Side note: If we stop global warming, our temperature would drop to an average of -18 degrees celcius. The majority of "Global Warming" is caused by Earth's atmosphere and is a very good thing.

http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/additional/atmosphere.htm

Please do not think that "Greenhouse Gases" are synonomous with "Global Warming".

Greenhouse gases are always present in our atmosphere and yes Spider is correct, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

But nature is a balence. The current thinking on human-produced (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases is that they tip the balence- they increase the amount of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere past what can be accommadated by that system without causing unwelcome changes.

It's easier for many people if they think of it this way: picture the planet as a room. there are 2 people in the room. one is throwing down trash as fast as they can. The other is picking up trash as fast as they can.

This is a little bit how natural systems work- disturbance is compensated for by a systems resisiliance...

Now you have this trash balence in the room (=it is in equilibrium). Every now and then another piece of trash is dropped from the sky. It's only a small percentage of the trash being produced by the trash dropper in the room. But there is still only one person picking up the trash (=the systems capacity).

So even though it's only a tiny bit extra trash, it's too much for the cleaner to handle. Over time those little bits of extra trash will add up (cumulative impacts) and eventually the room will be become full....

That's how the relatively small percentage of greenhouse gases that we add to the atmosphere end up increasing global warming.

Hi Anoasis
I've never really spent much time at any beaches. Hawaii was nice and warm and I burnt to a crisp within hours at the beach there. Vancouver was cold when I was there and so was Atlantic City. The reast have been at lakes and most here are grim. They're actually more like big ponds with all the nasties that go with it.

OK, back to the topic at hand! IT"S STILL COLD HERE!!!

One of the problems with arguments in favor of anthropogenic global warming due to the industrial revolution and mining and combustion of fossil fuels is that the beginning of the industrial age more or less corresponds to the end of the Little Ice Age. I have not seen anyone argue that some similar anthroprogenic cause is behind the the Medieval climate optimum and the flowering of the viking/icelandic culture and the Renaissance. Clearly in the latter, the North Atlantic was free enough of ice to allow european expansion to the Americas. Just as clearly the peoples of the Americas then forced a retreat to those who refused to adapt to the changing climate and a period arose in which the Thames would freeze over in winter.

A second problem is the paucity of data with which to work. While (many) scientists work daily to improve the datasets and interpret the data, there is still a very large amount of guesswork. When climate models are able to predict tomorrow's weather with accuracy sufficient to allow one to venture out without extra articles of clothing, one might be more inclined to take some stock in a 5, 10, or 50 year prediction. Witness only the recent flap about miscalculating global temperature averages from *actual energy measuring devices* to get a taste for the infancy of the science.

This makes for great excitement if one is interested in studying climate, but makes for poor climate for setting policy.

While one might ask, "what harm besides more efficient devices is caused by conservatively assuming anthpogenic cause for global warming?" one must recognize that the price is at least disruption of existing human activities, and more threateningly grossly inefficient use of finite resources.

Anemail-

I agree it would be nice to have more data. There have been quite a few ice core samples but more data is always nice. And Global Warming is just a theory. But it's a well developed theory with substantial evidence. We as people have certainly acted on far less evidence.

I am confused by what you wrote:

"We must recognize that the price"... (of making changes to prevent global warming)..."is at least disruption of existing human activities, and more threateningly grossly inefficient use of finite resources. "

I completely disagree. Most of the steps that would help prevent climate change, e.g. use of more fuel efficiant power and vehicles, appliances, etc. would also be much more efficiant uses of our finite resources.

EPA has good overviews of all these issues for those who want to read more on their own.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Hey Kid!

Our waters are blue-green and usually clear enough so you can see your feet even when the water is up to you waist. Except after a storm or other upwelling event. I'm sorry to hear that you are so beach deprived...

Then again I've never been to Hawaii so maybe I'm deprived.... if you do come down here use plenty of sunscreen or you will burn again; it is the "sunshine state" ... I wear a ton of sunscreen and sometimes even big floppy straw hats...

I don't mind the topic change... after all you're still talking about the weather!! You are just offering your own anectdotal evidence in opposition to global warming...

I do believe you are correct about the topic change and I'm still cold!

Funny you mention Florida being called the "sunshine state", Alberta is referred to as "sunny Alberta". I wish the sun would catch up with the BS here.

Forida is where my godparents(aunt and uncle) used to go every winter(snowbirds) and they always lived it. I just saw my aunt today and she says it's beautiful! I know she would never lie to me about anything.

Hawaii and Florida are both beautiful, but I think Hawaii takes the cake. No flies. No mosquitoes. And the countryside smells like flowers.

I'm going tomorrow morning (weather permitting- see still on topic!!) I'll try to take a pic and put it on next time I'm here but don't hold your breath.

I still haven't managed to get the pic I took of my dog on here... and I so wanted to have her face as my pic in response to the many threads complaining about woman having cat pics...

Ummm... back to topic,,,, of course localized weather does not give a good or true overal picture of what is happening planetwide over time...

Thanks for the tip Spider...

As much as I love it here I have to admit it doesn't smell like flowers... except at the airport- many flowers imported to the US come through here... and there are rose venders on and in the streets every day all year if that counts... hmmm.... nope, not the same as a place that smells like flowers.

Off to bed to dream of Hawaii....

anoasis writes

anemail writes
| "We must recognize that the price"... (of making changes
| to prevent global warming)..."is at least disruption of
| existing human activities, and more threateningly
| grossly inefficient use of finite resources. "


I completely disagree. Most of the steps that would help prevent climate change, e.g. use of more fuel efficiant power and vehicles, appliances, etc. would also be much more efficiant uses of our finite resources.

Which steps? Which resources?
Herein lies the fundamental problem (and will display my true bent): when the discussion is, say "increase CAFE yea/nay)" (or just about any other efficiency mandate i can conjure), then the result is a horrid inefficiency in resource deployment. Not only are physical resources employed to dubious ends (opportunity cost), but human ingenuity is likewise deployed in response to an 'artificial' rather than a 'natural' signal.

Are you ready to claim it necessary to deploy these resources to this particular problem and not the problem of say, malaria infections, or attacks on humans by sharks, growth of pulpwood forests, or deaths from automobile accidents? Why do you get to decide? :)

There isn't a commons problem here: the most mentioned 'pollution' derived from the aforementioned inefficiency, carbon dioxide, is indeed one of the fundamental constraints on life -- not a detriment. At the time of the Cambrian explosion levels were 20 times what they are today.

While I recognize that the bulk of humanity lives on the litoral (more or less) just as the rest of life does, those who complain most vociferously about global warming and its effects (should they materialize) seem to be those most able to afford to move. Those not vested will have already moved.

Did I choose the wrong steps or resources?

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/4374

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/2741

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/4986


just stuff to consider , the resources are sound

sorry i just didn't have the time to put it into an opinion of my own..but it is not black and white.

it makes no difference whether man has been more or less responsible..,

we have to VERY QUICKLY figure out how we will adapt to the reality!

oh yeah ....and this one...

it could be a bit difficult for some to get thru.... but it is important!!!


http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/commentary/22810

Is the world warming up, quite possibly. Is it man caused, maybe. Are there things that we can do about it definately. There is much conterversy over the global warming issue. There are things that can be done to reduce carbon emissions etc that contribute to the global warming problem. If we do what is necessary and by we I mean the whole damn world not just the U.S., to reduce greenhouse gases etc and we later find out the environmentalists were wrong we can bash the hell out of them. If we do nothing and find out they are right there will be noone to left to bash or do the bashing.

Garden-

Yes. I agree completely... I still do not see the harm in using less, being more efficiant and planning a bit more. Hopefully energy technology will improve (e.g. I'm a huge fan of solar power)

There are many tools to help with simple ways to reduce your carbon footprint:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/calculator/ind_calculator.html

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/

http://www.mycarbonfootprint.eu/

For me I did a few things- replaced my washer and dryer with new highly efficiant ones when the old ones began to fail, insulated the water heater, and most importantly because it is warm all year where I live I put in a digital thermometer on my A/C to use it more efficiantly, put up thicker curtains to block sun, had low energy films applied to all the windows to reduce heat input and increased inuslation.

I never water my lawn and have low maintenance landscape so those I didn't need to change. I try not to drive more than necessary but it can be difficult here- our public transportaion is not the best. Luckily, I knew I would always want to go to the beach so I chose to live relatively close... I try to reduce and reuse adn recycle where I can, eat locally grown foods, etc. really it's not so difficult...

Dead on 'garden',

The scientific community has done its job. They raised just about every possible angles on the question.

Are we waiting for them (scientists) to agree??? Do we still believe in the tooth fairy??? They never agree. It is the job of scientists to question, doubt and explore and attempt to prove 'different' theories, the 'what if' syndrome is a fixed way of being for scientists.

We, the lay population of the world, have to make a decision on this matter. And I've been arguing for logical variations on the theme you propose here for years.

As an aside though, even if the environmentalists were wrong, there might be no reason to bash them. They will have tricked us into purer air to breath, and far less abusive interaction with our planet. I call that a providential error!!!

Instead of using more to purchase a manufactured item so that one might use somewhat less in continually operating A/C equipment, one could, in principle, disconnect the A/C from the power grid. This would result in using much less than the previous approach.

Yes Anemail, it would be even better to not use A/C at all... unfortunately it is 93 degrees outside and I am too spoiled to do without A/C so I just minimize as I can...

When you say "disconnect the A/C from the power grid" what do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I really know what you mean.

really the first step is very simple: less cars, if every car carried more than the one or two people in it then we would cut down on co2 pollution industrial pollution would still b a major problem but just the simple act of mass carpooling might slow global warming down for decades

anoasis: i simply meant 'unplug it' which it seems you did gather ;)

lizardking19: it isn't that simple; how much out of the way travel is required to put two people in the vehicle? How much more wear and tear is that on the vehicle and how much extra fuel is consumed? How much time is wasted by this activity which could be better put to some other use (is either carpooler a scientist, engineer, or other "thinker" actually working on an efficiency problem of some sort?)

Then consider that using a bicycle produces more CO2 than the automobile for any appreciable distance (for most meaningful timeframes).

All of this presupposes that CO2 is a pollutant. Does anyone disagree with the assertion that lack of environmental carbon is a fundamental limiting factor on the support of life?

Time to go get lubed. I hope my bottle has CO2 in it :)