The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yes, it would be a great source of LNG if we could trap it.  Unfortunately it is not in nice pockets but scattered throughout the soil.

[heat33330 26]

I'd pick another option: Yes, Global Warming is real. It happens naturally every few million years. This time, however, it's being greatly accelerated by humankind.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Err, just one more peek at the ice core records, such as the Vostok, this time including methane and showing modern era rates at the end:

 

 

Methane (CH₄) mean levels there have now reached about 1800ppb, not detected in the ice records of the past 800,000 years and through several cycles of glaciation and warming.  Also, carbon dioxide (CO₂) mean levels at Mauna Loa in Hawaii were measured this past May at 400ppm, a record not also seen in the past 800,000 years.  Remember, this is not downwind from the industrial Ruhr or Shenyang, this is an observatory on the high snowy peaks of the most remote island chain from any continent in world, and Honolulu is not famous for its soot factories.

 

Also, again, correlation is not causation, but, we can see that temperatures and greenhouse gas levels, including both CO₂ and CH₄, have historically strongly gone hand-in-hand, and there is no special reason to expect them not to this time.  Indeed, if we can now discount natural sun cycles, orbit-induced glacial cycles, or even worldwide liberal academia conspiracies to explain modern warming upswings, we are left with the greenhouse effect.  However, then the sudden, dramatic, accelerating spikes at the end of our figures do not bode well, and the gas-trapping permafrost is indeed melting.

 

 

Maybe "Odainsaker" can be my post-apocalypse barbarian name as escalating drought brings our civilization to its knees.

[Themaroonday 40]

Odinslayer, I don't necessarily think drought will be the problem. Of course the amount of natural disasters will definitely be bad. But the thing is, this increase in CO2 is actually accelerating plant growth and shrinking deserts. The Sahara Desert is actually beginning to gain more plant life. Not saying that Global Warming is good, just saying that it may not cause drought problems, but then again, who knows?

 

--Themaroonday

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The problem is that nobody knows.  The climatology bunch are walking on unknown waters, and may soon find their water wings inadequate.  The geologist can tell us of the past, but the future is unpredictable.  Climatic records haven't been kept long enough for us to really extrapolate them to the point where we can have any kind of confidence.

[Wiecher 192]

I must say that the poll on the top of this topic is wrong.

Global warming is something that has happened throughout the 4 billion years history of our planet. There is cooling and warming, all the time. Global warming in general is not caused by humans. The proper question would be if the global warming we currently experience is a result of human actions.

I think that it is at least proven humans caused increased levels of CO2 in the last 2 centuries. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Which may or may not exacerbate the present warming trend.  It looks very much like it does, but we are dealing with the atmosphere which has a very large volume.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

New study on El Niño effects.

 

Some of us have already experienced these phenomena.  Hurricane Sandy, anyone?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere continues to accumulate higher volumes.

 

"When will they ever learn?

"When will they ever learn?"

-- Where have all the flowers gone -- Pete Seeger.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Goldietern and the three bears.

 

No sea ice to catch seals from, so these here bird's nests will have to do.

[Duke87 1,070]

Someone at the Washington Post gets it.

 

Now let's focus on adapting to it rather than trying to stop it, eh?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

People are so dedicated to the status quo they can't tell when the quo has lost its status.  This applies greatly to loud-mouthed politicians who deny anything can ever change including the weather patterns when it doesn't do anything for their chances of re-election.  It is time for the world to wake up and get rid of these nay-sayers at the next available opportunity (election).

 

Someone said in a news program I was watching recently that the ocean level is up a foot from some undefined point.  With all the land-based ice caps melting and running into the sea, why should anyone be surprised?

 

Now let's see:  More water, more evaporation, more heat because of the current upswing.  More water vapour in the atmosphere.  Hmmm.  Heavier rains, bigger storms, general climate shift, more droughts as the weather patterns shift. 

 

Hey, people, it's adapt or die time.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Humans have adapted to worse climatic changes in the past. My moneys on the shell be right camp.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Mine too.  However expect the weak to go to the wall.  This is a manifestation of natural selection.  The Clovis people made it through the ice age.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Before people are willing to adapt they first need to realize there is a need to adapt. As long as people keep denying that climate change is a thing, or a big deal, then they are also not inclined to invest in technologies and solutions that help humanity adapt to rising sea levels, more droughts, more rain, more snow, more extreme weather, more war, more refugees, more food insecurity, etc. 

 

Can we adapt? Yeah, sure. Should we adapt. Absolutely. Does everyone agree that its time to adapt? Clearly not. 

 

That aside, I still think, that despite the fact that it is to late to stop climate change, we should still invest in ways to reduce our impact on the planet. Even if its just to avoid making a problem even worse, or because its just common sense to try and preserve the oceans and the rain forests because it would just be an everlasting disgrace if we lost them. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Another problem is that the "developing" world cannot easily be convinced of cutting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions unless the United States cuts its greenhouse gas emissions.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It is always worth doing things better.  All the use of fossil fuels is harming the ecology and the result is, in fact, a waste product of the human organism.  It is well known in biology that no organism can long survive in an environment of its own waste.

 

The argument for the use of fossil fuels is getting poorer and poorer.  Fossil fuels are getting very expensive and the main use as an automotive or aircraft fuel is causing great dislocation in the face of alternatives.  We need some sort of panic to get people to go to electric or fuel cell cars and to cut down on airline transportation except for the direst needs.  Most of the meetings that people fly off to attend can be held by teleconference.

 

In my experience, if you want to get something done in a face-to-face meeting, it should be held standing up in a hall.

[hym 358]

The argument for the use of fossil fuels is getting poorer and poorer.  Fossil fuels are getting very expensive and the main use as an automotive or aircraft fuel is causing great dislocation in the face of alternatives.    We need some sort of panic to get people to go to electric or fuel cell cars and to cut down on airline transportation except for the direst needs.  Most of the meetings that people fly off to attend can be held by teleconference.

 

Meanwhile natural gas prices have gotten so low that it is cheaper to provide your electricity via natural gas than it is to provide it via nuclear power (which, until now, has held the crown for lowest cost source for electricity).

 

We are also hard at work in developing synthetic fuel production.  ExxonMobil is still working on synthetic gasoline, and researchers appear to be getting close to developing a viable synthetic jet fuel.  Once we achieve that, there will be no need to bother ourselves with silly concepts like high speed rail or teleconferencing.

[Duke87 1,070]

Another problem is that the "developing" world cannot easily be convinced of cutting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions unless the United States cuts its greenhouse gas emissions.

 

I don't think the developing world has a problem of being convinced so much as they simply lack access to alternatives, the means to afford them, or the means to put them to use. You can install solar panels or wind turbines outside a rural village, but only after you solve the problem of getting them there without modern factories or modern transportation infrastructure nearby. And only after you pay for them (presumably this is a form of aid rather than them buying them). And unless they have tools that run on electricity, it won't do them much good regardless.

 

We are also hard at work in developing synthetic fuel production.  ExxonMobil is still working on synthetic gasoline, and researchers appear to be getting close to developing a viable synthetic jet fuel.  Once we achieve that, there will be no need to bother ourselves with silly concepts like high speed rail or teleconferencing.

 

Teleconferencing isn't a silly concept - travel costs money regardless of the means involved. If you can use inexpensive and widely available technology as an acceptable substitute for it, it simply makes good business sense to do so.

 

Indeed, many aspects of "being green" make sense independent of any environmental concerns for exactly the same reason: they save you money.

[hym 358]

Teleconferencing isn't a silly concept - travel costs money regardless of the means involved. If you can use inexpensive and widely available technology as an acceptable substitute for it, it simply makes good business sense to do so.

 

Indeed, many aspects of "being green" make sense independent of any environmental concerns for exactly the same reason: they save you money.

 

 

I was being sarcastic (though I can't blame anyone for not noticing that).

 

At the same time, it is sarcasm with a point.  Teleconferencing has valid benefits, but a lot of its supporters oversell its value.  Companies will gladly spend obscene amounts of money to send people to meetings if the cost seems justified.  The value of face-to-face meetings is well understood, tough to overstate, and companies are conservative enough that they are not willing to mess with tried and true methods.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Maybe old companies don't believe in new ways of communication, but as more and more young people enter the job market, who have grown up with these means of communication, the more popular they will become even within the most conservative companies. It a simple fact that one can get just as much done during a skype conference call than during a face to face meeting, with the benefit that there are no travel costs, and more importantly, travel time, involved. Basically it means that the people who would usually spend an hour getting to a meeting, can now stay at their desk the entire time and get some actual work done. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@hym: Sarcasm aside, synthetic fuels have to have the grace to avoid noxious emissions on combustion including greenhouse gases.  The combustion products must be harmless, and it will be hard to prove that for anything except pure water and/or nitrogen.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@hym: Sarcasm aside, synthetic fuels have to have the grace to avoid noxious emissions on combustion including greenhouse gases.  The combustion products must be harmless, and it will be hard to prove that for anything except pure water and/or nitrogen.

It is possible for biofuel to be carbon-neutral in that it produces approximately the same amount of Carbon Dioxide as the process takes to create and transport the fuel. This has not yet been achieved but algae can absorb carbon dioxide from the air and use photosynthesis to fixate it into carbohydrates or fatty acids. Of course, it is also possible to collect waste methane from various sources (which is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas) and burn that for fuel.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

One of the great problems with methane (CH₄)  is the amount of it frozen in the permafrost and the deep oceans.  If things warm up enough to release this, CO₂ will seem like a drop in the bucket as far as the atmosphere is concerned.  Methane is often burned off at landfills, which generate it as a product of organic decay.  This produces carbon dioxide, but this is better than releasing the methane.

 

EDIT (later): Tropic Storms move toward poles.

 

Kind of explains Hurricane Sandy.  What next for middle east coast?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Slow and steady drowns the sea coasts.

 

That's about half a millimetre a year or 5 mm in a decade (1/2 cm).  But the rate is probably accelerating. 

 

Think about the world ocean and about how much water is in a skin of half a millimetre.  Now think about the increased insolation in the (slightly) increased surface area.  More evaporation into the atmosphere.  More water in the atmosphere leads to more rain, heavier rain, and stronger storms driven by the extra heat in the ocean. 

 

Ready, .... Set, .... Adapt!

[AcmeSigns 97]

On the other side of the global warming coin...

http://nws.mx/1j0jUkq

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

On the other side of the global warming coin...

http://nws.mx/1j0jUkq

I've said all along that the fossil fuel argument is only a drop in the bucket.  What's happening is a phenomenon in the cyclic life of the planet, namely the recovery from an ice age. 

 

There have been slight, but significant, orbital changes that increase insolation throughout the year, and these are apparently cyclic within the normal parameters of the solar system.  This cycle seems to have a period of some 25,000 to 35,000 years.  The last ice age is ending with a warming period and in a few centuries a cooling period will result when the albedo gets high enough.

 

Meanwhile, for the human race, it is heading into a sink or swim period.

 

The "blame assigners" should do better science.  There is not a single cause of the problem but all this hot air they are spouting is exacerbating it slightly.  The whacko greenies need a cause and the U.S. government seems determined to give them one, bad science and all.  What will they do when the permafrost begins to melt and release all that methane?

[AcmeSigns 97]

I've probably been asking the, 'how does anyone know it's not cyclic' for a good decade now. I've never heard a good response (one backed up with science, not hyperbole) from anyone who espouses the 'global warming' mantra.

[47ply 1,100]

I just don't understand this argument at all what is everyone afraid of? Change well that's silly. A new source of energy is going to happen anyway with or with out government its already happening you cant stop it you can hamper it slow it but it will happen. 

 

All the argument is is about the money and whos smart enough to be the next rich guy!!!!!! Texaco who? bp who? Tesla is not going to disappear only growing larger every day. soon Musk will be flying Nasa into space.

 

people need to come out of the mine feel the sun and breath some fresh air go to a trade school learn how to weld and mix composites work above ground and make solar panels and wind mills. there still will be jobs they don't build themselves!!!!!!!!!!

 The   next person arguing about change is stupid IT JUST HAPPENS!!!!!

 

And so What if the science is wrong?? what do we lose changing to a energy source???  The real scary question is what if there right!!!!!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

My friend, the real argument is that politicians will defend the status quo until long after the quo has lost its status, and how do we make them realize that.  It doesn't matter what the cause is, it is like trying to stop the tides.

 

The rule in situations like this is adapt or die.  It doesn't matter what we use for fuel.  Good ideas will eventually out, and once they are out, as many already are, they are unstoppable.

 

Now, if we could only stop playing with rockets and other things that go bang and get on with the Unified Field Theory.  We need to know a lot more about magnetism and gravity, eh?