations to the 450 ppm goal, and the world as a whole would have to reduce emissions by 50 to 80 percent.

Glimpse into the distant future
European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, in Washington last week for meetings with administration officials, said he and his colleagues are operating on the assumption that developed nations must cut emissions 60 to 80 percent by mid-century, with an overall global reduction of 50 percent. "If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed," he said.

The two new studies outline the challenge in greater detail, and on a longer time scale, than many earlier studies. Schmittner's study, for example, projects how the Earth will warm for the next 2,000 years.

But some climate researchers who back major greenhouse gas reductions said it is unrealistic to expect policymakers to think in terms of such vast time scales.

"People aren't reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient," said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's like you're starting off on a road trip from New York to California, and before you even start, you're arguing about where you're going to park at the end."

Brian O'Neill of the National Center for Atmospheric Research emphasized that some uncertainties surround the strength of the natural carbon cycle and the dynamics of ocean warming, which in turn would affect the accuracy of Caldeira's modeling. "Neither of these are known precisely," he said.

Although computer models used by scientists to project changes in the climate have become increasingly powerful, scientists acknowledge that no model is a perfect reflection of the complex dynamics involved and how they will evolve with time.

Still, O'Neill said the modeling "helps clarify thinking about long-term policy goals. If we want to reduce warming to a certain level, there's a fixed amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. After that, we can't emit any more, at all."

Caldeira and his colleague, H. Damon Matthews, a geography professor at Concordia University in Montreal, emphasized this point in their paper, concluding that "each unit of CO2 emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially permanent climate change on centennial timescales."

Steve Gardiner, a philosophy professor at the University of Washington who studies climate change, said the studies highlight that the argument over global warming "is a classic inter-generational debate, where the short-term benefits of emitting carbon accrue mainly to us and where the dangers of them are largely put off until future generations."

When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O'Neill said, "in the end, this is a value judgment, it's not a scientific question." The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, "appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically feasible."

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

This might be a really good time for people to start coming up with ways to get carbon out of the atmosphere rather than to put all of our efforts into not putting it there to begin with. If drastically reducing our emissions is our only strategy, we're screwed; it takes a really long time to get seven billion people to damatically change their habits, especially if the majority of them don't have their eye on the ball, either because they want to keep driving the SUV or because they think having a refrigerator would sure be nice.

I recently looked at some data that showed that, for all of our increases in CO2 emissions, human beings still produce a pretty small percentage of the total. Maybe deforestation, massive urbanization and other land use follies have more to do with the problem than power plants or cars. Maybe it's the CO2 uptake that needs more attention.

And another thing: I have yet to understand why CO2, a gas that only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, can have such a massive effect on climate. I don't doubt that there's a relationship -ice core sample seem to bear this out, as well as a couple of classroom experiments I've done myself- but it sure would be nice to know what, exactly, is the mechanism that makes it happen.

...And another thing: I have yet to understand why CO2, a gas that only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, can have such a massive effect on climate. I don't doubt that there's a relationship -ice core sample seem to bear this out, as well as a couple of classroom experiments I've done myself...
Can you elaborate a little about those classroom demonstrations of the CO2 greenhouse effect? Are they easy to set up?

personally, i think we're screwed.

If global warming becomes a real problem we'll engineer an ambitious global solution such as a)solar shade b)carbon trapping c)nuclear/volcanic winter

While I'm all for industrial changes and making the world a better place we have to realize that this rush to green is all about money to most countries and businesses, where can they get it and how can they make it from this current disaster.


"The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth not including clouds carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%; methane, which causes 4–9%, and ozone, which causes 3–7%"(wikipeadia)

Water is by far the worst culprit of green house gas but there is nothing we can do about it humans breath is out and water naturally flows through the water cycle. But CO2 became an easy target it's an industrial by product we can tax it we can clean it, people can make money talking about it.

I kind of think this may have more to do with it than anything else.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/when_ice_ages.html

In other words, I believe that it is a natural cycle.

I don't believe any of the hype about we need to do x, y, and z or we are all going to be dead in so many odd years. We are all going to be dead in so many odd years as it is. Mother nature is much more powerful than anything man can throw at her. Warming and cooling cycles have happened since the beginning of the Earth's creation and they'll likely continue long after any of us or are species have left.

Dinosaurs weren't driving SUVs and they're all gone. "Sh*t happens - it always has and it always will. That is one of the most basic laws of the universe.

Over consumption of resources should be stopped for other reasons than the fear that it will cause global warming and the demise of our, and countless other, species. Our species and others will eventually be wiped out as it is, because that is what happens, SUVs or not.

Of course, I could be wrong, but it is a fact that the Earth has warmed and cooled in cycles on and off since the beginning of the Earth's existence.

It should be obvious to all that we have put this off way too long! We should have started reducing our carbon output 35 years ago! Ahh... excuse me a moment, folks, my sweetheart is interrupting me-

Oh, ...well. Um. She has just reminded me that 35 years ago everyone was in hysterics because the climatologists were convinced we were entering another ice age.

This might be a really good time for people to start coming up with ways to get carbon out of the atmosphere rather than to put all of our efforts into not putting it there to begin with. Here you go bub, all the info one needs to remove CO2 from the air.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/51.Keith.2005.ClimateStratWithAirCapture.e.pdf

All you folks in a panic need to get together and build these scrubbers. (No, you won't do that! You want to force everyone else to pay for it don't you?)

Here's another question, these scrubbers are low tech and cheap, how come they aren't front and center as a policy option? PM me for the answer!

I recently looked at some data that showed that, for all of our increases in CO2 emissions, human beings still produce a pretty small percentage of the total. Maybe deforestation, massive urbanization and other land use follies have more to do with the problem than power plants or cars. Maybe it's the CO2 uptake that needs more attention.

Natural organic processes and volcano's make up 95% of global CO2 emissions. Is it reasonable to think that reducing the 5% we are responsible for will dramatically change world climate?


And another thing: I have yet to understand why CO2, a gas that only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, can have such a massive effect on climate. [snip] ...but it sure would be nice to know what, exactly, is the mechanism that makes it happen.

The theory is that CO2 traps infrared light, thus capturing it's energy in our atmosphere, rather than allowing it to radiate into space. CO2 is a very good absorber of infra red light. So good in fact that it has nearly passed the saturation point. That is, all the infra red light is almost 100% captured now with the present CO2 levels in the air. So if this theory is accurate, more CO2 will have less and less effect from higher concentrations.

But data like this spoils a good party. Never mind that the effect of CO2 is massively overwhelmed by water vapor on atmospheric temperatures. Never mind that climate models are unable to replicate past climate changes from any time period. Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!

Seriously, pay no mind to the hysteria of AGW.

Ah global warming.

Thanks for the laugh! : )

Can you elaborate a little about those classroom demonstrations of the CO2 greenhouse effect? Are they easy to set up?

I've done it with middle school students. Actually, it's pretty easy, but it's not a totally controlled experiment, either. I'm sure it won't win any science fair prizes. Anyway, here's the procedure:

1. Place two identical thermometers in two clear plastic bags. (Bottles work okay, too, assuming that CO2 is denser than air, so it won't leak out.)
2. Inflate one of the bags with CO2 using a CO2 canister like those used for PFDs (or an old CO2 fire extinguisher), and the other one with air from a bicycle pump. (The big problem here is that the bag with CO2 has other gases in it.)
3. Expose both bags to the same light source; I've used a halogen work light, or even a regular incandescent bulb. (make sure both bags are the same distance from the light/heat source.)
4. Measure the temperature of the two bags every minute for 10-20 minutes.
5. Turn off the light.
6. Again, measure the temperature of the two bags every minute for 10-20 minutes. (longer is better)

Invariably the gas containing mostly CO2 reaches a higher temperature than regular air. But what's really interesting is that the CO2 drops its temps noticably slower than regular air. For reasons I have yet to completely understand, CO2 seems to retain heat for a good long while, which would explain why the IPCC reports that nighttime lows are rising faster and more uniformly across the planet than daytime highs. Of course, it's not really a good model; it's not so much modeling the effects of increased CO2 emissions on Earth as it is comparing the effects of the atmospheres of Earth and Venus. But it still gets the point across, on a limited budget, that CO2 concentrations actually seem to make a difference.

I've done it with middle school students. Actually, it's pretty easy, but it's not a totally controlled experiment, either. I'm sure it won't win any science fair prizes. Anyway, here's the procedure:

1. Place two identical thermometers in two clear plastic bags. (Bottles work okay, too, assuming that CO2 is denser than air, so it won't leak out.)
2. Inflate one of the bags with CO2 using a CO2 canister like those used for PFDs (or an old CO2 fire extinguisher), and the other one with air from a bicycle pump. (The big problem here is that the bag with CO2 has other gases in it.)
3. Expose both bags to the same light source; I've used a halogen work light, or even a regular incandescent bulb. (make sure both bags are the same distance from the light/heat source.)
4. Measure the temperature of the two bags every minute for 10-20 minutes.
5. Turn off the light.
6. Again, measure the temperature of the two bags every minute for 10-20 minutes. (longer is better)

Invariably the gas containing mostly CO2 reaches a higher temperature than regular air. But what's really interesting is that the CO2 drops its temps noticably slower than regular air. For reasons I have yet to completely understand, CO2 seems to retain heat for a good long while, which would explain why the IPCC reports that nighttime lows are rising faster and more uniformly across the planet than daytime highs. Of course, it's not really a good model; it's not so much modeling the effects of increased CO2 emissions on Earth as it is comparing the effects of the atmospheres of Earth and Venus. But it still gets the point across, on a limited budget, that CO2 concentrations actually seem to make a difference.

Pfftt...

Don't waste your time.
Platy is troglodyte.

Chipseal, your an uninformed ignoramus.

Just sayin'.

Here you go bub, all the info one needs to remove CO2 from the air.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/51.Keith.2005.ClimateStratWithAirCapture.e.pdf

All you folks in a panic need to get together and build these scrubbers. (No, you won't do that! You want to force everyone else to pay for it don't you?)

Here's another question, these scrubbers are low tech and cheap, how come they aren't front and center as a policy option? PM me for the answer!


Natural organic processes and volcano's make up 95% of global CO2 emissions. Is it reasonable to think that reducing the 5% we are responsible for will dramatically change world climate?



The theory is that CO2 traps infrared light, thus capturing it's energy in our atmosphere, rather than allowing it to radiate into space. CO2 is a very good absorber of infra red light. So good in fact that it has nearly passed the saturation point. That is, all the infra red light is almost 100% captured now with the present CO2 levels in the air. So if this theory is accurate, more CO2 will have less and less effect from higher concentrations.

But data like this spoils a good party. Never mind that the effect of CO2 is massively overwhelmed by water vapor on atmospheric temperatures. Never mind that climate models are unable to replicate past climate changes from any time period. Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!

Seriously, pay no mind to the hysteria of AGW.

Thank you for the link to the article about removing CO2 from the air. According to the authors of the article, using current, or at least near-future technolgy, it would take US $500 to remove one ton of carbon from the air. Since the average US citizen puts roughly 20 tons of carbon into the atmosphere in a given year, that means that it would cost $10,000 per person to remove their carbon. If we assume that taxpayers will assume this burden, it would cost $3,000,000,000,000 (3 x 10e12) per year to erase our collective carbon footprint, which is, I imagine, quite a big percentage of, if not a lot more than, the entire national budget. For now, at least, this doesn't seem to be a viable technology, unless it's used in conjunction with coservation and alternative energy sources. (i.e., no magic bullet)

Your paragraph about the solar infrared levels being at or near saturation point seems too good to be true because it is. One need only look, again, at Venus to see that this is not true. Given enough CO2, the temperature can go up tens or even hundreds of degrees C. Saturation of IR has not been reached. If you can show me something that proves me utterly wrong, I'd love to see it, though.

Pfftt...

Don't waste your time.
Platy is troglodyte.

Actually, although I've not always agreed with him, I've found Platy's comments to be mostly intelligent, tolerant, and often even insightful and thought-provoking. And, most importantly, he's consistently respectful of others, regardless of their views. (i.e., he manages to remember his manners)

The theory is that CO2 traps infrared light, thus capturing it's energy in our atmosphere, rather than allowing it to radiate into space. CO2 is a very good absorber of infra red light. So good in fact that it has nearly passed the saturation point. That is, all the infra red light is almost 100% captured now with the present CO2 levels in the air. So if this theory is accurate, more CO2 will have less and less effect from higher concentrations.

But data like this spoils a good party. Never mind that the effect of CO2 is massively overwhelmed by water vapor on atmospheric temperatures. Never mind that climate models are unable to replicate past climate changes from any time period. Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!


My sarcasm meter isn't very well tuned, but you're being sarcastic right?

For now, at least, this doesn't seem to be a viable technology

Isn't that the point? It would be the end of western civilization to try to vastly reduce CO2 production. Fortunately the whole AGW thing is a hoax, as becomes ever more evident with each passing year.


Your paragraph about the solar infrared levels being at or near saturation point seems too good to be true because it is. One need only look, again, at Venus to see that this is not true. Given enough CO2, the temperature can go up tens or even hundreds of degrees C. Saturation of IR has not been reached. If you can show me something that proves me utterly wrong, I'd love to see it, though.

This paper took exactly 8 seconds to find on a Google search with the terms "infrared saturation, CO2".

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

You are welcome! :)

ChipSeal, your an uninformed ignoramus.

Just sayin'.

Duly noted.

Some might think that your refusal to deal with the substance of a contrary view is assent that it is true. ;)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it is my understanding that the evidence for AWG is wanting.

My sarcasm meter isn't very well tuned, but you're being sarcastic right?

Not with the comment you replied to. I was being sarcastic with this comment:


It should be obvious to all that we have put this off way too long! We should have started reducing our carbon output 35 years ago! Ahh... excuse me a moment, folks, my sweetheart is interrupting me-

Oh, ...well. Um. She has just reminded me that 35 years ago everyone was in hysterics because the climatologists were convinced we were entering another ice age.


If you missed that then you do need to get your meter checked! ;)

Wasn't 2007 the coldest year on record? Wiping out any temperature increase?

Wasn't 2007 the coldest year on record? Wiping out any temperature increase?

Shhhhhhhhh....

The Global Warming crowd knew that was coming, which is why they changed their mantra to Global Climate Change. They figure that way they can keep the minions chanting so they can continue to receive billions of research dollars and continue to appear relevant.

...Anyway, here's the procedure:

1. Place two identical thermometers in two clear plastic bags...
Thanks. I was just wondering if the greenhouse effect was so strong that you could really see it in a simple classroom science demonstration. For lots of people, seeing is believing.


Pfftt...

Don't waste your time.
Platy is troglodyte.
Just been a little grumpy lately, I guess.

Wasn't 2007 the coldest year on record? Wiping out any temperature increase?


No. It wasn't the coldest. Not even close.

It was one of the snowier years, but that's to be expected because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.

What you idjit deniers seem unable to comprehend, is that weather feedback loops can be positive or negative. For instance, warmer planet = more clouds = more albedo

CO2 output must cease altogether (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/)

I guess I should stop breathing then.

CO2 output must cease altogether (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/)


Hrmm... I don't know about you, but personally, I'm not willing to quit breathing quite yet. ;)

No. It wasn't the coldest. Not even close.

It was one of the snowier years, but that's to be expected because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.

What you idjit deniers seem unable to comprehend, is that weather feedback loops can be positive or negative. For instance, warmer planet = more clouds = more albedo

And what the Global Warming idjits seem to be unable to comprehend is that it's a very large system which will balance itself out. They seem unable to comprehend that ice core samples that show increases in CO2 congruent with increases in global temperatures happened well before man had any influence, well before there was any burning of fossil fuels, and well before there was any industrialization by any species. They seem unable to comprehend that stars go through growth cycles which include increased energy output. They seem unable to comprehend that rising temperatures on Venus and Mars have nothing to do with mankind's influence.

We're doomed. That's fact. Sooner or later our planet will cease to live because our local star, Sol, will cease to live. The planet has been both hotter and colder than it is today, and while the planet may very well sacrifice us to live longer, it will survive, probably longer than we will.

Get over it.

Sooner or later our planet will cease to live because our local star, Sol, will cease to live.

That is why the only sustainable living strategy involves getting populations into space.


And what the Global Warming 'proponents' seem to be unable to comprehend is that it's a very large system which will balance itself out.

Yes, we understand that its got ups and downs. But the system is not necessarily "self balancing". Earlier on we appear to have experienced a cooling now known as "Snowball Earth" no mere ice age, but a near complete freezing of the surface. Apparently the only thing that unlocked the snow was the intervention of volcanism.

Yes, the Earth warms and cools. But there is no point in helping it along to our own detriment. Mankind is a large enough system on our own. We owe it to our progeny to maintain systems that are sustainable, not insustainable.

I'll ignore the trogs and just say that the technology very nearly exists to get all of our energy from renewable sources without disrupting the economy. In fact, the annual cost of switching the US to all-solar would be about the same as the cost of building the interstate highway system in the 1950s to 1960s. It would also cost about the same as setting up the internet has cost since the 1980s. And it would take about 20 years to accomplish.

And we would never again have to pay for foreign oil or cut down a mountaintop for coal.

Don't get me wrong here. I disagree with the alarmists, but at the same time I think you have to be thinking very wishfully to believe that we can go on depending on fossil fuels forever. It is a finite resource that will run out eventually.

I believe we (Americans in particular) have very short memories. We reacted quickly in the 70s by going to smaller, more fuel efficient cars. We worked on alternative fuels. Then the oil embargo was over, and we gradually increased our consumption to higher and higher levels. I think you have to be a moron to drive a Hummer to the grocery store.

If it works for you to be car free, I think that's great. I think it's great that there are concerned people that are willing to suffer some inconvenience to do their part. I do not however buy into the BS science that can't make up it's mind about what the climate is doing in response to our presence. The volcanic intervention noted by Artkansas is a great example. Care to guess what the CO2 levels were as a result of that period?

2007 was not the coldest year on record, but it was the greatest drop in temperature on record, and nobody that has been screaming "GLOBAL WARMING!!!! OMG!!!!!1111!!!" wants to talk about that because it doesn't figure into their model and they haven't figured out how to explain it away.

It's OK to do the right thing for practical reasons, for ethical reasons, for personal reasons, but I hate the hysterics. I try to minimize my driving, and I've taken steps to increase the efficiency of my home. I even ride my bike when I can, but I don't do any of those things because I think Al Gore is the new Messiah of this whacked our environMENTAL religion.

And what the Global Warming idjits seem to be unable to comprehend is that it's a very large system which will balance itself out.

Bullshyt.
We haven't seen CO2 levels this high in over 100,000 years.
And we've never seen CO2 levels double in a mere 150 years, as we have now.
We're performing a very dangerous experiment with our biosphere.

Deniers like to use half truths such as "water vapor is the real greenhouse gas", when in fact it's a feedbak loop. A small rise in CO2, cause a small rise in temperature, which then causes a small increase in evaporation rates, and whaaalaaaa... an increase in watervapor!

Another favorite of theirs is "The upper atmosphere is cooling", which actually SUPPORTS the Greenhouse theory. The upper atmosphere is COOLING, because the sun is supplying the same amount of energy (relatively) as it always has, but less of it is bouncing off the earth (as IR heat) and getting thru the rise in GREENHOUSE GASES, and thus can't warm the upper atmosphere as much.

I could go on, and on...
The fact is, there are some folks that enjoy having their heads up their asses.

I love reading bad science on the internet.

Actually, I should clarify that. I love reading posts on scientifically based issues which have absolutely no scientific backing at all.

Ah global warming.

Thanks for the laugh! : )
Ah denial, thanks for the laugh :)

Don't get me wrong here. I disagree with the alarmists, but at the same time I think you have to be thinking very wishfully to believe that we can go on depending on fossil fuels forever. It is a finite resource that will run out eventually.

I believe we (Americans in particular) have very short memories. We reacted quickly in the 70s by going to smaller, more fuel efficient cars. We worked on alternative fuels. Then the oil embargo was over, and we gradually increased our consumption to higher and higher levels. I think you have to be a moron to drive a Hummer to the grocery store.

If it works for you to be car free, I think that's great. I think it's great that there are concerned people that are willing to suffer some inconvenience to do their part. I do not however buy into the BS science that can't make up it's mind about what the climate is doing in response to our presence. The volcanic intervention noted by Artkansas is a great example. Care to guess what the CO2 levels were as a result of that period?

It's OK to do the right thing for practical reasons, for ethical reasons, for personal reasons, but I hate the hysterics. I try to minimize my driving, and I've taken steps to increase the efficiency of my home. I even ride my bike when I can, but I don't do any of those things because I think Al Gore is the new Messiah of this whacked our environMENTAL religion.

Well, when it comes to science, you have to ignore popular media and politicians. Science is a process of exploration. I look at the fact that everything I learned in college anthropology is now wrong. But this does not discredit science, rather than admit that science is incomplete and science is learning.

We are just barely learning about the planet. Global warming is well popularized. Global dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) is not so well publicized and may well have equal consequences to us and be as much influenced by human action. So we are just learning about the earth. My Grandfather was a petroleum geologist and and oil company executive. He claimed that it was stupid to waste resources when you really have no idea of how much there is.

Fossil fuels or not, to me is less an issue than minimizing energy consumption. You can do a lot to keep or raise your standard of living while using less energy. Quality of living is not linked to quantity of consumption. We have no idea of how many resources there are, nor do we know how large the population may become. It's stupid to use as much as possible without considering ways to be more efficient.

I love reading bad science on the internet.

Actually, I should clarify that. I love reading posts on scientifically based issues which have absolutely no scientific backing at all.


Ya, those deniers are real idjits, eh?

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas (http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm)
The skeptic argument...Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. That’s a 56°C drop in temperature in 12 hours. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas (source: Interview with Tim Ball).

What the science says...

Water vapour is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the ocean and air temperature and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.

How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in empirical studies such as Soden 2001 which observed the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past.

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study (Santer 2007), otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels. Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system.

Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Basic theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Well, my silly-science meter was waggling around in its case by the time I read the sentence "Never mind that climate models are unable to replicate past climate changes from any time period", but it went off the charts at "Wasn't "2007 the coldest year on record? Wiping out any temperature increase?"

Honestly, its hard to believe anyone who hasn't even properly researched the relevant techniques and capabilities of the scientific community (A first year archaeology student can give you a general climate model based on soil samples, let alone other more advanced techniques), or someone who hasn't even bothered to check up on how the "coldest year on record" is entirely subjective to location, dating, and other various factors - that it was likely far from the coldest year (If you wanted to find the "coldest year", you would need to take a global average into account) - and that even if it was, there's a line between weather and climate (and one year does not a climate make)..

I'm just not going to get into it. Honestly try researching what you're saying, because some of this stuff is good enough to get into my greenwash paper.

Isn't that the point? It would be the end of western civilization to try to vastly reduce CO2 production. Fortunately the whole AGW thing is a hoax, as becomes ever more evident with each passing year.



This paper took exactly 8 seconds to find on a Google search with the terms "infrared saturation, CO2".

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

You are welcome! :)

Did you read the article? It's not bad for an anti-warming site, at least it's got some science in it. The gist of it is this: CO2 does raise the temp, but not by all that much, and it's a logarithmic progression rather than geometric or even linear. (That is, as the concentration increases, the effects decrease.) I can buy this, up to a point. It does not take other effects into consideration, though. A slight increase in temperature causes more evaporation, which releases more water vapor into the air. Water vapor is a much more effective "greenhouse" gas than CO2, so it get warmer faster in some regions which formerly did not have a lot of water vapor, like the arctic. There's a lot of stored methane in the arctic, in the permafrost. As this melts, the methane enters the atmosphere, the warming increases even more, and so on. And don't forget that the capacity of ocean water to take up CO2 is also quite limited (and let's not even discuss the effects of higher CO2 levels on krill and phytoplankton). Positive feedback really needs to be considered.

Personally, I don't think global warming has the potential to destroy the Earth, not by a long shot. It does, however have the potential to kill, or at least drastically impoverish, large fractions of humanity, and to destroy the diversity of higher-order life that yet remains, and to just brush global warming aside as a liberal hoax, without first considering all the facts, especially the ones you don't like, is pretty foolish.

It really is difficult to debate a scientific issue with people who do not believe in science, just as it's difficult to debate political issues with people who think Rush Limbaugh is a policy wonk.

For those who think that science is the best approach to understanding the natural world, a scientific blog called Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/) is a good place to start. Their FAQ section (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/) gives some good links to data sources for everybody from beginners to sophisticated lay people.

For those who are interested in the political aspects of AGW, I reccommend Grist (http://www.grist.org/) as a source for information that is non-partisan but clearly environmentalist. I also steer you to the web sites of the Presidential candidates. All the remaining candidates--Nader, Paul, Obama, Clinton and even McCain--agree that AGW is a looming issue and all propose programs to deal with it.

Nobody--not even the majority of scientists working with sophisticated measurements and powerful computer models--can predict the future with 100 % accuracy. However, the preponderance of the scientific evidence is clear. AGW is likely a grave threat to our economies, lifestyles and health. Three people on this forum may disagree with this prediction. Do you want to bet it all on their unsupported claims?

It really is difficult to debate a scientific issue with people who do not believe in science, just as it's difficult to debate political issues with people who think Rush Limbaugh is a policy wonk.

For those who think that science is the best approach to understanding the natural world, a scientific blog called Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/) is a good place to start. Their FAQ section (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/) gives some good links to data sources for everybody from beginners to sophisticated lay people.

For those who are interested in the political aspects of AGW, I reccommend Grist (http://www.grist.org/) as a source for information that is non-partisan but clearly environmentalist. I also steer you to the web sites of the Presidential candidates. All the remaining candidates--Nader, Paul, Obama, Clinton and even McCain--agree that AGW is a looming issue and all propose programs to deal with it.

Nobody--not even the majority of scientists working with sophisticated measurements and powerful computer models--can predict the future with 100 % accuracy. However, the preponderance of the scientific evidence is clear. AGW is likely a grave threat to our economies, lifestyles and health. Three people on this forum may disagree with this prediction. Do you want to bet it all on their unsupported claims?

Roody, you want to believe in global warming. You want it because you feel that the burning of fossil fuels is wrong. Even if the average temperature went back to normal and stayed that way for the next 20 years you would find some variation somewhere and blame it on co2.

My boss blames global warming everytime there is a breeze. He is sincere and honesty believes it.

I do not believe it because I understand past temperature variations of earth and know that this is NOTHING compared to past era's. The earth is alive and the sun is constantly changing. The only constant is change. There is no way that WE can stop the earths temperature from changing.

Answer me this...honestly.

Heard of the little ice age? Know when it was? Not as long ago as you might think. Think snow in the summertime in the united states.

I wonder if I can get a grant to develop giant corks for volcanoes? I gotta start thinking green so I can make some green!

Roody, you want to believe in global warming. You want it because you feel that the burning of fossil fuels is wrong. Even if the average temperature went back to normal and stayed that way for the next 20 years you would find some variation somewhere and blame it on co2.

My boss blames global warming everytime there is a breeze. He is sincere and honesty believes it.

I do not believe it because I understand past temperature variations of earth and know that this is NOTHING compared to past era's. The earth is alive and the sun is constantly changing. The only constant is change. There is no way that WE can stop the earths temperature from changing.

Answer me this...honestly.

Heard of the little ice age? Know when it was? Not as long ago as you might think. Think snow in the summertime in the united states.


Wrong. I don't "believe" in AGW because I have an ideological agenda. I believe that science, while imperfect and "always wrong", is the best method we have for determining the reality of the natural world. I concede that the current climate models may turn out to be wrong, but the likelihood is that they are at least partially correct.

A physician who predicts that I need an operation might be wrong too, but he has studied the matter dispassionately and come up with the most likely solution for my health problem. I would be foolish if I didn't consider his advice, and equally foolish if I didn't seek a second opinion. The second opinion might agree with the first, and still be wrong. However, I would have the operation if the two opinions agreed.

In the case of AGW, all the current opinions agree. The evidence is firm enough that I believe it's foolish not to act on it. This is especially true when you consider that the remedial steps for AGW will have tremendous benefits in other areas, such as oil addiction, pollution and a failing oil-based economy.

As for the little ice age--this is a specious argument. Yes, there are many natural sources of climate change. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of man-made sources. To say that man-made and natural change are related is illogical and, frankly, stupid.

wow

a debate about Anthropocentric Global Warming !!!

have i gone back to 1999 or is this an american forum ? :p

I do not believe it because I understand past temperature variations of earth

No you don't


and know that this is NOTHING compared to past era's.

Bullshyt. The change in CO2 concentrations has occured at a rate never before seen in the 500,000 years of ice core samples we have. We're on our way to DOUBLING it in a mere 100 years. That is HUGE compared to the "glacially slow" changes that naturally occur.



The earth is alive and the sun is constantly changing. The only constant is change. There is no way that WE can stop the earths temperature from changing.


What is this? False humility?
"The Earth is so big, and nature so powerful, that wee lil' humans could do nothing to change the environment"

Tell that to the Easter Islanders.




Heard of the little ice age? Know when it was? Not as long ago as you might think. Think snow in the summertime in the united states.

Ever heard of decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity?

Ya see, this is what climatologists thought, originally, when they noticed the steady increase in global average temperature. But then they observed that the upper atmosphere was actually COOLING, while the troposphere (the place we live) was warming. So that ruled out more solar energy as the cause, and pointed directly to the fact that the lower atmosphere was trapping and retaining more heat.`

I don't really expect to change your mind, because, well... that would assume that you had one.

wow

a debate about Anthropocentric Global Warming !!!

have i gone back to 1999 or is this an american forum ? :p

More like 1969, actually.

Only in America....

if the people in the car-free section of bikeforums are in denial about global climate change, we are truly ***ed.

depressing.

if the people in the car-free section of bikeforums are in denial about global climate change, we are truly ***ed.

depressing.


Ya, that is more than a little disconcerting.
But that just proves that those who who feel they will be financially inconvenienced by weening ourselves off dirty energy sources are very powerful, and understand how to turn, what SHOULD BE a bipartisan issue, into a wedge issue.

Divide and conquer is how the sons-of-bytches get their way.

Natural organic processes and volcano's make up 95% of global CO2 emissions. Is it reasonable to think that reducing the 5% we are responsible for will dramatically change world climate?

Typical junk science statistic.

While human activities are a small percentage of total CO2 output of all sources, it is a proven fact that human activities have caused a 40% rise in ambient CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution. Basically there is a balance involved between CO2 production and CO2 absorption and we've tipped the balance dramatically towards a much higher concentration.

The basic argument of the folks who don't think global warming is happening are twofold: 1) man is small and the earth is big, so how can we possibly be affecting things?; and 2) the weather is always changing anyway so how can you possibly separate man's effect from normal climate variation?

Both arguments are bogus.

On the first, man's cumulative effect on the earth can no longer be thought of as small at all - there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet and, for example, the average American adds several hundreds TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. In geologic time, we are -- LITERALLY IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE -- mining trillions of tons of carbon that has been slowly sequestering in the earth's crust for hundreds of millions of years and pumping it into the atmosphere. Why is it so hard to fathom that this might have a major effect on climate?

On the second, while weather changes all the time which masks our effect, the weather is currently changing MUCH FASTER than it has ever changed before. Yes, the earth has been very warm in the past, but it has never warmed this rapidly. And it is this rapid change in climate that is the problem as we're critically dependent on reasonably stable climate patterns for agriculture and commerce.

- Mark

if the people in the car-free section of bikeforums are in denial about global climate change, we are truly ***ed.

depressing.

It really makes you wonder, doesn't it. Just because someone is car-free or car-lite, doesn't necessarily mean that their mindset is the same as everyone else. Though I think more often than not, people who are car-free, and have serious concerns about the fragility of ecosystems, and have seen first hand how humans can have a negative impact on our environment - are just really tired of debating cherry-picked and misleading information. And there still is plenty of that out there, judging by some of these posts.

People entrenched on both sides of the debate, seem to love to accuse the other side of having an agenda; which ultimately comes down to power, control and/or money. That being said, I would rather spend my money on greener initiatives and technology, rather than Big Oil.

And if it comes down to power and control wielded by the gov't, get out and vote for crissakes. If you think it doesn't make a difference, you have no right to complain.

In my riding (Quadra) yesterday, we had a by-election. As ridings go, it's second for post-secondary education, and the fourth with respect to affluence in the country, I believe. The Liberal party's victory margin was eroded, due to the fact that the Green Party's vote had tripled to 13.5%. The times they are a changin'. Policy makers and business are taking note of this.

What I find very frustrating, is how our emancipation from fossil fuels, and a shift towards renewable and greener sources of energy - could only be a good thing down the road. That and how responsible stewardship with respect to our environment, could only be of benefit to us as well. Yet naysayers say that the world economy couldn't survive without fossil fuels.

If our focus and infrastructure were shifted to a more environmentally friendly approach, the corporate machine would still function to make a profit. I just don't think they want to restructure and re-tool their industry while there's still a lot of money to be made off of fossil fuels.

I don't dispute the fact that it will require some concessions and a re-shifting of paradigms. And it won't be easy at times. But I think it will be easier sooner, rather than later.

And if predictions are wrong, we still have a cleaner and greener planet to inhabit.:)

I'll ignore the trogs and just say that the technology very nearly exists to get all of our energy from renewable sources without disrupting the economy. In fact, the annual cost of switching the US to all-solar would be about the same as the cost of building the interstate highway system in the 1950s to 1960s. It would also cost about the same as setting up the internet has cost since the 1980s. And it would take about 20 years to accomplish.

And we would never again have to pay for foreign oil or cut down a mountaintop for coal.

Where do you get these numbers from? Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if you were right, but I'd like to consult a few sources before I believe it.

Where do you get these numbers from? Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if you were right, but I'd like to consult a few sources before I believe it.

There's an article in Scientific American that might interest you. It's called A Solar Grand Plan (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan). Here's the intro:



"A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.


"A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
"Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.


"A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.


"But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive."Balance the $420 billion (over 39 years) with the $500 billion that we're spending annually on the Iraq war.

"Oh, ...well. Um. She has just reminded me that 35 years ago everyone was in hysterics because the climatologists were convinced we were entering another ice age. "

"But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm