It is the pisshole compared to say watervapor. But it is the principal element that we can control.

I can't change Washington, but I can vote. Little stroke fell mighty oaks, etc etc. It's the biggest part of what I can directly influence. Saying my part doesn't count because of --------, is lazy at best.

BigV...you may be right as far as some scientists go, but not all, and that was the general gist of my post. I have good sources for my information. In fact, I'm about to marry one in a week or so.

Bruce - show me wave after wave of research that support the 'no global warming' theory. Anyone can take pot shots at peer reviewed research. That is what you have done - take pot shots at details - to prove research does not exist. Others even speculated about volcanoes - without numbers - as if that was proof from a peer reviewed science paper. Show me the wave after wave of research. These waves keep coming to the same conclusions - global warming does exist and it is related to man's activities.

Even whole issues from major and responsible publications provide wave after wave of peer reviewed papers on numerous aspects of global warming. Instead - and this is the embarrassing part - you would agree with a well renown and honest scientist - George Jr? George Jr has an advantage. God is his peer reviewer.

It is a widely accepted fact because the evidence is so overwhelming. Global warming is a man made phenomena. Serious remaining questions are quantitative analysis. IOW 'how fast' and 'how destructive'. These quantitative questions are what responsible scientists are now discussing. This is where debate lies.

From ABC News:

That's it. I'm moving to Mars. Who's with me?

Where's the evidence? Earth has been warmer long time before man produced these current CO2 levels. There has been no reference to the influence of sun radiation. How can anyone neglect that phenomen?

CFC were responsible for the ozon hole. But CFC is 4-5 times heavier than air, how can they reach the stratosphere?

Sure, after the terraforming we'll be in charge of the climate. :)

No, Global warming has been going on long before humans were a significant factor.
Yes, how fast and how much, but also what part does human activity play? Are we driving the car or is it just a kiddie ride with a make believe steering wheel?
This is bad. The mud that results from melting the tundra permafrost is referred to as "gumbo" by the road construction crews. It's a gooey muck that will swallow vehicles, even cat-tracked ones, properties caused by the high proportion of organic material.
That said, this is a symptom, a result, of Global warming and not proof we caused or can prevent it.
There is two different ozone areas. The ozone that's in the "ozone layer", at the top of our atmosphere, is made by ultraviolet light and oxygen.... entirely natural. It protects us from ultraviolet rays from the Sun by blocking part of the A & B rays and virtually all the C rays.

The ozone associated with smog is also naturally produced by mother nature as a means of trying to clean up the hydrocarbons, (CO² CO, and SO²) that we're spewing. The media has painted ozone as the bad guy but actually it's the good guy. It's just more convenient, to use as a measure of how much crap is in the air, but not the real culprit.


You know, I'm really becoming a skeptical old fart. I'm becoming less trusting and more wary of the media getting it right.
They usually report the facts they're given, OK, but when they add the what does it mean part, or how does it fit the big picture part, they seem to be clueless in many cases. Either clueless or more concerned with ratings/sales than accuracy. :eyebrow:

You can also run a more fuel efficient car or, god forbid, use public transport.

Buy local, insist on less packaging and check the air miles on the food you're buying. Why buy apples or meat that's been flown half way around the world when it can just as easily be grown locally?

Switch energy suppliers to a company that sources from renewables.

Stick it to the man, buy what you want to buy not what they want you to buy.

The Sun is now off the hook...

Fine - let's see some facts, citations, dates, trends, and numbers. Again you are taking pot shots at details which is easy to do when you ignore the other details. This is but again, a classic Rush Limbaugh propaganda technique.

Again rash and blanket statements to twist and distort facts. There was no disagreement concerning the ozone layer - at least where science is discussed. CFCs were causing damage. Once we eliminated the politicians, then ozone depletion is a fact. Nobody painted anything except where English majors use word games to distort facts.

Ozone depletion was a serious problem - made worse because so many knew otherwise using Rush Limbaugh logic. A problem that may take 50 years to repair. Reasons for ozone layer depletion are being eliminated. The problem only 'magically disappeared' where people don't read science. We are monitoring the ozone hole. Growth of its depletion and slow repair so far follows model predictions. Therefore ozone depletion is no longer heard of by English majors who instead always hear about mythical Al Qaeda attacks and other hype.

Meanwhile, where is any serious research that says global warming is not a problem? Why do we have wave after wave of research that says global warming is a problem due to man's contribution? Instead of taking pot shots at the research (as only a nay sayer would), where is all this research that says global warming does not exist? Unfortunately, claims posted here denying global warming again use same Rush Limbaugh logic. No facts. Just pot shot speculations and accusations of science that said otherwise. That is classic Rush Limbaugh reasoning. Where is your research that says global warming does not exist? Why so much silence?

My god. Scientific American had a whole issue devoted to the science. Wave after wave of research – and where is research that says global otherwise – the damning silence? Rather than learn the science, some instead accuse Scientific American of a political agenda. Again, Rush Limbaugh logic. Accusation works just fine when preaching to the naïve. Meanwhile, mankind is contributing to a worsening global warming problem. So our ‘god advised’ scientist - George Jr - acknowledges the problem, declares we cannot do anything about the problem, and says we must give up – not even try to fix the problem. Classic anti-American. Instead George Jr stifles innovation with corporate welfare and goes on military crusades to secure our oil. Well that is the attitude I would expect from those who deny, deny, deny - and don't even provide basic research - complete with science proved by pot shots.

xoxoxoBruce, if there were ever a doubter, it is me. How many hear thought Saddam had WMDs. Most everyone except one who not only denied but also posted reasons after resons why that popular myth (also created by the mental midget president) was a lie. Do as I did. If you doubt, then you have reams – wave after wave – of research. Why so much silence? Why use same logic used to deny ozone depletion?

Bruce, you are a smart guy, and normally very wise. When you cite city car parks as a problem, even though you are saying it with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek (I suspect), you have inadvertently hit on part of the truth.

The issue of Global Warming is not a simple one. There are many factors at play, all interacting, and more research comes in almost every day. I am associated with a research group which uses research on climate change on a day to day basis. As TW points out, the scientific evidence is compelling, and it is *huge*. Of course there are heated debates going on, but that is part of the scientific process. What is becoming more and more evident, is that you cannot pin *one* cause on the problem. Climate change is an extremely complex thing. If you believe that humans did not cause the current warming phase, you must at least concede that we have increased the effect. We are witnessing changes that are occurring at a faster rate than ever before. We know this from various studies, especially those using ice core samples. Arguing against the human impact, ignores the mountain of scientific evidence.

Back off, Sucka! :p
Go back and reread what I wrote. The only thing I said about the ozone layer was it's way up there. [add edit] I also briefly explained it's benefit.
Everyone is well aware of the problem with chlorinated fluorocarbons and how that was addressed....it appears successfully.

Then I was describing the ozone that you hear about on the news all the time, that's associated with smog. You know, smog, ground level, Los Angeles, polution....nothing to do with the ozone layer.

Now, as for warming, I think the fact that the glaciers are no longer in PA is a pretty good indication. The glaciers have advanced and retreated for a long time.

bluesdave, I asked how much is the CO2 we produce, contributing to the speed of the increase, and will it push the increase higher than it would in a normal cycle?
I realize there's a shitload of stuff we don't know about how mother nature works. I also realize people are having an impact in a million different ways from cutting down trees to burning oil/coal to raising millions of methane producing cattle. The problem is figuring out what does how much and is their a better way. A simple cost/benefit relationship.

Say for instance, they decide that if everyone lives in a cave with no electricity or central heat, the average temperature will go to X instead of X+1, and it will go back down a year sooner. Not worth it

Now same scenario, but X+1 would cause 90% of the Earth to be unable to produce food for 10 years. Solient Green makes a big difference, no?

Of course by the time we get most of it figured out, it'll be over, but I think we should concentrate on what produces the most bang for the buck/effort/sacrifice.
Probably not mowing lawns and Golf courses would be a help, but there are consequences that people would object to, without knowing how much it would help the overall effort. Reasonable people don't want feel good programs that are of no real benefit.

Bruce, I had just written a lengthy reply, but hit some key on my keyboard and lost the whole damn thing, and I'm not feeling inclined to rewrite it all. It's not just CO2. You have to look at all the greenhouse gasses. Methane is approx 30 times more effective as a greenhouse gas, than CO2. The problem is that you get a snowballing effect - small changes accumulate, and lead to large scale change. Throw in a sprinkling of chaos theory, and you have the situation we are in now. The most serious concern at the moment (as highlighted by others in this thread), is methane. It's not just the methane being released from permafrost that is the problem - large quantities are being released from deep ocean reservoirs. This is many times the amount of methane being produced by man's activities, but there is little doubt now that man has impacted this cycle. A small amount of warming has produced a much greater than anticipated effect. That is the current problem.

We have to start dealing with a changed climate, and spend less time arguing about what caused it (and I am not saying that the latter is not important).

OK, take a look at the original post.... Kyoto Warming
CO2 = 72%
Methane = 7%
Nitrous Oxide = 19%

Plus water vapor = a lot

When you add water vapor......
CO2 ~Anthropogenic(human)= 3.2% = > 0.1% of total problem

CO2 ~American = 23% of 3.2% = 0.74% = > 0.023% of total problem

With the increase in methane, the CO2 becomes an even smaller part of the problem......and by extension, the solution.
So with methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor pretty much out of our hands, and the one thing we can do something about being less than 0.1%, and shrinking, of the problem. How in hell are we going to save the World?

This is what I've been asking throughout this thread. How much are we actually affecting Global warming?
Not in the golden age of pollution when you never saw the sun in Pittsburgh, or the post WWII boom when everything we did was dirty, but now...2006. How much are we causing natural cycle of Global warming, that started over 10,000 years ago, to accelerate, today?
I ask this because we can't do any more good, than we are doing harm. :smack: