Need to know????

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Do you not think it would be wise to examine the costs of mitigating the Man caused portion of these gases and examine if the current proposals are the best choices we have?

Absolutely.

Do you not see a benefit to research in alternative fuels, clean fuels? rather then burning oil and coal and contributing to green house gasses?

Do you not see a benefit to reducing green houses gasses caused by industry?

Do you not see a benefit to reducing green houses gasses caused by residential and transportation sectors?

I agree that man is not to blame alone for climate change, but I do think we are part of it, and that we should do what ever we can to lessen our footprint, don't you??

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by gluck

"As through much of its history, the Earth's climate is changing. Right now it is getting warmer, likely mostly as a result of human activities "

Opinion with no supporting fact . . . again.

Did you read the reports I put with that quote?

That quote by the way is from the EPA website.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I keep hoping.
I wonder if jason owns a fuel burning vehicle or flys airplanes. Maybe he rides a bicyle like a "true believer" should be doing.

I'm not tree hugger, I drive (a fuel efficient car), I fly, as a matter of fact I am a private pilot, I do have a bike.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Do you not see a benefit to research in alternative fuels, clean fuels? rather then burning oil and coal and contributing to green house gasses?

Absolutey,research at this point but not mandates and government subsidies to promote their use.
Jason, are you aware of how much fossil fuel it takes to produce an equivelant amount of energy from a "renewable/alternative fuel"?

Originally Posted by Jason1

Do you not see a benefit to reducing green houses gasses caused by industry?

Honestly not sure. What percentage of the "problem" are we talking about?

Originally Posted by Jason1

Do you not see a benefit to reducing green houses gasses caused by residential and transportation sectors?

Again, not sure. What percentage of the "problem" are we talking about?

Originally Posted by Jason1

I agree that man is not to blame alone for climate change, but I do think we are part of it, and that we should do what ever we can to lessen our footprint, don't you??

Is that the only way or are you open to other more cost effective solutions?

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Is that the only way or are you open to other more cost effective solutions?

What do you propose?

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by gluck

I wish someone would make the connection between my tail pipe ( other than Jason1's analogy of course) and global warming with fact and not belief.

Among other things, the IPCC concluded that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities contributes to the natural greenhouse effect and will lead to an additional warming of the atmosphere. The IPCC estimated that a doubling of CO2 would lead to a global warming of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.



No scientific material has ever been presented in scientific fora which challenges the main conclusions of the IPCC, in spite of the fact that the IPCC has an open process that invites critical views.


Need more?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

What do you propose?

I'm not proposing anything.
I'm concerned that we are being herded into to a singular conclusion that "we must do something now" without seriously looking at the economic and social impact of the oft mentioned "solutions".

What have you read on the impact of the proposals to reduce "global warming"?

Do you consider Kyoto as sufficient? If not, what else is needed?

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I'm not proposing anything.

Pretty much ends the debate then.

Doing nothing is not the answer.

[George A. H. Luck]

"Doing nothing is not the answer."

Neither is being stampeded.

[George A. H. Luck]

"Did you read the reports I put with that quote? "

Sorry Jason1 I forgot to answer that question (must have been all the car exhaust!)

Yes I did visit the site and all I saw was a litany of acceptance of the "Man is responsible / the sky is falling" attitude that seems to permeate the entire global warming camp. let's try to avoid a discussion of the political agenda behind the E.P.A. as it would fill up an entire thread all it's own.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Pretty much ends the debate then.

Doing nothing is not the answer.

Jason your just not paying attention. You seem committed to a course of action without considering other options and seem willing to believe what ever you are told by all those scientists that are dependent on government grants to continue their research into "global warming". Is it really surprising that they the continue to get caught manipulating data, massaging graphs(aka "hockey stick") and assuring continuing grants by encouraging more research. Not surprising really. We all look out for our interests. We just need to be aware of this before committing to changes that would seriously change our life style culture and economies.

The mantra is "we must act now before it's too late" The problem I have with that thinking is that we are still well within "climate norms" as its quite a wide range. Anything we do now will have little long term effect if we are in a warming cycle that is caused by other factors than Man.
There is research indicating that any money spent complying with even the minimal and poorly assigned requirements of Kyoto would be better spent for projects that would actually improve the circumstances for millions and millions of people.

Wouldn't this at least be something worth looking at?

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by gluck

"Did you read the reports I put with that quote? "

Sorry Jason1 I forgot to answer that question (must have been all the car exhaust!)

Yes I did visit the site and all I saw was a litany of acceptance of the "Man is responsible / the sky is falling" attitude that seems to permeate the entire global warming camp. let's try to avoid a discussion of the political agenda behind the E.P.A. as it would fill up an entire thread all it's own.

You are disagreeing with the IPCC report?

Unbelievable.

Tell you what George, since I have provided proof of a link between your tail pipe and climate change, and you seem to think the internationally acclaimed IPCC report is wrong, why don't you prove to me that there is no link?

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

You seem committed to a course of action

Where have I commited myself to a course of action?

seem willing to believe what ever you are told by all those scientists that are dependent on government grants to continue their research into "global warming".

Tell ya what, since you don't believe the IPCC report, post some of your info.


Is it really surprising that they the continue to get caught manipulating data, massaging graphs(aka "hockey stick")

There are dozens of other temperature reconstructions. They tend to show more variability than the original hockey stick, but they all support the general conclusions the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years, and the 1990s were likely warmer than any other time in that period.

We just need to be aware of this before committing to changes that would seriously change our life style culture and economies.

I agree, but there is a need to do something.

Anything we do now will have little long term effect if we are in a warming cycle that is caused by other factors than Man.

I disagree since it is proven that man is contributing.

There is research indicating that any money spent complying with even the minimal and poorly assigned requirements of Kyoto would be better spent for projects that would actually improve the circumstances for millions and millions of people.

The same can be said for alot of things, including funding war efforts and even NASA.

Wouldn't this at least be something worth looking at?

I am still waiting to see what you propose we do....

Jason.

[George A. H. Luck]

I might add; have you read your own links, or is that asking too much?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. From glacial periods (or "ice ages") where ice covered significant portions of the Earth to interglacial periods where ice retreated to the poles or melted entirely - the climate has continuously changed.
Scientists have been able to piece together a picture of the Earth's climate dating back decades to millions of years ago by analyzing a number of surrogate, or "proxy," measures of climate such as ice cores, boreholes, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun.
This page contains information about the causes of climate change throughout the Earth's history, the rates at which the climate has changed, as well as information about climate change during the last 2,000 years.
Causes of Change

Known causes or “drivers” of past climate change include:

• Changes in the Earth's orbit: Changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (or eccentricity) as well as the Earth's tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital processes -- which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-195. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory.
• Changes in the sun's intensity: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe. (See additional discussion under The Last 2,000 Years.)
• Volcanic eruptions: Volcanoes can affect the climate because they can emit aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
  • Aerosol emissions: Volcanic aerosols tend to block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling. Aerosols do not produce long-term change because they leave the atmosphere not long after they are emitted. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as 5ºF and historical accounts in New England describe 1815 as “the year without a summer.”
  • Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).

These climate change “drivers” often trigger additional changes or “feedbacks” within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate's initial response to them (whether the response is warming or cooling). For example:

• Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations: The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. When changes in the Earth's orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. When temperatures become cooler, CO2 enters the ocean and contributes to additional cooling. During at least the last 420,000 years, CO2 levels have tended to track the glacial cycles (IPCC, 2001). That is, during warm interglacial periods, CO2 levels have been high and during cool glacial periods, CO2 levels have been low (see Figure 1).

[George A. H. Luck]

• PART TWO
• Changes in ocean currents: The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in ocean currents. Because ocean currents play a significant role in distributing heat around the Earth, changes in these currents can bring about significant changes in climate from region to region.

Top of page
Rates of Change

Studies of the Earth's previous climate suggest periods of stability as well as periods of rapid change. Recent climate research suggests:

• Interglacial climates (such as the present) tend to be more stable than cooler, glacial climates. For example, the climate during the current and previous interglacials (known as the Holocene and Eemian interglacials) has been more stable than the most recent glacial period (known as the Last Glacial Maximum). This glacial period was characterized by a long string of widespread, large and abrupt climate changes (NRC, 2002).
• Abrupt or rapid climate changes tend to frequently accompany transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (and vice versa). For example, a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere (particularly around Greenland) may have experienced warming rates as large as 16ºF in 50 years at the end of the Younger Dryas event 11,500 years ago as the planet was emerging from the last ice age (IPCC, 2001).

While abrupt climate changes have occurred throughout the Earth's history, human civilization arose during a period of relative climate stability.
Top of page
The Last 2,000 Years

During the last 2,000 years, the climate has been relatively stable. Scientists have identified two minor departures from this stability, known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (also referred to as the Medieval Warm Period) and the Little Ice Age:

• The Medieval Climate Anomaly: Between roughly 900 and 1300 AD, evidence suggests Europe, Greenland and Asia experienced relative warmth. While historical accounts and other evidence document the warmth that occurred in some regions, the geographical extent, magnitude and timing of the warmth during this period is uncertain (NRC, 2006). The American West experienced very dry conditions around this time.
• The Little Ice Age: A wide variety of evidence supports the global existence of a "Little Ice Age" (this was not a true "ice age" since major ice sheets did not develop) between about 1500 and 1850 (NRC, 2006). Average temperatures were possibly up to 2ºF colder than today, but varied by region.

Together, these two periods define the upper and lower boundaries of the climate's recent natural variability and are a reflection of changes in climate drivers (the sun's variability and volcanic activity) and the climate's internal variability (referring to random changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans). The issue of whether the temperature rise of the 20th century crossed over the warm limit of the boundary has been a controversial topic in the science community. The National Academy of Sciences recently completed a study to assess the