Free Republic

The war is absolutely about oil. Without oil, Saddam wouldn't have the resources to threaten his neighbors or us. Without oil, Iran would not be manipulating the market like it is. Without oil, Saudi terrorists wouldn't haven't been able to raise the funds to launch attacks. Every time we fill up our pump, we are directly or indirectly sending money to fundamentalist regimes in the MiddleEast. And when they begin to act up, we pay through our taxes (or our children will) to send our forces over there (not to mention the great sacricifices that we ask our enlisted soliders to make)

I'd contend that in today's world, the most patriotic person on the road is not the person in a big SUV with an american flag bumper sticker, it's the guy on a bicycle.

Actually, $3 a gallon is cheap, compared to what we are really paying for our oil. If we truly factored in the costs of the war in Iraq, and possibly Iran next, rather than throwing it off to the next generation, then we'd get a more complete economic picture. Does anyone else find it ironic to see a guy in a two-ton pickup on the news complaining about gas prices, even while he sports a "support our troops" bumper sticker?

This can go on indefinitely, but it sounds like your objection is to proposed political solutions rather than scientific research.

I agree that we need to innovate and contribute to economic growth. Cooperation to facilitate this doesn't mean embracing a world government. With the current state of affairs, we (our government, other governments) heavily subsidize fossil fuels when it makes no sense to do this. If we incorporate the true costs of fossil fuel consumption into prices and let the marketplace work as it should, then we would facilitate innovation.

The last post brings up several points:

Regarding comparisons to other planets, Mars is cold because it has almost no atmosphere. It's true that what is there is mostly CO2, but it is such a thin layer that in aggregate, there is very little ability to trap heat. On the other hand, the atmosphere of Venus is thick (and also almost all CO2), and its surface temperature is about 460 degrees celsius because of a very strong greenhouse effect.

Climate models simulate forcing from greenhouse gases but must also simulate water vapor because it is an important component of ocean/atmosphere processes. The steady increase in temperatures that are forecast are from a steadily increasing component of greenhouse gases, not some sort of runaway cloud effect. It's true that warmer temperatures leads to more evaporation (ie. clouds) and that this water vapor can potentially cause more warming or less warming, depending on whether it blocks radiation or traps heat, but this uncertainty still does not negate the effect of a steadily increasing stew of greenhouse gases, which do trap heat. And if we're betting that increasing clouds save us by reducing temperatures, then the recent empirical evidence (near-term record temperatures, metling icecaps, etc.) suggests that we shouldn't count on it.

But forgetting the cloud problem, let's say that we are confident that the oceans can at some point reach an equilibrium as a carbon sink as you mention. If so, we would still have to reduce our emissions to a steady state (ie. something like a 1990 target), because otherwise, we are continually raising the curve ahead of the effect of a sink. But this also neglects to consider that a massive sink of carbon dioxide into oceans will cause it's own problems with increased acididity, which would likely be very bad for marine life.

The last post brings up several points:

Regarding comparisons to other planets, Mars is cold because it has almost no atmosphere. It's true that what is there is mostly CO2, but it is such a thin layer that in aggregate, there is very little ability to trap heat. On the other hand, the atmosphere of Venus is thick (and also almost all CO2), and its surface temperature is about 460 degrees celsius because of a very strong greenhouse effect.

Climate models simulate forcing from greenhouse gases but must also simulate water vapor because it is an important component of ocean/atmosphere processes. The steady increase in temperatures that are forecast are from a steadily increasing component of greenhouse gases, not some sort of runaway cloud effect. It's true that warmer temperatures leads to more evaporation (ie. clouds) and that this water vapor can potentially cause more warming or less warming, depending on whether it blocks radiation or traps heat, but this uncertainty still does not negate the effect of a steadily increasing stew of greenhouse gases, which do trap heat. And if we're betting that increasing clouds save us by reducing temperatures, then the recent empirical evidence (near-term record temperatures, metling icecaps, etc.) suggests that we shouldn't count on it.

But forgetting the cloud problem, let's say that we are confident that the oceans can at some point reach an equilibrium as a carbon sink as you mention. If so, we would still have to reduce our emissions to a steady state (ie. something like a 1990 target), because otherwise, we are continually raising the curve ahead of the effect of a sink. But this also neglects to consider that a massive sink of carbon dioxide into oceans will cause it's own problems with increased acididity, which would likely be very bad for marine life.

Seeing how it will probably take centuries to return greenhouse gases to their prior levels, noboldy is worried about "global cooling" and I'm guessing that would stop a debate only long enough for everyone to get their chuckles in.

If climate is a Ferrari, then a more apt methaphor is that right now we're not tinkering, we're banging the engine with a sledgehammer while assuming that everything will be all right.

Sure, but we generally understand how the solar cycles occur (ie. the wobbles) and what their cycle intervals are. And the temperature record doesn't correlate perfectly to these cycles. But it does correlate very strongly to CO2.

So, with the knowledge that CO2 traps heat, and that CO2 and temperatures are positively correlated, why would we assume that CO2 increases in response to higher temperatures (and not the opposite)?

I think that it's misleading (at the least) to say that 'CO2 traps relatively little heat'.

CO2 currently makes up a very small percentage of our atmosphere (~ .036%) but it's properties allow incoming solar radiation to pass through while it blocks a substantial amount of earth's radiant heat from escaping. It's true that methane has a higher capability to traph heat (20x) than carbon dioxide, but it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time (only 10 years). Both are important, but generally carbon dioxide is considered to be more so because it is present in larger quantities and it hangs around for longer. So, relative to methane, CO2 does trap little heat, but its overall contribution in our atmosphere is very high.

The strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (from ice cores) and temperatures (from multiple proxies) is striking. When carbon dioxide has been high, temperatures have been high. So, the wisdom of pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere seems very suspect, even if modelers cannot nail down exactly how clouds (ie. water vapor) will perform with increasing temperatures. Thus, the argument for some preventive action.

I largely agree with your last post except for delegating human-caused CO2 to a mere theory. There are theories that are just recent ideas, and then there are theories that are strongly supported by evidence and research.

It's a well known fact that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, without it we would not have a hospitable place to live. It's also a well-known fact that we are pumping large quantities of ancient carbon out of the earth and releasing it where it forms into CO2.

So, given this we would expect "human-caused" warming to occur unless there is some mitigating factor to prevent this. But we have not found one, and instead we are seeing an accelerating warming trend, and that's why there's such a strong argument for doing something.

Well, part of the problem is that by the time we really know for sure, it's probably too late to prevent massive damage. Oceans are slow to warm and also slow to cool. We have early warning signals (slight warming oceans leading to die-offs). We know that carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases trap heat in the atosphere. We know we are releasing these gases in prodigious quantities. And we know that temperatures are warming. It doesn't take much to connect the dots.

You skeptically say that it's been warming for the last 500 years, which is a convenient timeshot that cuts right out of the little ice age. But it's warming much more rapidly during the past 50-100 years, since industrialization occurred, and a natural trend doesn't explain this.

We can't say with absolute certainity what is going to happen until after the fact, so you're saying this argues for no action? I'd disagree. If you think there is 1 in 100 chance that an earthquake is going to occur, then you consider earthquake insurance. Based on the accumulated evidence the odds of global warming occurring are much higher. So, why wouldn't we take some precautions?

So, what would insurance be? We'd have to cut our fossil fuel consumption, probably drastically in the long run, but we could start moderately. This means we'd be developing energy sources within our country, building new jobs, rather than shipping our money to places like Saudia Arabia and Venezuela where it is probably going to be used against us. It won't happen now until oil really starts to run out because we subsidize fossil fuels. But with some economic incentives, we could have a homegrown energy economy, could worry less about the middle east, and would be building ourselves some breathing room on climate change at the same time. What is the downside to that?

I've posted on a few of these forums, and find that the consensus here believes that climate change isn't happening but instead is some sort of massive left-wing conspiracy. I generally trust the research of the vast majority of climate scientists on this, that temperatures are increasing and will continue to do so as long as we keep pumping out these gases, just as I trust the opinion of doctors that smoking is bad for me, or mechanics when I'm getting my car fixed. But you believe differently.

I smell a business opportunity here. Simpily as a free-market advocate (not a socialist) who sees global warming as a pretty big threat.

So, how about a wager? Would anyone be willing to bet with me, even money, that global temperatures in 2006 will not be warmer than the 20th century mean average? We'd need to find a legitimate medium that handles these sorts of wagers and agree on the most commonly accepted source for global temperature measurements and the historic average. You'd have a chance to put your money where your mouth is, as would I.

Numerous laboratory studies have shown a direct relationship between bleaching and water temperature stress. Elevated water temperatures have been implicated in the majority of the major bleaching events of the 1980s and 1990s.

How do you figure? Climate scientists should talk about baking, instead? And who should we trust to describe climate for us? Firemen? Neurosurgeons? Janitors?

Coral bleaches at temperatures approaching 90 degrees, and this has been happening in the great barrier reef and Idian Ocean in repeated episodes.

Under water chicken-little articles are easy since the public knows so little about it.

So, you'd suggest the public should avoid the popular media, and get there news directly from the scientists? Fine, here is the early report from NOAA that came out last fall:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2526.htm

Interesting take on it. The debate is largely over in the scientific community about this and most industrialized nations have signed the Kyota Treaty at the urging of their scientists, not politicians. This is not a political issue, but people stalling on it tend to lump it as such in order to keep their ears closed to all of the evidence. We (humans) are resourceful and can respond to problems like climate change however we want (ie. with different political ideologies).

When you have Jesus you don't care about 'Global Warming' or 'Global Cooling'. You know who is in charge and you know your mission.

And if it isn't shrouded in political grounds, then it is placed in religious terms as an attempt to justify no action. Your implication is that if we are Christians, then we needn't try to solve any problems. But, we were given brains and free will, and we accomplish things by responding to problems. There isn't anything about Global Warming that makes it different from the host of other problems that resourceful people have faced and overcome over the years. If we threw up our hands and said it was out of our power everytime we had faced a problem, then we wouldn't have gotten very far by now.

The second one would bother me to, if I thought that I was going to live to be 100,000 years old. But seeing how I'm probably not going to make it that far, I think the one that is measured in decades is of a bit more relevant.

Sure thing - if I get some time I will do this with a fake name and made up credentials. If they're still keeping it up, then I bet it will be on there.

Those "mistakes in math" involve one graph, often cited called the "hockey stick". But they don't discredit all the other indicators that temperatures are increasing significantly. And the analysis of the hockey stick methods has it's own problems, according to a NASA representative:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4349133.stm

I have no idea who the "eco environmental team leader" is or what he dropped out of (?)

I do think it's complicated, but I'd also agree with him that it's looking like the near term cycles that we need to worry about are positive feedbacks.

Loss of Ice and Snow = darker surfaces = more warming = more loss of ice and snow

Thawed tundra = release of stored methane = more warming = more thawing tundra

Hotter temperatures = more forest fires = release of carbon = hotter temperatures

etc.

As for controlling the energy budget, now that would really be something. But, given that we can't even balance our national budget, I don't know if we should hold our breath on that one :{)