What I was referring to was the part where he said:
Well, the fact is that acid rain was (and still is although it’s improving) a real problem, particularly here in the Northeast. The reason things are now improving is there have been regulations to cut down on sulfur emissions. (I think the biggest problem is from coal-burning power plants.)
The implication of what he said here is, “We shouldn’t cut down on sulfur if we really want to reduce global warming because sulfur helps work against it.” (He seems to believe that we didn’t…which I think is counterfactual, at least here in the U.S…I don’t know about worldwide.) Besides the unanswered question of the magnitude of this effect (which I don’t honestly know), my point is that the solution to global warming is to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, not to put other emissions into the air that might counteract it partially but with quite a bit of uncertainty and causing other problems.
By the way, I found out more info on that article in Science…It is in the May 1st issue and is by Santer et al. Unfortunately, the May 1st issue isn’t in our library at work yet. Of course, one article is not the last word as I noted in reference to the paper that your first link in this thread referred to, but the fact that it is appearing in a journal like Science does at least suggest that it has been judged as an important contribution by a few editors and referees.
In the meantime, while we wait for that Science article to play out and either be confirmed or disproved, here is what the NAS report previously linked to had to say about the satellite vs. surface measurements:
One more question, do you think the Kyoto accords were/are an effective measure to reduce the effects of Global warming? And do think they are they unfair to the West?
Yes, I think the Kyoto Accords were a good start to try to tackle the problem. Kyoto is by no means perfect, but let’s face it, when you are negotiating something of this magnitude, noone is going to get everything that they want. Kyoto also is just the beginning…It is a step to try to get us onto a new course. Some have even likened it to insurance, to buy time and to get us in a position where we are not forced to really take drastic actions that would wreck our economies (as the opponents of Kyoto wrongly claim it will do).
There is a lot of confusing surrounding Kyoto. Some people make non-sensical statements about how they would prefer to have the market or technology solve the problem rather than have Kyoto. This shows a complete ignorance of market economics. “Markets” are not magical…They only know what goes into them. If you don’t tell the market that there is a cost associated to emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it is not going to magically come up with solutions to a problem that does not have any cost. (Okay, perhaps some sort of political or moral pressure can have some effect…or the anticipation of future economic or political pressure. But, probably not that much effect.) The whole point of Kyoto is to give the market the signal it needs to start coming up with the technological and other solutions to the problem. (How each nation chooses to give its markets that signal is largely left up to the nation to decide. The decision was to set targets and then let each nation decide what it will implement in it governmental and economic system to meet that target.)
As for the fairness to the developed nations: Well, I think it is not that unreasonable to say that since the problem up to this point has primarily been caused by the developed nations and since these nations have the resources and technology to best come up with solutions, then I think it is reasonable to ask these nations to “go first”. (Note that the framework states that the developing nations will have emissions targets in the future.)
Besides which, there are other ways that one can imagine implementing such a policy “fairly” that would be way worse for the developed nations…For example, by demanding that each nation have a goal of the same emissions per capita rather than talking about reducing emissions from 1990 values! I think we have very little to complain about!! (After all, is it any wonder that a nation with people driving around in Hummers for no apparent reason is being asked to tighten their belt in emissions more than nations where most people still don’t own cars at all?!?)
Also, many of the technologies that the developed nations come up with can be sold to the developing nations. The idea is to have these nations ultimately follow a more efficient path of development than we did, because heaven help us if they don’t!!!
Of course, Kyoto is not a magic bullet. Opponents of Kyoto are fond of making statements about how little Kyoto will delay warming or how little difference it would make in the temperature in 2100. There are a couple of problems with this argument:
(1) They are never clear what they are assuming for emissions after the Kyoto targets are met in 2012. One can safely assume that their assumptions are the ones that give their argument the most traction, i.e., that ignore the whole idea of Kyoto as charting a new path and helping us to implement new technologies.
(2) It leaves the opponents of Kyoto in the position that I find rather untenable of arguing that it is, on the one hand, very ineffective in reducing emissions while being, on the other hand, very costly. I think it is rather difficult to argue both of these things. If the cuts are not very drastic, then how can they be so costly unless it is the way they are being implemented that is so costly. Yet, the way isn’t specified. There is complete flexibility for each country to meet its target however it sees fit and, on top of that, there is even some international trading schemes between countries! So, I don’t really see how they can be complaining about that.
By the way, on the subject of costs, there was a nice article in the New York Times Magazine several months ago about British Petroleum and its CEO John Browne. Here is a quote from that article describing how Browne implemented a cut in emissions across the company that was a bit more drastic than Kyoto and was completed 8 years ahead of schedule, and Browne’s take on the whole thing:
(The article is here but alas no longer available for free.)
As I understand it, “greenhouse effect” is a shorthand description of what is more technically described as “increased energy concentration in the low-mid atmosphere level”.
This is postulated to lead to more energetic weather events (more extreme events). Like more tornados, more flooding, and even more extreme annual temperature swings (thus even colder winters in places like here in Minnesota!)
So it seems to me that I might get an answer to “is it real?” by watching the weather news over this weekend. More tornados in the USA Midwest (Kansas-Oklahoma area) in the 5 months so far this year than the normal average for an entire year. Or last year’s number/severity of floods worldwide, which I recall was way above the usual average. And I recall reading that the annual number of hurricanes has been trending upward in recent years.
Probably not scientific “proof”, but it’s tends to seem rather convincing to me.
The greenhouse effect is a shorthand for the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 in the atmosphere. This leads to retention of heat on earth which would otherwise be radiated back into space. This, as I pointed out, has always happened to some degree, and without it, earth would be considerably colder.
This ORIGINALLY happens in the atmosphere. But if you look ONLY at the atmosphere, you will miss most of the heat. The atmosphere is composed of gases, and as such has a pretty low heat capacity. Heat can be transmitted, e.g. to glaciers and via them, rivers, to the oceans, or directly to the oceans, which, being liquid, and of huge volume, have a much higher heat capacity.
This is true for the projected consequences of prolonged global warming, which is a result of an increased greenhouse effect, which, in turn, results out of increased output of ‘greenhouse gases’. I consider it important to keep the issue of ‘global warming’ vs. the ‘greenhouse effect’ distinct, because the ‘greenhouse effect’ is a very trivial physical fact, and considering the ‘greenhouse effect’ bogus is a pretty good litmus test as to how much someone actually knows about an issue.
The events you cite are, of course, in and of themselves only anecdotal evidence. However, Re-insurance companies like Munich Re have indeed found an increase in damage from severe weather natural disasters over the past few decades, and while as of yet, the data is not enough to postulate a direct connection, it -and the studies from prominent climatologists projecting a further increase in the case of prolonged warming- leads to said companies being among the most ardent supporters for the Kyoto protocol. It is they who pick up the bill in the end.
After the Mesozoic, the CO[sub]2[/sub] was declining until mankind came along, due to carbon being incorporated into the Earth’s crust. This is one good reason why there have been many ice ages in the last million years or so.
Humanity is releasing carbon artificially from the rocks by burning fossil fuels, and global warming is the undoubted result.
In the long term, over several million years more the natural carbon cycle may result in the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere decreasing once again until the Earth is covered in ice.
This icy world may persist for tens or hundreds of millions of years, until the slowly brightening sun warms up enough to melt the ice. By 1 billion years from now the sun will be warm enough to heat the Earth through a moist greenhouse stage to an uninhabitable heat. By 3 billion the Earth will be as hot as Venus.
At 5 billion the sun will be a Red Giant.
From now until 3 billion years from now, (In My Opinion), careful management of the Carbon cycle and by using other climate forcing substances should enable the climate of the earth to be controlled and kept within acceptable limits.
Strange as it may seem, starting right now it is going to be necessary to Terraform the Earth to maintain a comfortable temperature, and Kyoto is a good start.
The greenhouse effect is hard to quantify but it undoubtedly exists.
We’re either turning the world into a warm, moist hell, or else the greenhouse effect is the only thing saving us from another ice age.
Kind of like that nuclear winter, we can’t be sure which.
Global warming really isn’t the problem. The earth gets hotter and warmer all the time geologically speaking. Nor really are the greenhouse gases.
Long before any of these things actually endager us we’ll all be dead of something else.
As other gases like CO2 increase their partial pressure, burning stuff, and the relative decrease of the partial pressure of O2 will cause us all to suffocate.
The problem isn’t climate change. The problem is breathable air.
According to my buddy with the US energy commision, this problem may be less than 50 years away, based on the observable speed in the drop of O2 partial pressures as measured in Hawaii.
Global warming is a guy on an airplane which has lost both engines worrying about whether he got food poisoning from the in flight meal.
Suffocation, Babes.
The third world tries to industrialize by burning stuff the way we did, and we’re all gonna die choking.
And where is the oxygen going, pray tell?
or as they say, cite please?
I don’t think it is evaporating into space,
as it is a relatively heavy molecule.
and there isn’t enough free carbon around on the Earth’s surface to make a dent in it
Judicii signum: tellus sudore madescit.
(The sign of judgement: the Earth will begin to sweat.)
From 1000: A Mass for the End of Time, by the Anonymous 4.
Seriously, that BP quote is exactly what I’ve always wondered about: I mean saving on your energy usage is something that every homeowner understands, certainly. I can’t see why a private company wouldn’t want to do the same thing, especially given the huge savings that could be achieved given the scale of what we’re talking about.
science is a big business with livelihoods and prestige at stake
Congress doesn’t fund good news
Journal referees are humans with egos … and buddies.
dissent is often kept from print, funding, and faculties on the basis of not conforming to the “the scientific community as a whole”
This is not to address the issue of whether human activity has induced ‘greenhouse effect’ or caused ‘global warming’. This is also not an attempt to discredit the scientific community. I’m just saying it’s your tax dollars, and possibly your freedoms. A good dose of cynicism doesn’t hurt.
Take it from someone in the business. It’s a dog-eat-dog world.
Oxygen is not appreciably decreasing, by the way…
Don’t worry, our atmosphere has so much oxygen that even if we were to burn all the available fossil fuel reserves, all the plants and all the organic matter in the soil
(which feat would be practically impossible)
we would use up only a few percent of the available O[sub]2[/sub]. Even the forests of Brazil produce little more oxygen than they consume in respiration and decay.
No, no, no.
I’ll say it again.
‘our atmosphere has so much oxygen that even if we were to burn all the available fossil fuel reserves, all the plants and all the organic matter in the soil
(which feat would be practically impossible)
we would use up only a few percent of the available O2.’
You cannot find enough carbon to burn and convert oxygen to Co2 without digging up all the sedimentary rocks in the crust and pulverising them to extract the incorporated organic material. You are welcome to try.
The oxygen balance is not, repeat not in danger. It is the excess of carbon dioxide which is a problem.
Sorry, man, but this boils down to nothing but a nationalistic rant. Congress is not funding ‘the scientific community’. Congress is but responsible for a part of it, and when it comes to climatology, it is not even a very prominent part of the scientific community, given that the NAS found a while ago that american climatologists are seriously lagging behind the state of the art.
Second, the claim that dissent is often kept from publishing is the usual whining of losers who didn’t get their pet project published. The fact that Stanley Prusiner got the Nobel prize while still plenty of people were whining that there could be no disease without a nucleic acid behind it should have debunked it once and for all.
There are too many journals out there. Even when the big ones don’t publish something, SOMEONE will publish it if the conclusion is reasonable in light of the data. SOMEONE will read it. And if it’s dead-on, it will survive.
We debunked phlogiston. We debunked vis vitalis. We had a quantum revolution. We had prions. To claim that absurd hypotheses based on solid data can be suppressed is bogus and unacademic.