Warming a real threat
No matter how hard scientists, public leaders and even the occasional celebrity
make their case for global warming to the public, we keep finding ways to shrug it off.
We say that melting ice caps are years away; they're not, they're melting right
now.
We ask ourselves what one person can do. Well, one person can make their voice
heard in the highest halls of the government.
Remember, our elected officials are "elected" by the public, and if they fail to
support legislation aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps they
don't deserve to stay elected.
Tim Brauhn, Denver
Also don't forget that the earth was warmer a few hundred years ago.....
Posted by Brian on October 23, 2007 05:28 AMOh no!!!!!! Panic time, what about the children, and the polar bear cubs? The earth is warming and we will all drown. Its armagedon!!!!!
Please, how come very few take note that the earth was warmer not to long ago. Colorado once was tropical. That we are just getting out of the last ice age. And last but not least, Al Gore is a liar.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 05:48 AMPLESAE PLEASE listen to algore and stop all of your own co2 emissions today. the world will be better off with less co2 coming from you.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 06:33 AMThere is no global warming, no gravity, no solar sustem, no physics, no modern medicene, no science at all. Nothing exists since a republican didnt come up with those ideas.
Posted by Sourpuss on October 23, 2007 06:55 AMAmazing. I walked out the house today, and it -feels- cooler! These comments wishfully thinking/hoping/praying that the Earth isn't warming have worked! And to think I've been so skeptical about 'The Secret.' Silly me.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 07:33 AMI'm still waiting for Global Cooling. The same people who cannot predict day to day weather, predict warming. Well, we just got (world history wise) out of a mini-iceage, so I hope its warming.
Posted by Tom on October 23, 2007 07:58 AMIF HISTORT IS ANY GUIDE, AL GORE DESERVED THE NOBEL PRIZE--AND SO DID GLOBAL WARMING:
* In 2005, the prize went to Mohamed elBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for his efforts in discouraging nuclear proliferation. Evidently, the word hasn't reached Iran, North Korea, Syria, or Pakistan yet.
* In 2004, the winner was Wangari Maathai, for her efforts on behalf of "sustainable development, democracy, and peace", which appears to amount to planting trees in Kenya. Last year Prof. Maathai began a campaign against the menace of plastic bags. Good for her, I say.
* The 2003 winner was Shirin Ebadi, "for her efforts for democracy and human rights". Everywhere but her home country of Iran. She'll get around to it eventually, though.
* For 2002, it was our own Jimmy Carter, for peace, democracy, human rights, and I don't know what all. Two weeks ago, Jimmy was given the bum's rush by a pack of Sudanese security thugs. I guess they hadn't heard about his Nobel.
* The 2001 prize went to Kofi Annan. Kofi has more or less dropped out of sight after leaving the UN. I wonder why?
* In 1997, it was Jody Williams of the International Campaign to ban Landmines. Haven't heard of them recently either. Did they dig ‘em all up?
* And in 1988, the nod went to the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. You didn't know there was a Nobel for well-run whorehouses, did you?
It's clear from this list that not a single cause has prospered recently since the major figure involved won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's hope its also over for the 2 biggest hoaxs of the century--GLOBAL WARMING AND AL GORE!
95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor and greenhouse gas accounts for under 5% of the earth's atmosphere. Combine that with the fact that global climate change has been going on for 4.6 billion years and the conclusion is inescapeable--the global warming crowd are a bunch of nuts!
Posted by Hank on October 23, 2007 08:18 AMI tell you what...I can't debate the science...so lets make fun of Al Gore.
Posted by Far Right Wingnut on October 23, 2007 08:23 AMWhen I can no longer have an icy cold beer, then I'll start worrying about alwhores global warming. In the meantime, bartender pour mr another icy cold one.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 08:26 AMThe scientists doing all the panic-mongering are clearly incompetent. For example, they were predicting that the Arctic ice gap would take 30-50 years to shrink to where it has already shrunk this year. Clear proof that they don't have a clue. God Bless George Bush.
Posted by Liam on October 23, 2007 08:50 AMHank,
You forgot the best one of all - Yasser Arafat - if that doesn't slam the door on the Nobel committee then nothing ever will - it is a sham of epic proportions.
I wish I could falsify data in a crocumentary and win an award for it (Al's 20'-0" sea rise vs. UN's 20" sea rise in the next 100 years?) who to believe? Both! so let's just reward both of them!
Now those of you who have seen an inconvenient truth need to go see "the great global warming swindle"
Of course you won't because it doesn't fit in with your agenda - you'll always criticize those of us on the other side of the argument (even when we've (I've) seen Al Gore's movie) but won't be objective enough to see the other argument - is that because your leader proclaimed the argument over?
Well it is still alive and well and gaining traction as a lot of these falsehoods are being brought to the surface.
5:48:
Please, how come very few take note that the earth was warmer not to long ago. Colorado once was tropical. That we are just getting out of the last ice age.
That last ice age must have been pretty darn short for the earth to have been warmer "not too long ago".
And yes, Colorado was once tropical - about 64,000,000 years ago.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 08:54 AMWow, Hank, thanks for that valuable history lesson. Who knew that the Nobel Peace Prize committee had such power? To be able to stop any movement in its tracks by awarding the prize to its most conspicuous proponent. Now if only they could be persuaded to award next year's prize to Osama bin Laden.
Posted by Romulus on October 23, 2007 08:58 AMWhile I applaud global warming enthusiasts for their verve, more than kukes dispute global warming's inevitability as a human caused tragedy.
There are significant senior climatologists that find the case weak. Climate models are very touchy. The IPCC is hardly apolitical, and any unbiased observor easily sees Al Gore's movie as more infomercial than serious documentary.
The global warming crowd is largely a faith-based movement. Which is fine - as long as we keep that particular religion and the state separate.
But you'll note that global warming faithful want something done, and done NOW. But they do not believe in their cause enough to accept the only proven, carbon free, energy source that can provide all the energy they want - nuclear.
Gee, so they believe in global warming, but not enough to accept nukes. They don't like hydro because that means building dams.
They drive up demand for single family homes, motor about in inefficient cars, and prefer not to live close to work, and fly about the world at the drop of a hat. They don't want to make any meaningful changes to their lifestyle themselves, but they want the the government to DO something.
They love cute little toy technologies like solar and wind. And they want them for free.
Who is living in la la land?
(BTW that was me @ 8:54)
Jack Bauer:
I wish I could falsify data in a crocumentary and win an award for it (Al's 20'-0" sea rise vs. UN's 20" sea rise in the next 100 years?) who to believe? Both! so let's just reward both of them! Now those of you who have seen an inconvenient truth need to go see "the great global warming swindle"
Interesting that you mention falsifying data and "the great global warming swindle":
The makers of a Channel 4 documentary which claimed that global warming is a swindle have been accused of fabricating data by one of the scientists who participated in the film.
...
However, Dr Friiss-Christensen has issued a statement with Nathan Rive, a climate researcher at Imperial College London and the Centre for Climate Research in Oslo, distancing himself from the C4 graph. He said there was a gap in the historical record on solar cycles from about 1610 to 1710 but the film-makers made up this break with fabricated data that made it appear as if temperatures and solar cycles had followed one another very closely for the entire 400-year period.
Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed "the great global warming swindle" admitted that the graph in question was "wrong".
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 09:06 AMwhat ever happend to the last panic by the enviornmental wackos that we were headed to an ice age b 2000?
algore must have scared it off when he invented the internet and global warming. why did gore and clinton not take care of this during their 8 years? guess it wasnt that big of a deal back then.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 09:09 AMtim is for politicians who uses hoax's to get elected,nice.
Posted by Keith on October 23, 2007 09:20 AMAny of you read the News article about ozone-hole formation in the 27 September Nature? Guess our ability to predict the behaviors of global scale chemical systems isn't as advanced as some of us would like to believe.
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 09:24 AMAn Inconvenient Truth
There is no escaping that environmentalists are responsible for a big slug of global warming themselves - through their political action - not just their lifestyles.
In the 70s and 80s, they brought construction of nuclear plants to a halt. According to Ecobridge.org electric generation plants account for 40% of US carbon emissions.
If the environmentalists had not been wrong in the 70s and 80s (as judged by their stance against fossil fuels today) perhaps US carbon emissions would be up to 40% lower than they are.
Ooops, could this be "an inconvenient truth"?
cogit8r:
Gee, so they believe in global warming, but not enough to accept nukes. They don't like hydro because that means building dams.
A while back I started a hydroelectric company (Streamline Hydro) and secured several hydro permits from FERC. You can see listings starting here:
http://hydro2.inel.gov/resourceassessment/app_d/index_states.shtml?co82
and click next to see other sites we permitted.
So, as far as I'm concerned you're full of BS.
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 10:03 AMwhy do peoples say there is global warmin when it is cold outside. I had to start a fire this mornin' cuz it was cold.
Posted by cletus on October 23, 2007 10:10 AMwow...The Deniers are in a frenzy today.
When you guys can give me a reason why you choose to believe politicians over nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist on the planet....the rest of us will be happy to give you back some of your credibility.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 10:22 AMHey CL, ole buddy:
Wonderful! I'm glad FERC did not get in your way.
Environmentalists (well meaning, earnest people) however, are generally not fans of dams. I assert that thought patterns have not changed since Two Forks and Homestake.
Posted by cogit8r on October 23, 2007 10:27 AMcogit8r - so is it "global warming faithful" or "Environmentalists" and when did you change your mind?
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 10:57 AMMy scientific background is not strong enough to either be sure global warming is occurring or not….However, my knowledge of human nature is good enough to tell you that nothing is going to be done about it if it is real. No one (myself included) really wants to make the sacrifices that would be truly necessary to change the course they say we are on….Case in point is the letter writers plea to lobby government
“We ask ourselves what one person can do. Well, one person can make their voice heard in the highest halls of the government. Remember, our elected officials are "elected" by the public, and if they fail to support legislation aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps they don't deserve to stay elected.”
Legislation heck…..if global warming really is a concern to you, then you DO THE RIGHT THING and change your lifestyle, don’t wait for the government to mandate changes in behavior.
Furthermore, if the global warming thing is real, from what I’ve read, there is not consensus on what the corrective measures should be….If tomorrow we all stopped driving and using coal generated electricity, for example, what would change? How quickly? Enough? It might be prudent to accept that the worse will happen and plan to meet the challenges that scenario would bring.
Jay,
Check out World Economics, April June 2007, Governments and Climate Change, by David Henderson, a real global heavyweight and a close observor of NGOs and intergovernmental orgs in action.
It'll shake your faith in the credibility of the global warming enthusiasts. While global warming may be real and man-caused and remediable, all three of these points are highly contestable.
Climate models are prone to significant error. And evidence is strong that honest scientific dissent is purged by the IPCC, the self-annointed oracle of global warming truth embraced by the press and many governments.
We're being presented a one-sided viewpoint, neatly punctuated by "An Inconvenient Truth"...a triumph of political advertising...hardly the stuff of solid decision making.
At this point global warming and human culpability is more a political weapon than scientific certainty.
Is it a legitimate item for the risk management agenda. Yes.
Are there significant costs to reducing carbon emissions. Yes.
Will people have shorter, poorer lives because of the costs. Yes.
Are some measures to fight global warming useful even if they have no impact on global warming. Yes.
Will people have shorter, poorer lives because of global warming itself. Perhaps.
If it is real, it global warming avoidable? Perhaps.
It's not a slam dunk. The assumption that all you have to do is to steamroll your political opponents, wave government's magic wand over a problem that may or may not exist, and that may or may not be fixable, and it will be solved with no negative impact on human life is a bit, shall we say, superficial.
Now, if all these passionate global warming folks would undertake their own voluntary efforts to reduce the carbon emissions that they are personally responsble for (cutting driving, moving into multi-family housing close to work, staying off planes, etc...), they'd establish some crebility that they are serious, and not just in it for the entertainment value of calling their political enemies "stupid".
Proponents of global warming as an issue are certainly no purer than the opposition.
If they are serious, it's time they roll up their own sleeves and lead by example.
Posted by cogit8r on October 23, 2007 11:38 AMYour right it is getting warmer. Oh,that's right I got my heat on.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 11:56 AMGORE JOINS EXCLUSIVE AND GOREY NOBEL CLUB:
Dr. Egas Moniz of Portugal was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1949 for his development of frontal lobotomy. The renown given by this award popularized and accelerated this torturous procedure that left the patient in a zombie-like and vegitative condition. This Gorey procedure was largely rejected by the entire medical profession within a few short years of being so highly prized. I expect Al Gore to enjoy the same staying power.
Posted by Hank on October 23, 2007 12:14 PMGlobal warming is a great thing! Just think, soon we'll all have beach front property.
Posted by Bear on October 23, 2007 12:16 PMcoginthewheel...you'd have a little more credibility on this issue if you weren't using a fellow at a far right wing think tank as your source against the science behind GW.
Peer reviewed. Field appropriate.
When you do research on GW...try to find sources that have both of those characteristics....rather than neither.
Furthermore the right wing chicken little, strawman argument about prevention being an economy or society killer has been debunked more times than need be counted.
Come on man...at least we can agree on this, considering the scientific consensus behind this issue.
Global warming is occuring at rates not seen in the last half a billion years of history. Humans are most likely the cause of these abnormal trends.
Now....let me ask you a question.
If we (mankind...or personkind if you like) can curb the activities that are adversely affecting normal global warming rates without destroying our economy or society in the process....why wouldn't we?
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 12:43 PMcogit8r,
I could not agree more.
I wouldn't have minded Al Gore's living in multiple mansions, using more electricity in a month than the average person uses in a year, flying around in a private jet when flying commercial would do... What I can't stand is his preaching to us on the sins of living too large, while he insists on maintaining such a lifestyle for himself.
When he refuses to live like he expects of the rest of us to live, I can't take either him or his cause seriously.
Posted by Dave on October 23, 2007 12:48 PMjay, "the right wing chicken little, strawman argument about prevention being an economy or society killer has been debunked more times than need be counted."
jay, can it be possible for you to post something without all the name calling? "chicken little"? We're not the ones going around screaming that the "sky is falling". And the argument is hardly a strawman.
This is a quote from Al Gore: "Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem”
Even Al Gore knows these measures will be very costly.
But what's more telling was his letting China off the hook. If what he's been proclaiming all along is true, then China will not escape the consequences, particularly since China is now one of the worst polluters in the world. So why would he say that, unless he knew that this isn't so much about saving the planet as it is a giant wealth transfer from the West (chiefly the U.S.) to the third world?
Posted by Dave on October 23, 2007 01:14 PMhey Cletus, It's pretty warm in Southern California right about now.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 01:20 PMYa didn't answer my question Dave.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 02:13 PMShows that Antartica's ice mass is increasing and is taking water out of the oceans.
http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf
Shows Arctic sea level is falling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm
So I guess that this forum gets more than its fair share of the 216 Million scientifically-illiterate Americans.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 23, 2007 05:31 PMcogit8r:
Climate models are very touchy.
and
Climate models are prone to significant error.
You might want to read this - it was a challenge to use existing models to predict what a new set of ice cores would contain:
"Modeling Past Atmospheric CO2: Results of a Challenge"
http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/EPICA-challenge.pdf
The imminent appearance of an ice core record of atmospheric CO2 covering the same period prompted a challenge issued in an Eos article at the end of last year [Wolff et al.,2004] for the modeling community to predict, based on current knowledge, what the greenhouse gas records will look like.
You'll have to read the article to see how well the model's predictions came out....
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 05:55 PM" Colorado once was tropical. "
Dinosaur farts caused it to cool down......LOL
Posted by RU Serious on October 23, 2007 06:07 PMBangalore:
So I guess that this forum gets more than its fair share of the 216 Million scientifically-illiterate Americans.
No kidding. Makes me wonder why I even bother with these forums.
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 06:43 PMCL: Then dont.
Bimbo Skank: Including yourself?
Jay: youre a blowhard mook retard,off yourself.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 07:13 PMjay,
Your question has some faulty premises. It assumes that 1) global warming is a problem (Who's to say that the current climate is ideal?), 2) that this so called problem is fixable, and 3) a fix can be done without crippling the economies of the West.
I'm skeptical of all three.
Posted by Dave on October 23, 2007 07:51 PMSo let's see CL, Gore fabricates data and so do the producers of "the swindle" - both have an agenda - remember that discussion last week? I doubt it because you didn't see the movie and you are blindly following Al gore.
Please watch the swindle and come back- I watched gore's and took some of it in but some of it is way over the top. Can't you see that?
"Shows Arctic sea level is falling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm"
Do you think that is due to the tremendous (and much faster than predicted) melt off of the Arctic ice cap?
Posted by Liam on October 24, 2007 07:09 AMSo Dave, your assertion is that you believe the debunked myths that 1. gw isn't occurring and/or 2. if it is, it might be good for the planet. and 3. we can't do anything about it without destroying the economy.
Wow.
And you Deniers wonder why you're increasing irrelevant.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 10:03 AMCome see DAMN YANKEES at the Longmont
Theatre Company. Opening this Friday the 26th, and running until Nov. 17. Tickets are $17.00, much cheaper than World Series!!
Call 303.772.5200 for tickets.
Directed by yours truly,
Ricky Lee Landrum
No, jay,
I do not deny that global warming is happening. I'm just skeptical over it's being predominantly human caused.
Evidence has been presented that it is part of a natural cycle. That would mean it cannot be fixed.
Unless you can describe what the ideal climate is and what would make it ideal, then it is impossible to claim that we're not already there. And since the climate has been changing for many thousands of years, it would be impossible to remain there.
Al Gore let China off the hook on economic grounds in complying with emissions standards. That alone says that the compliance will be crippling to economies.
Posted by Dave on October 24, 2007 12:44 PMLiam,
My uneducated guess would be that it is because Antartica's ice mass is growing faster than the Arctic's ice melt.
"I'm just skeptical over it's being predominantly human caused."
Alright...now we're getting somewhere. No one is stating that it's "predominantly human caused". Nothing could be further from the truth. It is absolutely a natural cycle....but that natural cycle is now being influenced by the actions of mankind...do the detriment of the planet because even small fluctuations in such an environment as ours have wide-ranging ramifications. That is where the scientific consensus lies.
Furthermore...the chicken lilttle, economy nuking, fatalistic fantasies you have about programs to help reduce our contribution to the warming cycle are just scare tactics used to galvanize the far right wing base.
Shake off the blinders for a minute and think with me and I believe we can find some common ground.
If we can reduce man's negative impact on the environment, without wrecking our global economy...why wouldn't we?
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 02:31 PMJack Bauer:
So let's see CL, Gore fabricates data and so do the producers of "the swindle" - both have an agenda
Which is a good reason not to rely on either one.
- remember that discussion last week?
Yes, the poster I was responding to was anonymous - I assume that was you?
I doubt it because you didn't see the movie and you are blindly following Al gore.
Which movie are you referring too "swindle" or Gore's? And what the heck does that have to do with wether I recall a discussion??
As for blindly following Gore - care to back up that assertion - find a single post I've made on these forums where I cite Gore - but be careful, you might want to avoid the ones where I said I can't stand him or the earlier discussion you referred to where I wrote:
I haven't seen Gore's film, and quite frankly don't care if it has been discredited or not.
Jack Bauer:
Please watch the swindle and come back- I watched gore's and took some of it in but some of it is way over the top. Can't you see that?
Again, why would I want to watch something with fabricated data? I don't debate Gore's film because I really don't give a squat about it. Also, keep in mind I also wrote:
Posted by CL on October 24, 2007 03:32 PM
You do understand that Gore's film and the program "Swindle" are presentations and NOT the science - regardless of the accuracy of either, the science stays the same.
Check out this link:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
For those that don't understand the forcings used to impact the data when climate models are "programmed" take a look at what happens when the largest green house gas, water vapor is factored in to the models.
Anthropogenic forcings account for 0.28% of greenhouse gases. That is not 28%, but 28 HUNDREDTHS of ONE percent. Something to consider is that even if every factor of the Kyoto protocol were implemented in the US, the effect of that implementation would result in a net decrease of anthropogenic CO2 of 0.035% to 0.24%.
Look at the physical data, not the model predictions. Understand that the IPCC does NOT conduct ANY research, but instead, "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change..." (from the IPCC website). Hardly an "objective" mission, don't you think? Gee, I wonder why the media doesn't report this?
Posted by Dan2 on October 24, 2007 03:36 PMMYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Posted by Mr Wizard on October 24, 2007 03:44 PMWay to pull info from environmentaldefense.org
Maybe a better link, but if you don't understand the math components, it may be difficult to understand.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Again, if one uses OBSERVABLE PHYSICAL DATA, we get drastically different information than what the IPCC chooses to review.
Don't take my word for it, please. Study this. Do research, don't read what the media prints, but what the journals print. Rely on physical data, not model projections. But above all else, READ!
Posted by Dan2 on October 24, 2007 04:16 PMControlling CO2 is about two things near and dear to every liberal's heart. Controlling the way people live and gettting more tax dollars. The loony left is lining up to pay higher food, fuel, heating and energy costs. They are practically begging for a CO2 tax that will at least double the price of virtually everything we consume. Of course China, one of Al's big contributors, will be exempt from these regulations. What can go wrong when lawyer (Environmental Defense), politicitions, big business and the media can all benefit from a "Crisis". The only people that will get screwed are middle income and lower. Curbing CO2 is racist (under developed African nations will suffer from lack of cheap power) and classist (poor will suffer the most). But that is a small price to pay.
Posted by on October 24, 2007 04:39 PMGreat post Dan2.
I doubt that the true believers of Manmade GW will read it. Like any other religion, facts that don't fit are ignored. The manmade GW crowd make Jihadist and evangelicals seem reasonable.
Posted by on October 24, 2007 04:55 PMDan2:
Check out this link:[http://]mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
For those that don't understand the forcings used to impact the data when climate models are "programmed" take a look at what happens when the largest green house gas, water vapor is factored in to the models.
(I bracketed the http in your link because if you have ore than 2 links, RMN holds your post for review).
Sure water vapor is the largest contributor to "the greenhouse effect", but what that site doesn't consider is that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is highy variable and is constrained by such factors as temperature and pressure and the amount of "greenhouse effect" water has depends what layer of the atmosphere it resides in.
Sooo..
We know CO2 levels have been increasing since pre-industrial times, but what have water vapor levels since then?
My answer? I dunno.
(Damn, the Sox just scored - it's 4-1)
This site:
http://www1.cira.colostate.edu/Climate/NVAP/climate_wvsci.html
has some interesting stuff including an animation of global vapor level distrubutions for 1999 and a chart of the correlation between vapor and sea surface temps (note how short lived the effects of Mt. Pinitubo & the El Nino is).
This:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/84927.pdf
is an interesting paper on vapor trends. More stuff like that can be found by googling ""NVAP DATASET".
Maybe a better link, but if you don't understand the math components, it may be difficult to understand.[http://]brneurosci.org/co2.html
I don't know if their mathmatical approach is sound for what they present, but they don't consider other factors such as how do temp. increases from CO2 affect levels of water vapor in the atmosphere or how much water is added to the atmosphere from the breakup of methane.
Posted by CL on October 24, 2007 07:43 PMjay,
I don't buy the notion that small fluctuations in human activity produces large changes in global temperature. If it did, then the pattern of these temperatures would track human activity over these many thousands of years, but they don't.
Bjorn Lomborg pointed out that even if everybody complied with the emission standards, it would only delay the effects of global warming that would otherwise occur in the year 2100 by about six years.
That says that no matter what we do, the effects of GW are going to happen anyway. And I don't think it's worth crippling economies over something that's futile.
Best to devote our resources in living with an increase of, maybe, 1 degree C increase in 100 years from now, than spending them on efforts that are worthless.
Posted by Dave on October 24, 2007 11:49 PM"I don't buy the notion that small fluctuations in human activity produces large changes in global temperature. If it did, then the pattern of these temperatures would track human activity over these many thousands of years, but they don't."
Yes...you've made your position on the opposite side of science quite clear Dave.
"I don't think it's worth crippling economies over something that's futile."
this is a strawman argument.
"Best to devote our resources in living with an increase of, maybe, 1 degree C increase in 100 years from now, than spending them on efforts that are worthless."
And this is simply buying into the myth that global warming won't be more expensive to react to rather than proact to...
Posted by jay on October 25, 2007 02:16 PM