Global warming is a serious issue, we are facing the reality that the poles are melting, species are facing extinction, more powerful storms are possible, drought, famine with billions of dollars in cost expected. It can be helped though, we can stop it, we just need to reduce our CO2 by 30% in 25 years. The non-profit intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) has determined that that we must act now to stop it before it reaches the tipping point.
It shouldn’t be too hard either the CO2 level has reached 380 parts per million from 300 parts per million that the earth intended. If we stop producing CO2 we can do it. After all CO2 is only 0.038 percent of the atpmosphere and we have only caused it to rise by 80 parts per million or 0.008% change in atmospheric concentration, how hard can it be.
CO2 is a weak global warming gas, so you might ask how can a concentration change of 0.00008 in 1 or 0.008percent increase in the atmospheric concentration can heat the planet. It works because the CO2 creates an increased formation of moisture in the atmosphere as Clouds. And moisture IS a strong global warming gas an estimated 25 times stronger than CO2. This water vapor is clearly the driver but its presence in the atmosphere is increased because of the 0.00008 to 1 increase in CO2.
Scientists have modeled this in computers, they don’t have any way to measure how much water vapor is created due to CO2 directly. However, by adjusting the parameters according to certain assumptions they can show a global increase in temperature of as much as 6 degrees C. What is worse is with more complex assumptions we may be reaching the tipping point to where the climate change cannot be stopped. If we don’t lower the CO2 to a man made contribution of 0.00006 to 1, we are in for trouble.
By government regulation or cap and trade systems we can decrease our output of CO2. The intergovernmental panel on climate change has determined that the money from increasing taxation will be used by the world governments to invest in the implementation of alternative energy, educating the public, conservation and through this massive effort we can stop this disaster before it happens. The increased taxation and limitation on use of oil will not hurt our economy it will help it by creating new jobs and new investment opportunities. The increased taxation on oil will reduce our usage and help us to switch to a “sustainable” energy like biofuel, wind or solar.
The scientists have been called into question in the past but today, they have reached a consensus. Man is heating the earth. Sure there are still some deniers but they don’t work for the unbiased government agencies they usually work for big oil so naturally they are biased and cannot be trusted.
What is needed is more investment in unbiased government research, government regulation must be expanded, tax incentives for energy efficient products, government investment in the development of new technology must be expanded, more money is needed for all governments to work together to educate and increase the public awareness of global warming and the need for conservation.
The world must join us now at this critical juncture, the UN knows what to do.
Do you see any problem with this argument? Are the government scientists to be trusted?
Common sense for common goals.
the Air Vent 
“Are the government scientists to be trusted?”
Not as far as you can throw them.
I believe that is the right answer.
i think you are right on all counts.what is missing is a viable,effective,easy solution.UN,Governments,Buisness houses,Tycoons etc are all populist,self serving and too busy to be really bothered about global warming etc.What is needed is a way to filter out the CO2.6 BILLION PEOPLE.2/3 EITHER TOO OLD OR TOO YOUNG.2 BILLION WORK FORCE PLANTS 1,REPEAT,1 TREE EVERY DAY FOR 1,REPEAT,1 YEAR.YOU HAVE 730 BILLION TREES.CAN WE DO IT? I HAVE STARTED…..WHEN WILL YOU?
“CO2 is a weak global warming gas, so you might ask how can a concentration change of 0.00008 in 1 or 0.008percent increase in the atmospheric concentration can heat the planet.”
Good question.
Another good question:
A rattlesnake only delivers a small amount of poison to the bloodstream. How then can a rattlesnake kill a man?
Comparing plant fertilizer to a potent neurotoxin seems a little over the top don’t you think?
The AGW guys would have us believe that adjusting our CO2 level (if we could)down to 350 or 360 ppm were ok but at 380 we’re past the tipping point. This corresponds to an acceptable concentration increase of 0.00006 and an unacceptable increase of 0.00008. Perhaps, how do you know when you’re being bullcrapped should be the question?
As I am quickly learning from study of this issue, the question is not about the science or whether or not the science is correct. The science is full of both good and bad studies.
The real question is; why do governments want us to believe in this so badly? For that answer like so many others we need to FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Hello Jeff,
“Comparing plant fertilizer to a potent neurotoxin seems a little over the top don’t you think?”
Not in the least … except for those who are so unfamiliar with science that they are willing to elect a Christian fundamentalist young earth creationist global warming denier president.
The point which you were making … incorrectly, by the way, but this is expected from a person such as yourself … was that carbon dioxide is a trivial component of the atmosphere and that humankind’s contribution is therefore inconsequential. If this is the Republican viewpoint it is contrary to science but the conservatives have a long-running war against science and therefore continue to live in the 19th century rather than deal with reality.
The Arctic ice is melting. Perhaps the conservatives will recognize the existence of a problem when the Arctic is ice-free. Conservatives are very much like the children playing with the rattlesnake in this regard. The child discovers that the rattlesnake is dangerous only when the rattlesnake bites the child. Conservatives won’t recognize the threat of climate change until something really horrendous happens.
“The AGW guys would have us believe that adjusting our CO2 level (if we could)down to 350 or 360 ppm were ok but at 380 we’re past the tipping point. This corresponds to an acceptable concentration increase of 0.00006 and an unacceptable increase of 0.00008. Perhaps, how do you know when you’re being bullcrapped should be the question?”
I am trying very hard to make sense of the above argument but cannot. You are going to need to clarify your argument so that I might respond.
“As I am quickly learning from study of this issue, the question is not about the science or whether or not the science is correct. The science is full of both good and bad studies.”
Huh? Conservatives aren’t equipped to handle science. You must have spent way too much time reading the Bible with the creationists. If you have an argument to make, make it … otherwise the above is senseless babble.
“The real question is; why do governments want us to believe in this so badly? For that answer like so many others we need to FOLLOW THE MONEY.”
Such a silly thing to say. Do you imagine that there are no financial incentives for polluters to deny the existence of a Global Warming threat? Follow the money.
Governments around the world (nearly all of them, by the way, except for the creationist lame-duck George W. Bush administration) are concerned about this issue because it could, directly or indirectly, kill millions of humans. John McCain, but not the creationist nobody-in-a-dress, recognizes the existence of a Global Warming problem, too.
So 3 out of 4 candidates in the presidential election acknowledge the existence of a Global Warming. The only denier is the Christian fundamentalist nobody who happens to have a husband employed by the oil industry.
I wouldn’t mind discussing your disagreements point by point but you’re kind of all over the place here. I enjoy discussion so here is my reply–
Dave, you actually made my point for me. In between your assertions about my religious beliefs, lack of science and the rest you pointed out that Governments around the world are concerned about this issue. This is actually the primary theme in my blog.
The statement about “because it could, directly or indirectly, kill millions of humans.” Is where you are missing the point. The correct answer is in the details.
Look at this link for instance.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/climate-change-a-manufactured-consensus-follow-the-money-baby/
If you like more scientific analysis you can go here
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/anthropogenic-global-waming-story-1-ipcc/
or if you like a good rant you can go here
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/environmentalist-catastrophy/
After all, we’re a full service blog. 🙂
Your assumptions about my political and religious beliefs are false.
Hello Jeff,
You come across as a scientifically illiterate Christian fundamentalist Bible-thumper. Perhaps I am mistaken. Do you believe in evolution, Jeff?
You know that Sarah Palin nobody-in-a-skirt campaigning for Vice President. She’s an ignorant fundamentalist Bible-thumper who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Do you agree with her or are your objections to Global Warming more in tune with the lies spread by the oil industry as opposed to the lies spread by fundamentalism?
I’d really like to know. I looked over those three pages which you mentioned and cannot help but notice that your are accusing the IPCC of engaging in a massive (global) conspiracy against you (or, at least, against the mobidly obese SUV driving idiots of America). You must be some sort of scientifically illiterate nutcase.
Creationists claim that the evolutionists are engaged in a global consiracy against creationism. Ever since Darwin, of course, science has mysteriously spurned the myths of the Bible. How can science reject the Bible and fundamentalist except by means of an evil conspiracy?
Have you considered the possibility that nations throughout the world are concerned about this issue because it is, in reality, a threat to civilization’s survival?
The IPCC is not a conspiracy, it is a flawed self feeding structure which has a strong political agenda. It must find man made global warming or it will cease to exist. Many of the scientists within have criticized the organization, you should read their own peer review at the link below. Pay attention to the red color remarks by the scientists reviewing the latest paper.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/anthropogenic-global-waming-story-2-ipcc-and-peer-review/
I gave all the references and links, if you don’t trust me.
I do believe in evolution and don’t care to discuss it here.
For the rest who have seen Dave Trolling my site this is off the front page of his website.
May the Day Come When All the People of the World Choose to Live in Peace with God, Nature and Humankind.
Until That day Comes I Choose to Live at Peace with All and Refuse to Hate Anyone.
Does that sound like the same guy that wrote the posts above?
Hello Jeff,
“The IPCC is not a conspiracy, it is a flawed self feeding structure which has a strong political agenda. It must find man made global warming or it will cease to exist. Many of the scientists within have criticized the organization, you should read their own peer review at the link below. Pay attention to the red color remarks by the scientists reviewing the latest paper.”
This is absurd, Jeff. The scientists involved in the IPCC — thousands of them — already have secured tenure and/or a career in their field of interest. There is no compulsion whatsoever for these people to imagine Global Warming into existence merely for the sake of their job or for some other cause … you know, a conspiracy against the Bible-thumping SUV-driving morbidly-obese citizens of the United States.
I don’t imagine that you are a climatologist nor are you a scientist. Do you examine all scientific concepts with a similar level of skepticism? In other words: Do you believe in evolution?
Sarah Palin doesn’t. Sarah Palin doesn’t believe that the Earth is over 6,000 years old. You disagree with her about these matters, right? You must because you do believe in evolution. Presumably you also believe that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Yet you reject Global Warming. I wonder what could motivate your rejection of Global Warming? Perhaps you should explain how you have reached this conclusion. I’d love to hear it, too. What motivates you to engage in this crusade against the IPCC?
You ask: “Does that sound like the same guy that wrote the posts above?”
It is, of course, the same person. I’m not a fundamentalist, though, and was not a fundamentalist when I wrote those words. These fundamentalists are bad for Christianity. Including the beloved beauty queen Sarah Palin.
I have very little sympathy for Christians who act as opponents of science either for religious or economic reasons. What is it about Global Warming which offends you so very much?
Lurker here . . .
David, you are all over the map in your comments. You accuse Jeff with ad hominems, rants about politics, religion, evolution, anything but the topic of this blog. Fortunately, your attempt to discredit with mudslinging has succeeded; unfortunately, it is you who has been discredited, not Jeff.
Is the climate really changing? Every day we see more and more speculation, more and more posts and blogs and data supporting one side or the other. No wonder so many people are confused; no wonder so many of our governments are standing by in the face of a crisis. It’s become a political issue; a moral stance, in a way, as is clear from the replies to this blog.
It is impossible for humans to agree on anything. But the ratio of scientists who doubt the reality of climate change to those who believe it is an urgent problem is about 1:500; I know that this won’t be taken seriously because I don’t have a link with me to back it up, but please search it.
I say, what is illogical about believing the people who have spent their lives studying this??? Do you really claim to have discovered, in all your intelligence, something that thousands have missed?? This isn’t an insult; I’m just saying perhaps you should talk to someone who is working full time to bring accurate data to the public. Is it their fault that those who publish their data distort it to bring greater urgency to the message??
Finally, climate change is a very difficult thing to believe in. As I write this, natural gas is being burned to heat my house; every day I take a bus that uses fossil fuels; it really doesn’t make a difference honestly whether you believe in it or not, you won’t act any differently. It’s like religion, since that’s already a topic in this discussion; there are millions of professed religious believers, but do they give all their possessions to those in need? Do they dedicate their lives to helping others?? Our entire lifestyle is based on fossil fuels, a non-renewable resource; yet the action to find a solution isn’t nearly as prominent as you might expect. In the end, it’s not even about the climate; it’s our societal consciousness and whether our love of comfort has overtaken our survival instincts, whether the long term will win over the short term. It really doesn’t matter what you choose; it’s what society chooses.
And by the way:
“CO2 is a weak global warming gas, so you might ask how can a concentration change of 0.00008 in 1 or 0.008percent increase in the atmospheric concentration can heat the planet. It works because the CO2 creates an increased formation of moisture in the atmosphere as Clouds. And moisture IS a strong global warming gas an estimated 25 times stronger than CO2. This water vapor is clearly the driver but its presence in the atmosphere is increased because of the 0.00008 to 1 increase in CO2.”
This is really inaccurate. Have you ever heard of long-wave and short-wave radiation?? And 0.03 to 0.038 is a huge percentage increase; considering that the 0.03 is a lot of what keeps our planet habitable, it will make a difference. Go back to grade 10 physics….you learn all about this stuff :D. If you are trying to disprove scientists using common logic and reason, you have to be factual; you are either inventing your own system of proving things or working within the scientific system.
Julia,
Huh? Look at some of my more recent work if you want to see what AGW “science” is about. Your 1 in 500 number is factually incorrect.
Also, you’ll find that I never state that global warming is false on my blog.
FYI:I have discovered published, patented and implemented technologies which have advanced sciences. Perhaps someday even this science. You will find quite a bit of original work on the math behind the hockey sticks here.
Look deeper at the numbers if you have the skill and really want to opine like this. The IPCC has distorted this science through some unique mechanisms and you are making some mistakes.
My understanding is that CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas; the gas we really need to worry about is methane, whose effects are not weak. Methane is incorporated in the permafrost around the Arctic circle which is now starting to melt. There is evidence for catastrophic release of methane from methane ice melting on the floor of the Barents Sea in the past. If the release of CO2 as a result of the world’s increased use of fossil fuel over the past century and a half interacting with a rise in temperature following the “Little Ice Age” of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and a resultant increase in water vapour from warmer oceans is enough to start a significant melting of methane ice, then we could be in for some dramatic changes in weather. Weather is a chaotic system, in mathematical terms. It would seem prudent to reduce fossil fuel use for many reasons especially in the coming economic downturn/recession. Self sufficiency in fuel, using renewables, would be a sound strategic move.
Jeannie,
I want to answer your comment, I hope you come back because you are making a bunch of assumptions which parallel what the government is telling you to believe.
CO2 is weak for sure, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t cause global warming. The tipping point mechanisms are a scare tactic which have no basis whatsoever in science, although scientists do say them.
You say “Weather is a chaotic system, in mathematical terms.” this is also somehting you are supposed to believe. Climate is non-chaotic, systematic and has strong feedback mechanisms which keep it stable. It may sound like dogma to you but the fact is that climate does have mechanisms which keep it stable or else it wouldn’t be at the point it is. The earth is not delicate, an appropriate analogy of climate is a round boulder which isn’t found on the sides of steep hills.
“It would seem prudent to reduce fossil fuel use for many reasons especially in the coming economic downturn/recession. ” Again, this is the opposite of what we must do. Cutting fuel usage through regulation will kill what’s left of our economy, it is a dangerous statement you made here and poorly understood by the general public. Ask yourself, is increased cost an option which will help an economy. Ask yourself again, if an economy is bad who will pay for research into new greener technologies.
“Self sufficiency in fuel, using renewables, would be a sound strategic move.” Self sufficiency in renewables is a false hope at this point. Down the road it may be possible but Solar power costs 4 times gas, wind is ok but is intermittent so we need storage to prevent electrical grid overload, biofuels are a hoax with massive cost and would require farming land the size of the entire US for a partial solution, nuclear works for half our needs but people won’t allow the new technologies to be used.
That is why engineers like me don’t believe in the solutions being proposed. Please study more, you have come to the wrong conclusions and your conclusions are actually dangerous.
Just got through with an Iowan 4th of July that didn’t get above 70 degrees. Last time I can recall that was in the 60’s. Just got through with a number of winters that were in the colder percentile; same with the springs and falls.
Oh, btw, that estimated 6 degrees C rise is an average is it not? It’s not a constant for any given location? And did the UN tell us whether it will be warming from the bottom of the thermometer or the top? (It can go from
-50 to -44 and have the same resulting “rise” in a “global average” but let’s not call that “global warming”.