US govt starts to accept climate change

[Stu]

The Bush admin. fought tooth and nail for the past 8 years to make sure that the evidence on climate change remained cloudy at best, but it seems even they're beginning to cave to the incontrovertible evidence.

AS THE Bush administration enters its final months, the US Climate Change Science Program has issued a report concluding that computer models do effectively simulate climate. It also accepts that the models show human activity was responsible for the rapid warming of the 20th century.

The report is the 10th of 21 due to be issued by the body, which the sceptical Bush administration set up late in 2002 to review the validity of climate-change science before making policy decisions. At the time, environmentalists accused the administration of using the programme as a way to drag its feet on the issue.

I think it will be really interesting to see what the next govt administration does on global warming. Will whoever gets in to office go back on Bush's policies and maybe even join Kyoto? Or will they continue to ignore the evidence?

Personally, I think it's getting very hard for govts to ignore global warming. I think it wont be long now before we see certain US govt agencies investing in technology research.

Check out the full article over at New Scientist

[SomeRandomGuy]

I have seen arguments that do present reasonable evidence to suggest that the global warming threat may be overblown. I don't believe that to be the case, but I can understand why some people believe it is the case. I can not, however, understand how anyone could believe that humans have not had some negative impact on the climate. We have pumped exponentially more chemicals into the air and water in the past 200 years than all of the years prior to that. It may not be as bad as it is sometimes portrayed, but we as humans do need to start taking responsibility for what we are doing to the environment and make changes to slow down (or reverse) those impacts. In my mind, not admitting that we have a negative impact on the climate and environment means not being willing to take responsibility for our actions. It is nice to see that our federal government is starting to change their official stance on the matter.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I can not, however, understand how anyone could believe that humans have not had some negative impact on the climate. We have pumped exponentially more chemicals into the air and water in the past 200 years than all of the years prior to that.

I'm sure most people will agree that we have a negative impact on the environment. What I (and many people) disagree with is Al Gore's chicken little approach about the problem, where truth and validity take back seats to emotional response and hype.

I very much disagree that CO2 levels have induced warming as of late, but I definitely agree that air and water pollution continually harms us and the planet.

Our efforts should focus less on the ever-evasive "global warming" topic, which is vague and difficult to pinpoint, but rather focus on well understood areas like "big freaking smokestacks turning the air black". It doesn't take speculative doomsday theories to figure out what we can do to help the environment.

Think of the solution, not the problem.

[Fullcrum]

Even if global warming is completely false, we cannot rely on fossil fuels forever. Even if fossil fuels were completely clean, that is NO reason to stay on them because they cannot last forever. Sustainable energy also breeds economic independence, both for individuals and countries as a whole.

[SomeRandomGuy]

I think that some of the high profile doomsday theories could actually backfire. While "An Inconvenient Truth" has helped to spread the message of conservation and environmentalism it has also received a lot of negative attention. I worry that some people who were on the fence on environmental issues may have been turned off by this. I also worry that too many people are jumping on the "green" bandwagon, and that once the fad passes they'll go back to their wasteful ways. It especially bothers me to see corporations using environmental responsibility as a marketing campaign, especially when the things they are doing are often just basic things that everyone should be doing anyway.

[ar81]

If you make the cloak thicker, you get warmer.
CO2 produced by humans is a cloak...

[Still Growing]

The most popular schools of thought regarding our environment are:

A. Global warming is upon us
B. Global warming is a fallacy

If you think logically about it, the earth is very resilient and can heal itself. Thousands of years ago there were so many volcanoes that the CO2 in the air must have been heavier. But with the large amount of trees the earth healed itself pretty quickly.

Now that the rainforest are being cut down, the human population and vehicles are so vast, the earth is getting a little choked.

I don't necessarily think there is proof that Global warming is directly tied to humans however the whole Global warming thing is really like the "poster campaign" for the environment as a whole.

We do need to protect our rainforests; there are millions of undiscovered animals and plants that could unlock future medicines that could save humanity. Furthermore, if we keep abusing the earth and then suddenly we have 3 volcanoes erupt plus a asteroid hit the combination could be a knockout blow to 90% of those living. The earth would probably recoup itself but without enought trees it could take so long for the earth to heal itself that this could be our undoing...

The point is that its not an all or nothing thing. There is an overal issue however in today's pop culture there has to be a short and simple message or the ADD culture we have won't understand. A message of "Global Warming" is a two word slogan that causes fear and attention. In truth the damage we're doing to the earth is real but less urgent. Since our actions are engrained in our societies it will take generations to purge.

One of the biggest fears is that in 10 years when its discovered that Global Warming was not real people will think that the damage we're doing is not real.

One of the hilarious things to see is when someone redicules another person for driving an SUV. Its funny to see Hollywood stars who own private jets and then drive hybrid cars. Or to see Europeans poke fun at SUVs when they themselves travel more by air on vacation than most American and Asian countries. I think its just easier to point your finger at people you really don't like anyway than it is to tackle the Chinese factories or to tackle the illegal land clearing in Brazil.

We all speak of pollution but all you have to do is to look up and you'll see who's contributing the biggest problems. IN most Chinese cities the air quality is so bad you sometimes can't even see a sign on the street a few blocks down. But its not cars causing the problem its the burning of coal for energy and not filtering the air.

In conclusion, Global Warming is a nice little phrase for a more complex problem.

[ar81]

In the last 400,000 years the average proportion of CO2 was between 180 and 300 parts per million.
Last year it was 1950 ppm.

The average temperature during that period was last met in the 1930s and it has been growing. We are above 0.7 Celsius above that average, which is far more than ever in the last 400,000 years. Ecosystems won-t withstand more than 2 Celsius above average. More than that and there will be a world agricultural crisis and world level starvation like never before.

I got that from a conference on global warming with PhD Lara Hansen from WWF.

[Still Growing]

I think its pretty impressive that a scientist can tell us what the CO2 levels were 400,000 years ago. How do they do it?

Also here is the temp over the past 12,000 years. (not sure how they do this either)
Image:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art
This shows that 8,000 years ago it was actually hotter than it is today. About 1,000 years ago we went through a midevil warm period an about 400 years ago we went through a little ice age. Its possible that our CO2 emitions are pulling us out of our little ice age or it is possible that it may happen normally.

Although its still unclear to me that global warming is a fact, I know its a fact that when I'm in China I can't breathe. This can't be good for the environment.

I also know that cutting down rainforests is simply no good.

Some liberal politicians are making it so difficult for businesses that its driving the businesses out of State and out of the country.

The answer is not for California to get even more strict, the answer is for the US & Europe to impose conditions over China and India. We could lobby the Chinese gov't to prove their factories are meeting clean air emissions or importation wouldn't be allowed. I'm not saying its that simple but you get the point.

[Brutha]

The answer is not for California to get even more strict, the answer is for the US & Europe to impose conditions over China and India. We could lobby the Chinese gov't to prove their factories are meeting clean air emissions or importation wouldn't be allowed. I

It always the other party that has to change isn't it?

Working on getting cleaner techonolgy and green energy sources could have more impact than trying to lobby China into changing.
Stricter regulation create a climate where there is higher payoff in developing green techonolgy.

I think its pretty impressive that a scientist can tell us what the CO2 levels were 400,000 years ago. How do they do it?

The life on this earth is adepted to the present weather and not the weather that was 400,000 years ago.
Genetic changes can very well need a few hundred or thousand years to make that adeption to be able to life with the weather from that time.
If our weather adepts to fast natural selection won't be fast enough to make such changes.

[Poiesis Hagakure]

I know that one way they can tell what the environment was like many years ago is drilling at the polar ice caps. as h2O freezes it traps air and scientists can analyze the frozen pieces of the environment from that time.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It always the other party that has to change isn't it?

Working on getting cleaner techonolgy and green energy sources could have more impact than trying to lobby China into changing.
Stricter regulation create a climate where there is higher payoff in developing green techonolgy.

So you think that if the US would improve slightly it would be more beneficial to the air quality than if China simply started filtering their factories?

Have you ever been to China? Their air quality there is much more pressing of a problem than it is anywhere in the world.

To me it just seems that you're in the habit of holding the US to a higher standard. If you are like most Germans you belive that you have the higher moral ground when it comes to the environment. I agree that Germany is advanced in this area but why are you more critical of the US than of China? Do you simply expect less from China? And if so why?

[Barcs]

I don't think that was his point. I think he was saying that the only realistic solution for the long run is to research alternative energies and cleaner resources. This would benefit the world as a whole, including China. I agree that global warming is just a catchy name for what's going on, but the problem IMO is much deeper than CO2.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Barcs

I don't think that was his point. I think he was saying that the only realistic solution for the long run is to research alternative energies and cleaner resources. This would benefit the world as a whole, including China. I agree that global warming is just a catchy name for what's going on, but the problem IMO is much deeper than CO2.

Think about what you're saying....

OK we have the technology for cleaner air put out by factories now but Chinese factories don't adopt them. Lets assume that you come up with a car that has lower emissions but China doesn't adopt that technology either.

Do you know how many cars will be hitting the streets in China and India in the next 20 years?

Its like having holes in your boat but only plugging the ones on your side of the boat. Its fruitless. You're gonna sink.

Its not easy but in today's global economy it is necessary to look at the big picture.

I am not saying that we should not develop new technologies; thats not my argument. My argument is that we should lobby China hard. Brutha said himself that he disagrees with this. He specifically said that "Its always the other party that has to change isn't it"... Thats a clever way to say "You need to change, don't worry about China we have a lower bar set for them." But why is the bar set lower?

By the money we've seen spent on the Olympics I think its safe to say that China is no longer the poor little country trying to get in the game. They are a major player and now it time to have expectations placed upon their air managment.

You've heard the saying "your right to swing your fists end where my nose begins" right? I think that air quality is the same way. There should be minimum standards if you want your products to be accepted globally. Am I missing something? Why does China not have to play be the same rules?

[Poiesis Hagakure]

I agree with Brutha in the sense of the ghandi quote: be the change you wish to see in the world. you can only control yourself.

additionally, china and india will do as they will do.... the incentive they pursue is to make their economies strong and increase their political clout, etc. they want to become stronger nations. as per the capitalistic mindset*, they will not react to lobbying. they will pursue their incentive and unless we were capable of changing their incentives, we would not be able to stop the large amounts of pollution that will come about from their burgeoning industries, middle class members beginning to drive cars en masse, etc. because these things are key to their incentives as a nation and as a people to improve the standard of living.

i added the star behind capitalistic mindset because this is what i mean by incentives... it is the mindset that you are number one and stick out for yourself. you have to work towards your incentives, towards what aims you can achieve. you control your success or failure and all other matters, and people, are not even secondary... they are auxiliary matters, to maybe be considered, possibly, eventually. [see ayn rand, the poster child for laissez faire economics.]

who would you expect to put the world before their nation's profitability [although we all should... viewing success solely through profitability numbers is so shallow] ? ahh, the narrow tunnel vision of capitalism....

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

This shows that 8,000 years ago it was actually hotter than it is today. About 1,000 years ago we went through a midevil warm period an about 400 years ago we went through a little ice age. Its possible that our CO2 emitions are pulling us out of our little ice age or it is possible that it may happen normally.

I do not know what is the source of that wiki entry you posted. I do not trust wiki entries. I could tell you in a wiki that Carbon 14 tests are inaccurate because decay of atoms is not constant and therefore Atlantis sank a few millions ago and not 11000 years ago... or I could tell you I am Elvis.

If you want a very elaborated conspiracy theory, Google for "Columbia sacrifice". If you are not picky enough you won't find the huge hole of that theory. I challenge you to find the big hole of such theory.

Even if you see that such theory is not just a wiki but a website, it adds no credibility. It has good material on hypersonic flight, to gain credibility, but an engineer could find the problem that it has... If you can't find the problem, just ask...

My source on climate change is Lara Hansen from WWF, who works in the climate change, who attended a conference in Miami a few months ago. I took some notes from her conference. She has background on toxicology and biology and has a PhD degree if I remember correctly.

[Still Growing]

ar81 I agree that my source may have holes but its possible yours may too. I don't think that this subject has so easily proven either way. I've seen facts for and against the theory of global warming. At this point its become a political position or us vs them argument.

I do think that deforestation and air polution are major problems though.

I think you should keep an open mind though.

[ar81]

Info on Lara Hansen
Chief Climate Change Scientist

If you think she is a fake, you should think that David Attenborough and Jacques Cousteau are also a fake.

I also have been seeing things from both sides. In the opposition side you have blogs. In the climate change side you have scientists. Also, it is undeniable that carbon dioxide is like a cloak and the thicker the cloak the warmer it has become.

As for the political bias you mention, economy is also of political importance, so probably US crisis is just a fake.

I can tell you that with climate change London could be flooded with North Atlantic storms, Sacramento is at risk of suffering a flood like New Orleans with Pinapple Express storm system, and Rhode island was hit by a hurricane the same day Hitler made his first invasion so the hurricane remained hidden in the media.

I have been doing my own research on green processes and I have researched chemistry and stoichiometry to see from a basic chemistry point of view what is the failure of the cycle we humans have.

Humans breath O2 and produce CO2. Combustion uses O2 and produce CO2.
Trees breath CO2 and produce O2. So more combustion and less trees means less oxygen, and due to the capability of CO2 to serve as a cloak, it will heat atmosphere. We have reached 0.7 celsius above the average temperature of Earth which has been growing since the 1930s. With 2 celsius above average, agriculture will perish and you will have world starvation. So the problem is not if you are going to die because of heat waves, but because your environment is not feeding you.

In Canada in the rocky mountains higher tremperatures are killing trees that are used by wood industry. Even if they plant trees, they die because of temperatures and it is becoming an economic problem there.

Also, I did some research on waste treatment and I found that organic waste can be treated with aerobic or anaerobic processes. Anaerobic produces biogas, which contains methane (CH4) which is 26 times a hotter cloak when compared to CO2. Biogas is usually produced by landfills.

The most efficient CO2 absorbers are trees. Using lithium or potassium based absorbers are extremely inefficient and with Sabatier reaction you might need lots of hydrogen and equipment. With trees you only need gardens and they grow more easily and cheaper.

[schola]

Climate Change...oh you mean Global Cooling. You know the Earth has cooled since 1998 right?

January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months « Watts Up With That?


January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.

There is a reason one has to rely on blogs and the internet for this information. It won't be reported on by the mainstream media.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by schola

There is a reason one has to rely on blogs and the internet for this information. It won't be reported on by the mainstream media.

This is not in the mainstream media either Columbia's Sacrifice
And it is bullcrap. I already found the flaw. Will you be able to find it?

The fact that something is not in mainstream media does not mean it is reliable.

[schola]

Originally Posted by ar81

This is not in the mainstream media either Columbia's Sacrifice
And it is bullcrap. I already found the flaw. Will you be able to find it?

No please enlighten me to the flaw in the data I posted.

[Brutha]

I am not saying that we should not develop new technologies; thats not my argument. My argument is that we should lobby China hard. Brutha said himself that he disagrees with this. He specifically said that "Its always the other party that has to change isn't it"... Thats a clever way to say "You need to change, don't worry about China we have a lower bar set for them." But why is the bar set lower?

I don't really see that the US has the power to set the bar for China, especially if they don't pledge to reduce emissions on those global talks about the climate where both the US and China take part.
You should also keep in mind that a lot of Chinese are nationalists that don't like it when other countires want to meddle in their affairs and might be against your the thing that you are lobbying lobbying simply because you are doing your lobbying.
That sentiment gets even stronger when you don't cut emissions yourself but try to get others to cut them.

If you are like most Germans you belive that you have the higher moral ground when it comes to the environment.

I would be fine with the same relative cuts in the US than the ones we do in Germany.

I am not saying that we should not develop new technologies; thats not my argument. My argument is that we should lobby China hard.

You also said that you don't want more strict regulations in California.
More strict regulations and higher energy prices would increase the incentives of businesses to develop new technologies.
Even if you are for lobbying China, you will be more effective on that road if you cut emissions in the US because it gives you more political legitimation in those lobbying attempts and you are less likely to be seen as making unfair demands.
I don't think that it's in the cards to force China to get lower emissions, so it's important to be seen as making resonable demands. The best things would be to convince the Chinas leaders that it's in their best interest to cut pollution.
If they would see it similarly to the overpopulation problem that could create real change.
I don't really see hard lobbying getting us there.

[Still Growing]

Every product coming into the us has its own cut rate. This can be 0% or even 20% based upon various competitive factors. One idea would be to give a higher duty for the worst offending industries for example.

You say that the us emissions are lax. I think they are super strict compared to china. Our catalytic converters are mandatory and strict.

As for CA they have made some industries more regulated than Germany. In my industry I visit factories in Germany that would not be allowed in CA

I know you'll find this hard to believe based upon what you read about the US

[Brutha]

As for CA they have made some industries more regulated than Germany. In my industry I visit factories in Germany that would not be allowed in CA

What kind of regulations are you talking about exactly?

You say that the us emissions are lax. I think they are super strict compared to china. Our catalytic converters are mandatory and strict.

In the context of climate change there a number for the carbon emissions that a country produces. That number is a lot higher per person in the US than it is in China.

One idea would be to give a higher duty for the worst offending industries for example.

I don't have something against increasing tariffs for products that need high emissions to get produced.
I however don't think that is political doable to set them high enough to have a strong impact.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by schola

No please enlighten me to the flaw in the data I posted.

I have seen blogs that say that Earth is cooling because there was a snow in Iraq, so Iraq seem to represent the world. And on top of that I haven't seen the ice, no pictures. It does not even worth to spend your time refuting that.

I have seen lots of irrational connections made by bloggers.
That makes blogs a very unreliable source when it is about serious journalism.
It is far less reliable than serious scientific research.
It does not inspire mainstream media to publish an opposing view.

On a side note, in the case of Columbia Sacrifice conspiracy, it shows information on hypersonic flight, but it has a flaw. The author of the theory failed to understand how S-Turns are performed by space shuttle and why aerodynamics principles shows that a high angle of attack of 90 degrees while flying sideways is impossible to achieve. It is a minor detail that causes the whole conspiracy theory to crash. This is the reason why NASA or any serious scientist or expert in aeronautics do not even bother to refute this semi-blog theory.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by schola

No please enlighten me to the flaw in the data I posted.

The flaw is a simple one, and it's the same one that everyone who makes the "the earth is actually cooling because it was cold yesterday" argument makes. 12 months is not enough data to create accurate results. It's the same reason most social experiments must have a minimum of 150 participants, because below 150, there isn't enough data to create accurate results.

Anyone will readily admit that the earth has been cold at points in the last decade or whatever time scale you want to use, and somewhere in the world, some records for coldest whatever were probably even broken, but the overall trend has been warming, and will, predictably, continue to be warming.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Stu

Anyone will readily admit that the earth has been cold at points in the last decade or whatever time scale you want to use, and somewhere in the world, some records for coldest whatever were probably even broken, but the overall trend has been warming, and will, predictably, continue to be warming.

No it hasn't warmed in the last 10 years. There is nothing predictable about what is happening with the climate, because temperatures have been flat if not cooler since 1998, the hottest year on record.


3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade « Watts Up With That?


You want to know by far the biggest deciding factor in the Earth's climate? I'll give you a hint, it weighs about two billion billion billion tons and has its own nuclear reactor. It's the Sun.

The Sun by far outweighs and outstrips any effects humans could possibly have on Earth's climate. The Sun is ignored by global warming proponents; at great peril: The current cool period this past year has correlated with a shutdown in the sunspot cycle on the sun. It could start back up at any time, but some experts are starting to wonder.

The last time the sunspot cycle shutdown for a prolonged period, it resulted in the Maunder Minium (Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) This resulted in drastic cooling in Earth's climate known as the Little Ice Age.

If the new sunspot cycle doesn't start up soon, we could be in for Global Cooling, not warming.

What Global Warming?

[schola]

Originally Posted by ar81

I have seen blogs that say that Earth is cooling because there was a snow in Iraq, so Iraq seem to represent the world. And on top of that I haven't seen the ice, no pictures. It does not even worth to spend your time refuting that.

You can find the same graphs and data on any number of sites. I gave you the link to that blog because the author presented the graphs in a very neat and concise manner.

If you want to dispute the data, you should tell me how the data from the University of Alabama, HadCRUT, and RSS are all flawed.

[Brutha]

The current cool period this past year has correlated with a shutdown in the sunspot cycle on the sun.

If it would be that easy to predicte weather by sun spot that there is a clear correletan in a timeframe of single years it should be easy to get via regression analysis a strong case for the sun spot thesis.
The problem however is that short timeframes are dominated by "noise".
If a blogger uses noise as basis for an argument it shows that he doesn't understand the issue.
As a lay person it is very hard to evaluate such blog posts. Climate science isn't easy.

In addition the claim of climate change doesn't only focus on rising temperaturs but also on rising derivations.

[Still Growing]

scholar it seems to me that any data you present will be deemed flawed if it doesnt congrue with some peoples agenda.