Global Warming.. Real?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Has the average MPG a car gets increased or decreased in the past 50 years? The demand for more efficient, clean cars and industry pushes the market to do so.

I agree there are so many tiny little things we can do, but I also believe that we can sort them out without panic and without a ton of government intervention.

Sure the average MPG a car gets has increased over the last 50 years but it hasn't moved much in the past 20 years. We're way behind Europe and Japan when it comes to the average MPG a car gets. One reason for this is because gasoline tax is so damn high there. That's one reason I think we should be increasing the gas tax although not to the ridiculously high levels they have. A study I recall glancing at said a gas tax of a little over $1/gallon would be optimal. Currently I think Washington state has one of the highest taxes on gasoline and the total amount of tax we pay on gas comes to about $0.50.

$0.464 in WA state, including the federal tax. IIRC, that's the 4th or 5th highest. Our taxes reflect the time, not so long ago, when gas cost about $1 or so per gallon, in which case the taxes made up a third to almost half the price.

And mpg per bhp has improved dramatically in the past decade or so.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Martin

In a democratic system, the government is a pretty good approximation of the society: When people's opinions change and they start to value the environment, you'll see this reflected in your government.

Without the obstacle of government, the reflection of people's value of the environment can change much faster, more efficient, and cheaper.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Has the average MPG a car gets increased or decreased in the past 50 years? The demand for more efficient, clean cars and industry pushes the market to do so.

I agree there are so many tiny little things we can do, but I also believe that we can sort them out without panic and without a ton of government intervention.

Sure the average MPG a car gets has increased over the last 50 years but it hasn't moved much in the past 20 years. We're way behind Europe and Japan when it comes to the average MPG a car gets. One reason for this is because gasoline tax is so damn high there. That's one reason I think we should be increasing the gas tax although not to the ridiculously high levels they have. A study I recall glancing at said a gas tax of a little over $1/gallon would be optimal. Currently I think Washington state has one of the highest taxes on gasoline and the total amount of tax we pay on gas comes to about $0.50.

So let me get this straight...Higher taxes = more MPG? LOL This sounds like something Dave would say lol

The truth is...all the smog and emissions crap we have to put on our cars DECREASES MPG. Ask ANYONE who modifies cars...if you want higher MPG, take your emissions crap off. I did, and my MPG went UP by 3MPG. Because Europe and Asia dont really have emissions laws like ours, they can get away with not putting all the same emissions crap on their cars. As a previous posted said, the reason the WRX took so long to get here (the Mitsubishi Lancer is another example) is they had to be fitted with emissions gear.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight...Higher taxes = more MPG? LOL This sounds like something Dave would say lol

The truth is...all the smog and emissions crap we have to put on our cars DECREASES MPG. Ask ANYONE who modifies cars...if you want higher MPG, take your emissions crap off. I did, and my MPG went UP by 3MPG. Because Europe and Asia dont really have emissions laws like ours, they can get away with not putting all the same emissions crap on their cars. As a previous posted said, the reason the WRX took so long to get here (the Mitsubishi Lancer is another example) is they had to be fitted with emissions gear.

That's actually a mixed bag now that sophisticated computer engine controls have taken over most of the emissions requirements. Leaner AF ratios are cleaner burning and net more hp at the same time. Prior to computer controls though, ignition timing was not good enough to allow for such lean ratios without the risk of engine damage from knock. Along with improving transmission technologies, this is why (as I mentioned above) mpg to bhp ratios have really taken off over the past decade. OTOH, catalytic converters are actually beginning to work against the ideal, as they require a particular AF ratio range to operate in optimally, which is actually a little richer that what the computers are capable of. Then you throw in the fact that cats increase CO2 and H2O emissions (which is bad for global warming) while reducing particulates (which is good for smog but bad for global warming) and as always the issue is complex, not simple, and beyond the usual "I'm right you're wrong" mentality of internet message boards.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Has the average MPG a car gets increased or decreased in the past 50 years? The demand for more efficient, clean cars and industry pushes the market to do so.

I agree there are so many tiny little things we can do, but I also believe that we can sort them out without panic and without a ton of government intervention.

Sure the average MPG a car gets has increased over the last 50 years but it hasn't moved much in the past 20 years. We're way behind Europe and Japan when it comes to the average MPG a car gets. One reason for this is because gasoline tax is so damn high there. That's one reason I think we should be increasing the gas tax although not to the ridiculously high levels they have. A study I recall glancing at said a gas tax of a little over $1/gallon would be optimal. Currently I think Washington state has one of the highest taxes on gasoline and the total amount of tax we pay on gas comes to about $0.50.

So let me get this straight...Higher taxes = more MPG? LOL This sounds like something Dave would say lol

The truth is...all the smog and emissions crap we have to put on our cars DECREASES MPG. Ask ANYONE who modifies cars...if you want higher MPG, take your emissions crap off. I did, and my MPG went UP by 3MPG. Because Europe and Asia dont really have emissions laws like ours, they can get away with not putting all the same emissions crap on their cars. As a previous posted said, the reason the WRX took so long to get here (the Mitsubishi Lancer is another example) is they had to be fitted with emissions gear.

Yes, it does. Same with higher Prices through other means, it causes people to buy more Fuel Efficient vehicles.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Because Europe and Asia dont really have emissions laws like ours, they can get away with not putting all the same emissions crap on their cars.

This is garbage. Link

"In Europe and the United States, particulate emissions from vehicles are expected to decline over the next decade. For example, by 2005, the European Union will introduce more stringent standards for particulate emissions from light duty vehicles of 0.025 grams per kilometer [0.04 grams per mile]. Even under these standards, diesel-powered cars may still warm the climate more over the next 100 years than may gasoline-powered cars, according to the study.

The state of California is implementing an even more restrictive standard in 2004, allowing only 0.006 grams per kilometer [0.01 grams per mile] of particulate emissions. Even if the California standard were introduced worldwide, says Jacobson, diesel cars may still warm the climate more than gasoline cars over 13 to 54 years."

Notice that it doesn't say "The United States" it says "California".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Grabo

Originally posted by: Vic

You realize that CO2 isn't even remotely the worst of the greenhouse gases, right?

Then which one is? Water. Are humans adding vast amounts of water to the atmosphere every day? Nope.

Oops, I missed this one. Actually the worst greenhouse gas is methane, because with heat and pressure it combusts into water and CO2, consuming oxygen. And yes, humans are adding vast amounts of water to the atmosphere. Water vapor is an emission of internal combustion engines.

O2 + CnH2n+2 -> n(CO2 + H2O)

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Has the average MPG a car gets increased or decreased in the past 50 years? The demand for more efficient, clean cars and industry pushes the market to do so.

I agree there are so many tiny little things we can do, but I also believe that we can sort them out without panic and without a ton of government intervention.

Sure the average MPG a car gets has increased over the last 50 years but it hasn't moved much in the past 20 years. We're way behind Europe and Japan when it comes to the average MPG a car gets. One reason for this is because gasoline tax is so damn high there. That's one reason I think we should be increasing the gas tax although not to the ridiculously high levels they have. A study I recall glancing at said a gas tax of a little over $1/gallon would be optimal. Currently I think Washington state has one of the highest taxes on gasoline and the total amount of tax we pay on gas comes to about $0.50.

So let me get this straight...Higher taxes = more MPG? LOL This sounds like something Dave would say lol

The truth is...all the smog and emissions crap we have to put on our cars DECREASES MPG. Ask ANYONE who modifies cars...if you want higher MPG, take your emissions crap off. I did, and my MPG went UP by 3MPG. Because Europe and Asia dont really have emissions laws like ours, they can get away with not putting all the same emissions crap on their cars. As a previous posted said, the reason the WRX took so long to get here (the Mitsubishi Lancer is another example) is they had to be fitted with emissions gear.

Yes, it does. Same with higher Prices through other means, it causes people to buy more Fuel Efficient vehicles.

Not in the 6 countries overseas I travelled to. Maybe your overseas travels were different, eh?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Has the average MPG a car gets increased or decreased in the past 50 years? The demand for more efficient, clean cars and industry pushes the market to do so.

I agree there are so many tiny little things we can do, but I also believe that we can sort them out without panic and without a ton of government intervention.

Sure the average MPG a car gets has increased over the last 50 years but it hasn't moved much in the past 20 years. We're way behind Europe and Japan when it comes to the average MPG a car gets. One reason for this is because gasoline tax is so damn high there. That's one reason I think we should be increasing the gas tax although not to the ridiculously high levels they have. A study I recall glancing at said a gas tax of a little over $1/gallon would be optimal. Currently I think Washington state has one of the highest taxes on gasoline and the total amount of tax we pay on gas comes to about $0.50.

So let me get this straight...Higher taxes = more MPG? LOL This sounds like something Dave would say lol

The truth is...all the smog and emissions crap we have to put on our cars DECREASES MPG. Ask ANYONE who modifies cars...if you want higher MPG, take your emissions crap off. I did, and my MPG went UP by 3MPG. Because Europe and Asia dont really have emissions laws like ours, they can get away with not putting all the same emissions crap on their cars. As a previous posted said, the reason the WRX took so long to get here (the Mitsubishi Lancer is another example) is they had to be fitted with emissions gear.

Are you serious? How would higher gas prices lead to lower average MPG for cars? How does that even make sense? With higher prices, people will try to lessen the impact by buying higher MPG cars. It's simple economics.

Another reason Europe has better MPG for their cars is they aren't investing in ethanol and are investing into biodiesel. Biodiesel is a hell of a lot more efficient than our sh!tty ethanol that we subsidize. One of the reasons biodiesel is getting so popular in the Europe is because the taxes on it are much lower than the taxes on regular gasoline and regular diesel.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Because Europe and Asia dont really have emissions laws like ours, they can get away with not putting all the same emissions crap on their cars.

This is garbage. Link

"In Europe and the United States, particulate emissions from vehicles are expected to decline over the next decade. For example, by 2005, the European Union will introduce more stringent standards for particulate emissions from light duty vehicles of 0.025 grams per kilometer [0.04 grams per mile]. Even under these standards, diesel-powered cars may still warm the climate more over the next 100 years than may gasoline-powered cars, according to the study.

The state of California is implementing an even more restrictive standard in 2004, allowing only 0.006 grams per kilometer [0.01 grams per mile] of particulate emissions. Even if the California standard were introduced worldwide, says Jacobson, diesel cars may still warm the climate more than gasoline cars over 13 to 54 years."

Notice that it doesn't say "The United States" it says "California".

Actually California does essentially equal the United States. No car company is going to make a car that doesn't appeal to a market as large as California.

 

[Vic]

There haven't been 49-state legal cars since the 70s.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
The thing most people ignore is global cooling and global warming has happened in the past, time and time again...and it will happen time and time again.

You're the third person that I've replied to so far.

-yes, the earth undergoes cycles.
-no, what we have today is not a cycle, its a spike caused by the industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

If you'd like to disagree, please:
-provide a counter example (show that this isn't a human-caused spike but a natural event)
-provide an alternate explanation (something that explains the spike, but doesn't involve humans)
-revise your view to fit the accepted one.

I'm waiting for responses...

We are contributors/accellerators... What we have done in the last 100 years or so would pale in comparison to what a super volcano could do.

But the problem isnt just pollution...its only recently we have become recyclers. And its only recently where the logging industry has started replanting at a such a high rate.



Also...you realize that all things that occur are part of the natural process of things...our actions are part of the grander scheme of things.

We need to stopping thinking that we are separate...we are part of the system and that our actions and inactions have an impact.

 

[Grabo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Grabo

Originally posted by: Vic

You realize that CO2 isn't even remotely the worst of the greenhouse gases, right?

Then which one is? Water. Are humans adding vast amounts of water to the atmosphere every day? Nope.

Oops, I missed this one. Actually the worst greenhouse gas is methane, because with heat and pressure it combusts into water and CO2, consuming oxygen. And yes, humans are adding vast amounts of water to the atmosphere. Water vapor is an emission of internal combustion engines.

O2 + CnH2n+2 -> n(CO2 + H2O)

A little scary, this.

First: You can't call methane a greenhouse gas simply because it becomes co2 if you put it under heat and pressure - the biproduct is co2 which is a greenhouse gas, and water, which is the most important greenhouse gas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases) but not significant in the sense that it's not one people are screwing up the balance of (not at all really, where in anyone's name did you get this idea from?)

Second: Methane is a significant greenhouse gas in its own right; the second most significant from a human-contribution point of view, but co2 is still much more significant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png)

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Martin
.................government action is needed on things like closing coal plants, mandating higher MPG, providing research and subsidy money for clean energy etc.

I'm a big proponent of solar energy. I wish the government would just start by mandating that all power companies in the USA would be required to "buy back" ecess power generated by homeowners & businesses with solar cells. E.g., we don't have that here in NC. That virtually ensures that solar cells are uneconomical, even over the long term.

California, and other parts of the West have a booming business in solar cells/panels. Many homes and business are now outfitted. The increase in demand has caused a 300% in the price of the underlying silicon solar cells. Of course, those states have the "buy bsck" programs.

For many years I have working on a project which would lower the cost of such cells by a dramatic amount. There is a mine/deposit (technically it is known as an "occurance") in South America. It is estimated at 65 milliom metric tons, and consisits of silica dioxide (about 95%) and titania (5%).

The particles are unusual in nature, very pure and very small (as small as 1 micron). This stuff is laying on the top of an Andean mountain. Geologists who studied the occurance believe it is the result of a long-ago volcanic erruption spewing this molten mineral in the air where it cooled and fell back to earth. But, the whole problem is one of "seperation". Silica (silicon dioxide) is abundant on/in the earth, but the O2 must be seperated from the silicon to make solar cells.

Many scientists, from many parts of the world, are even now working on this.

I was part of the management of the company that controls the mine, but over the last month a huge rift developed among us. Some want to "flip it" over to the Chinese for quick money. It appears they want to use it for other things (paint, cement etc - silica has many uses). Those of who objected have lost control via legal wrangling and are pretty much out of the project.

But the main point is if we can develope reasonable seperation methods, solar energy could be very inexpensive. This could severely diminsh the need for coal burning plants necessary to generate electricity.

Additonally, the electricity thus generated could be used for electric and/or hybrid cars, thus substanially reducing the need for fossil fuels.

So, the answer is out there, maybe government funds could accerlerate the research on various seperation processes.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Grabo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Grabo

Originally posted by: Vic

You realize that CO2 isn't even remotely the worst of the greenhouse gases, right?

Then which one is? Water. Are humans adding vast amounts of water to the atmosphere every day? Nope.

Oops, I missed this one. Actually the worst greenhouse gas is methane, because with heat and pressure it combusts into water and CO2, consuming oxygen. And yes, humans are adding vast amounts of water to the atmosphere. Water vapor is an emission of internal combustion engines.

O2 + CnH2n+2 -> n(CO2 + H2O)

A little scary, this.

First: You can't call methane a greenhouse gas simply because it becomes co2 if you put it under heat and pressure - the biproduct is co2 which is a greenhouse gas, and water, which is the most important greenhouse gas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases) but not significant in the sense that it's not one people are screwing up the balance of (not at all really, where in anyone's name did you get this idea from?)

Second: Methane is a significant greenhouse gas in its own right; the second most significant from a human-contribution point of view, but co2 is still much more significant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png)

Were you of the opinion that you actually made a point with this post?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Fern
Is Global warming real, and are we the responsible?

I, like some others here, am of the opnion that the Earth does go through climitoligical (sp?) cycles. Whether or not any current cycle will prove significant is, IMHO, still an open question. When I was much younger science was certain we were facing a cooling trend, not a warming trend like now.

I have lived through so much, "butter is bad, margerine is good", no wait "margerine is bad, butter is good" type scientific reversals I remain doubtful that they have the ability to accurately gauge/forcast such trends. I.e., I really doubt the scientific community has "cracked" the all the complicated "secrets" of the Earth. Time has taught me to be very sceptical of anyone who says they have.

Are we the cause? Notwithstanding the above question, I do not find it hard to belive that we humans have some effect, the unresolved question in my mind is "how much"?. We (humans) tend to overestimate our presence in every possible way, and underestimate the impact of natural forces. I am doubtful our impact is as great as claimed, and doubtful of the ability of present day science's to both accurately identify all factors involved in any changes as well as understand the complexity of the interrelationships of such factors.

It was much simpler when I was in college. I just believed in what the "experts" taught us.

Fern

I'll get tired of repeating this eventually, but not yet.

-yes, the earth undergoes cycles.
-no, what we have today is not a cycle, its a spike caused by the industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

If you'd like to disagree, please:
-provide a counter example (show that this isn't a human-caused spike but a natural event)
-provide an alternate explanation (something that explains the spike, but doesn't involve humans)
-revise your view to fit the accepted one.

OK, so you're waiting for a response?

Originally posted by: Martin


I'm waiting for responses...

The reponse is already contained in the body of my OP. I'm saying that I'm sceptical of science. That I'm sceptical of it's ability to adequately understand all the variables involved and their inter-relationshoips with one another as relates to the concept of global warming, it's causes and the predicition of it's trends etc.

If I'm sceptible of man's comprehension of these things, it doesn't make much sense to ask me to come up with "other science' to refute "your" science. I'm sceptible of science, that means both sides. I can't use something I'm sceptical of to refute something I'm sceptical of, can I ?

The chart you reference is only of CO2 levels, which seems to me a "fine slice" of the whole global warming pie. It seems to me that there are many, many factors involved. If not, our climitological models would be much better - the ones used to predict the future don't seem to work on the past. I.e., when inputing know variables from the past, the models fail to accurately "predict" known past climates. But seems recently I've heard they are making progess in this area.

I.e., your trying to make the whole "global warming" thing a debate about just about CO2.

And as is often noted here, "correlation does not equal causation" (in reference to the chart).

Fern

 

[Grabo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Grabo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Grabo

Originally posted by: Vic

You realize that CO2 isn't even remotely the worst of the greenhouse gases, right?

Then which one is? Water. Are humans adding vast amounts of water to the atmosphere every day? Nope.

Oops, I missed this one. Actually the worst greenhouse gas is methane, because with heat and pressure it combusts into water and CO2, consuming oxygen. And yes, humans are adding vast amounts of water to the atmosphere. Water vapor is an emission of internal combustion engines.

O2 + CnH2n+2 -> n(CO2 + H2O)

A little scary, this.

First: You can't call methane a greenhouse gas simply because it becomes co2 if you put it under heat and pressure - the biproduct is co2 which is a greenhouse gas, and water, which is the most important greenhouse gas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases) but not significant in the sense that it's not one people are screwing up the balance of (not at all really, where in anyone's name did you get this idea from?)

Second: Methane is a significant greenhouse gas in its own right; the second most significant from a human-contribution point of view, but co2 is still much more significant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png)

Were you of the opinion that you actually made a point with this post?

I'm sorry? If you are going to drive this idea of water vapor being mankind's biggest issue (or methane, I'm not entirely clear on what you are saying, eventhough it's quite clear most remains wrong) then at least provide some sort of background information?
*shrug*

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html:
"While human activities do not directly add significant amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere, warmer air contains more water vapor. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, global warming will be further enhanced by the increased amounts of water vapor. This sort of indirect effect is called a positive feedback."

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#wv
"As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."

== We don't know so much about our own contribution to water vapor yet.

Please show me some credible evidence that your cars is significantly adding to the increasing global average temperature via water vapor? Are you just hoping that because you use bold writing people will swallow your words easier? Large things are harder to swallow, get a grip on logic.

 

[Vic]

Water vapor is a primary emission of internal combustion engines. You every wondered why car exhaust steams on cold days? And FFS I already posted a version of the chemical equation of hydrocarbon combustion above (greatly simplified admittedly, gasoline is a blend of heptane C7H16 and octane C8H18 plus some impurities, so the actual equation is very complicated).
So if basic chemistry isn't "credible evidence" to you, then I guess nothing is. You may then go back to your googling.

edit: the precise reaction for methane CH4, the simplest of the alkane hydrocarbons, is:

2(O2) + CH4 --> CO2 + 2(H2O).

Note, alkane HC's are CnH2n+2, so methane is CH4, ethane is C2H6, propane C3H8, etc.

 

[Grabo]

Fine.
But unless you are some sort of anonymous superhuman, I can only draw one conclusion from a certain lack of articles describing water vapor from combustion engines as a relatively significant contribution to global warming. The fact that scientists currently don't appear too certain of what role water vapor plays in global warming doesn't strengthen your theory that combustion engines are specifically evil(in terms of water vapor).

 

[sandorski]

Water Vapout cycles through the Atmosphere in a few days. CO2 cycles through in a few Centuries. Despite Water's increased Heating Effect, it is not as big an issue because of it's short lifespan, so to speak.

 

[FoBoT]

it is a feature

 

[plastick]

I think it's all a scam to make small talk more interesting. I work in the service industry and people are always talking about the weather to me. Sometimes it makes me want to kill myself, but I probably wouldn't mind if the weather kicked ass.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Fern
Is Global warming real, and are we the responsible?

I, like some others here, am of the opnion that the Earth does go through climitoligical (sp?) cycles. Whether or not any current cycle will prove significant is, IMHO, still an open question. When I was much younger science was certain we were facing a cooling trend, not a warming trend like now.

I have lived through so much, "butter is bad, margerine is good", no wait "margerine is bad, butter is good" type scientific reversals I remain doubtful that they have the ability to accurately gauge/forcast such trends. I.e., I really doubt the scientific community has "cracked" the all the complicated "secrets" of the Earth. Time has taught me to be very sceptical of anyone who says they have.

Are we the cause? Notwithstanding the above question, I do not find it hard to belive that we humans have some effect, the unresolved question in my mind is "how much"?. We (humans) tend to overestimate our presence in every possible way, and underestimate the impact of natural forces. I am doubtful our impact is as great as claimed, and doubtful of the ability of present day science's to both accurately identify all factors involved in any changes as well as understand the complexity of the interrelationships of such factors.

It was much simpler when I was in college. I just believed in what the "experts" taught us.

Fern

I'll get tired of repeating this eventually, but not yet.

-yes, the earth undergoes cycles.
-no, what we have today is not a cycle, its a spike caused by the industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

If you'd like to disagree, please:
-provide a counter example (show that this isn't a human-caused spike but a natural event)
-provide an alternate explanation (something that explains the spike, but doesn't involve humans)
-revise your view to fit the accepted one.

My argument is simply that we're still coming out of the previous ice age and that it will warm up regardless of what we do. What we're experiencing today is perfectly possible to happen naturally under the varying cycles that this planet experiences.

There is a reason that African desert was once green and fertile land. Our global warming did not turn that into desert, it doesn?t have to be the reason for more continued warming.

I'm saying it could be, but it'd happen anyway, and that it doesn't have to be us as the sole cause. We're already taking measures that will help curb the problem, our impact this century will utterly pale in comparison to China and India's pollution. Ours won't even matter. When it comes time that we?re the problem then I?d support extreme action but we?re already on track to dump our current energy model and I already fully support doing that.

 

[plastick]

Yeah, humans are only one of several factors involved in the way the Earth is affected.

 

[BrownTown]

Well, we know global warming is happening now, that is a FACT, and we know global CO2 levels are going up, that is a FACT. However the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature is NOT a proven causation. Now yes, there is a known mechanism by which CO2 can increase temperature, but what percent of the total effect that has is unclear. It is just as possible that high temperatures could result in higher CO2 concentrations. Just looking at the graph on wikipedia the CO2 concentrations appear to LAG the temperature which would imply that the temperature was causing the rise in CO2, NOT the opposite effect. Again, I'm not claiming to be an expert on this subject or anything, but I do know that I have alot more experience with math/statistics/science than most of our politicians who are gonna end up deciding this issue, DEFFINITELY i have more knowledge of such things than all the hollywood actors and others who are the most outspoken on this issue. I just think you should think VERY VERY carefully about any proposed project of the magnitude proposed for slowing global warming. I fear that too many people have been caught up in the sensationalism and are not thinking logically about what is invovled in this issue. Global warming could be bad, but so is spending TRILLIONS of dollars on useless projects. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Persuing good intentions with little knowledge of the outcome is JUST as bad as persuing bad intentions.