Although I believe that GW is real, ther temperature readings over the years can throw us for a loop. Traditionally, large city temperature readings have been at the airports, since those had the best instruments.
Over the years, the temperature at international and regional airports has risen due to cities encroaching. Urban temperatures are always several degrees warmer that those outside the city limits.
However, the largest temperature increases have been in the extreme North and South. Arctic temperatures have risen several degrees already and will rise another 3 degrees C over the next 25 years. The permanent Polar Icecap will be gone very soon. Further South Lake Superior will no longer freeze over.
No amount of juggling of facts can get rid of the disappearing Ice Caps, glaciers, and resultant desertification of the US South West. Have a beer with the water supply managers for Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver and tell them global warming is a hoax.
The importance of CO2 is that we can control it, and it has been steadily increasing over the last century, as has the world average temperature. We can’t control natural methane emissions or other natural GH gases. Well, we can control methane to some extent. There are methane compounds on the ocean floor that could melt and emit methane if the ocean temperature increased a few degrees. Methane is a better reflector of heat than CO2, so we’d be in much worse shape if we started that process going.
By Design or not, Greenhouse Gas is just as relevant as Kool Aid, no? The ladle may be sipped or cast away, the choice is ours, by the sip or the chug a glug, glug, whatever shall we do, where shall we go, who shall we be?
Which contributes more GHGes, automobiles or electric power plants? Autos… but I am willing to concede for arguments sake that I am wrong. Cars are still vastly significant and on the same scale with Power plants. That I will not concede… for arguments sake or otherwise, but…
…If power plants do produce more GHG emissions, why go to electric cars? Because 1) Options; we can change the way we make electricity, 2) Regulations; we can deal with one power plant with centrally located emissions (in the outskirts of the city) easier than a city of 600,000 cars with scattered emissions throughout the city and constantly moving, 3) Efficiency; fossil fuel power plants producing electricity to power an electric car consumes less fuel per 100,000 miles than an internal combustion engine taking that same car the same distance, 4) Health; see reason two and finally, 5) Zero to Sixty in Under Four Seconds; Who needs a Lamborghini? http://www.teslamotors.com/
GHG causes a shift in the ecological balance. More plants thrive on CO2, nitrites, nitrates, etc, as do some bacteria, fewer animals do. This shift echoes up the entire food chain.
GHG causes a shift in the ecological balance. GHGes mostly are acidic in solutions, changing the pH balance of lakes, rivers and even the ocean. Certain plants and animals will suffer, others will benefit. This shift echoes up the entire food chain.
GHG causes a shift in the solar energy retention. They allow heat from the sun to enter the atmosphere but does not allow heat radiated from the Earth to escape.
GHG causes a shift in the solar energy retention. When the White icesheets melt and is replaced by dark oceans, they reflect less heat back into space and absorb more heat from the sun.
Are you aware that the polar icecaps reached their larges mass this winter since record keeping has begun on them? Or that the glaciers in Greenland are growing?
I think that would be startling news to every glaciologist on Earth. Last I heard, the Greenland and Antartica icecaps were shrinking at the fastest rate ever observed. Please quote some reliable sources (and that doesn’t include the Nazi News Network, a.k.a. Fox).
I am fully aware of the wave/particle duality of EM radiation (photons). However, the term “particles”, used in reference to the solar wind, is generally taken to mean the protons and other “stuff” (subatomic particles) blown outward by the Sun, rather than EM radiation. It’s EMR (UV) that creates ozone.
It’s a dessert topping AND a floor wax!
Birchite or Luddite? How about Moron? Republican? Fundamentalist? Oh wait… they accept the concept of GW now, don’t they?
The fact is that WATER VAPOR is the most prevalent greenhouse gas there is…and what are we supposed to do?
Yes, lots of things floating around the atmosphere, besides CO2, are greenhouse gases to one extent or another. The problem with water vapor is that it’s part of a nasty positive feedback loop: warmer temperatures (due to extra CO2, methane, etc.) lead to more evaporation which increases the vapor load in the atmosphere which increases the greenhouse effect which leads to warmer temperatures which lead to…
My overall thoughts on greenhouse gases and global warming:
Does temperature vary over time, without any help from man? Yes.
Have CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” been proven to raise a planet’s temperature? Yes – Earth would be a frozen icy wasteland if it were not for CO2. Venus is an inferno due to a thick, mostly CO2 atmosphere. The effect has been proven and measured in the laboratory.
Have temperatures risen (or fallen) as rapidly in the past (without human input) as they appear to be now? No – except after catastrophes such as asteroid impacts. “Normal” temperature swings appear to be much slower than what we’re seeing now.
Are temperature records reliable enough to make a firm statement that temperatures are rising rapidly? A good question. Widespread use of accurate thermometers is maybe a century old. Satellite data (of good quality) is only a few decades old. Beyond that, you’re looking at records from only “advanced” countries, tree rings, ice cores, and such. Ditto for measurements of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It is also true that fixed point measurements (such as at airports) may be biased by increasing urbanization of the surrounding area.
Are we in fact in a period of rapidly rising temperatures? It would appear so, but we cannot be 100% certain (see number 4). The effects (including rapidly shrinking ice sheets and glaciers) seem to support the statement.
Given that temperatures are rising, what part is natural variation and what part is man made? As the apparent rise (see 4 and 5) is much faster than what has occurred in the past (as definitely 100% natural events), and coincides with the human input of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, it is likely that human efforts play a substantial role, even if they’re not 100% responsible. Maybe we can’t make an air-tight case that would stand up in court for a conviction, but isn’t the circumstantial evidence fairly strong?
Given that temperature changes (+ and -) have occurred in the past, should we care that today’s changes appear to be largely of our own doing? Since continuing to increase CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) levels will almost surely result in sufficient temperature rises to do very unpleasant things to us (raising sea level 300 feet, more extremes of temperatures and precipitation, likely more powerful storms, upsets to food chains and other environmental damage,…) wouldn’t it be prudent to acknowledge that we may be setting ourselves up for catastrophic problems, and that we ought to do something to reduce the damage? If by our efforts at controlling our emissions, we can cut a 5 degree temperature rise to 2 degrees, wouldn’t that be a good thing?
Well, that’s my two cents worth. I know some of you will refuse to believe any of it, but that’s your problem.
The figures you’ve seen are obviously wrong. That would take a volume of ice over 300 feet tall and equal in surface area to all the oceans in the world. Even assuming their ice sheets are that deep (300+ feet), last time I checked Greenland and Antartica weren’t QUITE that big. Remember, too, that it’s called "Green"land for a reason. There was a time withing the last 1000 - 1500 years when it wasn’t covered with ice, and you could grow grapes there. It’s just not a big deal.
Actually, it is a big deal. It’s not just Greenland and Antarctica, but all ice everywhere. If all ice and snow melted, then the ocean surface would cover much of south Florida, the Florida Keys, and a lot of the rest of the east and west coasts of North America. As well as the rest of the world. Since most people live near the oceans, the results would be catastrophic.
I know the controversy is there, but what if we actually are destroying the atmosphere with pollution. The oceans are becoming too polluted to sustain the marine life. I mean, what if there is a tipping point and we go past it? There are many methods of renewable energy available, but we don’t even try. There are farms in the world that consume less energy in a year than an SUV does in a day. With the money we spend on wars to guarantee uninterrupted oil supplies, couldn’t we at least look at something else?
Agree that the Iraq war, costing $2.9 TRILLION so far, could finance an enormous amount of renewable energy. It would buy a great many solar farms that could produce an immense amount of electricity which could power plug-in hybrids. Instead, it has not produced a single extra barrel of oil for anyone. It must go down in history as one of the great miscalculations of the century, rivalling Hannibal’s invasion of the Roman Empire with elephants crossing the Alps, Napolean’s attempt to conquer Russia, Hitler’s attempt to conquer Russia, the French Indo-China War, the Vietnam War, the Japanese bombing of Pearl harbor, and others. But I digress.
Once resources are focused on developing new technology, the progress is rapid. The price of solar electricty is dropping fast; the Chinese are now the leaders in the development of low cost photovoltaic cells.
Going to war over resources is an outdated and counter-productive activity in a globalized world. Neither the secretary of state or the marine corps can give a us single reliable barrel of oil.
The North in Canada and Russia is covered mostly with Tundra, which, when it melts will release a lot of methane, a serious greenhouse gas, thus further raising the temperature. This is called positive feedback, and with open arctic water, which does not reflect sunlight, will cause both the Arctic and Antarctic to warm up very rapidly.
Agree that the Arctic ice was reduced to such a level last summer that the Northwest Passage was open to navigation by normal ships. Since we have severe climate swings, those that don’t believe in Global Warming will clutch at any temporay straw, no matter how nonsensical, to try to prove the opposite.
This week the West had a late spring snow storm, which will no doubt be interpreted as a sign of global COOLING!
A 2 pack-a-day smoker (who subsequently died of cancer)once firmly told me that the link between smoking and lung cancer was a hoax, but admitted that “non-smokers were healthier when they died!”.
The most difficult thing residents of Los Angeles had to accept in the early sixties was that their beloved cars were the cause of photochemical smog!! A local professor firmly and scientifically established the link, but he was villified by many non-believers.
Ronald Reagan believed that acid rain was caused by trees.
The Greenland and Antarctic icepacks are several kilometers thick!!! If those melt, together with many glaciers, the oceanlevels will rise significantly!
Greenland and Antarctica have a combined area of 6.01 million square miles (National Geographic Atlas), compared to the oceans with 144 million according to your figures. We won’t count the arctic icecap, since its ice floats and will not raise sea levels when it melts!! When the ice cubes in your drink melt, they do not make the booze level go up in your glass.
If we assume an average Ice Pack thickness of about only one MILE (5280 feet), the complete melting of just the Antarctic and Greenland ice packs will raise ocean levels by: 6.01/144 X 5280=220.37 feet. I trust you follow the math.
This will not likley happen, but your “infinitessimal” sound like a wishful gasp that nothing bad will happen.
In reality, that scenario will not likely happen, just 50% or so of the ice packs will melt and raise the ocean levels by ONLY 110 feet. That would still wipe out New Orleans, Miami one half of Vancouver, Canada and a good part of Seattle and its suburbs.
The good thing about all this is that we have time to prepare for it all. There are countries, however, such as Bangladesh, which don’t have the money to do anything about it.
With respect to the SE USA survey; the question was clearly slanted, leading and deceitful. It should have been: “Have you noticed an increase or decrease in average temperatures?” And do you consribute either to Climate Change?
Who cares what professional people in the SE feel or think; I would trust actual facts and visual signals such as disappearing glaciers and dry creek beds where I live.
You just do not survey a population on scientific data that needs precise measurement. Al Gore successfully raised awareness with DRAMA, partial truths, and scare mongering. He succeeded, but the method was hardly scientific.
Don’t forget many US politicians started out good and became bad as time went on, according to similar surveys. Perception and propaganda are very effective, but not scientific tools. However, many foreign countries to this date believe that Ricard Nixon was a good president; they judged him by what he accomplished on the international scene.
You are right that the 2 largest sources of CO2 in the US are cars and coal-fired powerplants.
Going to electric/plug-in hybrid cars would make a major reduction since large plants make electricity very efficiently and eletric cars convert it into useful power very efficiently.
The key, of course is to MAKE CARS SMALLER AND LIGHTER, in addition to converting more to electric plug-in hybrid types.
The combination of those would lower gasoline consumption by 50%, and only raise CO2 levels from power plants by a small amount comparitively.
Global warming is complete horse crap IMO. It’s designed for the sole purpose of bilking money out of the American public to be turned over to people to research a non problem or at the very least, a problem we can’t do diddly about.
The fact is, there’s no way that Man has the power or ability to alter the amount of energy this planet gets from the sun. The sun is the primary source of energy for this planet and it’s much larger than the pin heads on CNN who are touting this economic doom and gloom business.
The fact is, the earth, has gone through periods of warming and cooling for millions of years. Western Kentucky used to be a sea. It’s not anymore, far from it. Cars have been around just over 100 years. We’ve been burning coal and other fossil fuels for around 400 years. Yet the historical climate changes on this planet have taken place over much larger time periods.
The tv meteorologists can’t predict the weather for tomorrow much less 100 years from now. Back when I was in school, they were preaching a coming ice age using the exact same reasons now being used for Global Warming. IMO, this is nothing but a hoax being perpetrated on the public for the purpose of raising taxes and to regulate activity.