Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Sam48]

Please do... that the Earth's climate has been radically different in the past does not mean that anything that humanity can possibly do is insignificant in comparison.

The simple answer to that would be; We don't know (Assuming you leave out a massive nuclear war), but I'll go into a bit of detail anyway.

So, here are the numbers:

1. Humans produce 3% of all Co2. Nature produces the other 97%.

2. In the atmosphere, (If you round up) Co2 makes up 1% of all gases. Therefore, 0.03% is our own, and 0.97% is natural.

A quick google shows this is true as you get many of the same charts such as the one in this link- http://woody.typepad.com/files/greenhouse_gases_in_atmosphere.jpg

3. Now, if you believe that our Co2 contribution does in fact have a significant effect on our climate, you must then throw every other climate driver out the window, or in other words, assume they've stayed fairly constant. The reason you must believe they stay constant is because scientists have yet to figure out a way to properly distinguish our contribution from that of nearly every other contributing factor that plays into a change in climate. But of course, we know other factors aren't holding constant as they're constantly changing. In fact, they've always been changing. So to suddenly blame a completely natural event on Co2 alone is very ignorant. Now, of course, there is a very very small chance that the climate has in fact stayed fairly constant and Co2 has in fact changed the climate in some way, but the odds are hugely stacked against that idea.

 

[homeforsummer]

1. Humans produce 3% of all Co2. Nature produces the other 97%.

Are there figures for how much humankind absorbs?

 

[Sam48]

Are there figures for how much humankind absorbs?

I'd have to do some digging to find that out. However, nature absorbs quite a bit of both man made and human produced Co2 via carbon sink holes. The oceans are just one example of carbon sink holes.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd have to do some digging to find that out. However, nature absorbs quite a bit of both man made and human produced Co2 via carbon sink holes. The oceans are just one example of carbon sink holes.

I understand, though I was hinting that perhaps it's not as clear-cut as saying "humans only produce x amount of x greenhouse gas". On it's own that'd be fine, but humans also cause deforestation which removes a natural carbon sink (and as global temperatures increase, a certain amount of land becomes desertified already, so we're not helping).

There's also something misleading about the greenhouse effect percentages. Water vapour makes up the other roughly 97 percent that carbon and other gases doesn't, but then unlike carbon dioxide water vapour in the form of clouds also reflects an enormous amount of the sun's energy. I don't have figures but I'd expect that makes its contribution a lot less than the 97% figure suggests.

 

[Famine]

Just for context, I still have little to no interest in global warming and do not ascribe to any notions of the drivers behind it. But there are some inaccuracies here:

2. In the atmosphere, (If you round up) Co2 makes up 1% of all gases. Therefore, 0.03% is our own, and 0.97% is natural.

You'd need to round up quite hard. CO2 is less than a half of a tenth of a percent - two orders of magnitude lower than you say - of gases in the atmosphere, at a little under 0.04%.

You're also confusing production with population. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't increase each year because it's being produced (3% by us, 97% by nature) and humanity isn't responsible for 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is because it also gets absorbed - by the sea primarily (hey, good news - increase in sea levels = increase in carbon dioxide absorption!) and the plankton in the sea, but also by other things like concrete (which absorbs CO2 as it cures - one of the causes of the failure of the first biodome projects). Trees do it too, but they spit it out at night as they respire instead of photosynthesising.

The issue here is that the carbon cycle is quite complicated and, while you have a point that it's very difficult indeed to pin down the blame for any given molecule of carbon dioxide, you are at least as guilty of oversimplifying it as any pro-ACC source.

3. Now, if you believe that our Co2 contribution does in fact have a significant effect on our climate, you must then throw every other climate driver out the window, or in other words, assume they've stayed fairly constant.

Err... no you don't. For a "significant" effect, it can add to existing mechanisms.

Say you have a colander in a sink representing the atmosphere. Water (representing the carbon dioxide) drains from it by the holes in the bottom (representing carbon absorption) and is added to it by a stream of water (representing carbon emission) from a tap - or faucet. If the water is added at the same rate as it drains, the system remains in balance, but the water pressure varies through "natural" causes and may sometimes exceed the drain rate, allowing the colander to fill, or fall below it, allowing the colander to drain. This is a natural mechanism and varies. Now a human comes along and turns the tap to increase flow by 3%. The colander fills to overflowing (eventually), though the "natural" variation in water pressure may allow it to slightly drain at times. That's a "significant" effect, caused by human influence.

The reason you must believe they stay constant is because scientists have yet to figure out a way to properly distinguish our contribution from that of nearly every other contributing factor that plays into a change in climate. But of course, we know other factors aren't holding constant as they're constantly changing. In fact, they've always been changing. So to suddenly blame a completely natural event on Co2 alone is very ignorant.

If we're adding our 3% to this effect (sometimes more as the other contributing factors diminish, sometimes less as the other contributing factors increase), how can you entirely dismiss that we have any effect? Moreover, if it's our 3% that causes the colander to fill, how can you entirely dismiss that we have a significant effect?

carbon sink holes ... carbon sink holes.

A "sinkhole" is a hole in the ground caused by water flow and erosion. "Carbon sink" is the term you're looking for.

 

[Sam48]

You'd need to round up quite hard. CO2 is less than a half of a tenth of a percent - two orders of magnitude lower than you say - of gases in the atmosphere, at a little under 0.04%.

You're also confusing production with population. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't increase each year because it's being produced (3% by us, 97% by nature) and humanity isn't responsible for 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is because it also gets absorbed - by the sea primarily (hey, good news - increase in sea levels = increase in carbon dioxide absorption!) and the plankton in the sea, but also by other things like concrete (which absorbs CO2 as it cures - one of the causes of the failure of the first biodome projects). Trees do it too, but they spit it out at night as they respire instead of photosynthesising.

The issue here is that the carbon cycle is quite complicated and, while you have a point that it's very difficult indeed to pin down the blame for any given molecule of carbon dioxide, you are at least as guilty of oversimplifying it as any pro-ACC source.

I oversimplified for myself really, but thanks for the correction.

Err... no you don't. For a "significant" effect, it can add to existing mechanisms.

Say you have a colander in a sink representing the atmosphere. Water (representing the carbon dioxide) drains from it by the holes in the bottom (representing carbon absorption) and is added to it by a stream of water (representing carbon emission) from a tap - or faucet. If the water is added at the same rate as it drains, the system remains in balance, but the water pressure varies through "natural" causes and may sometimes exceed the drain rate, allowing the colander to fill, or fall below it, allowing the colander to drain. This is a natural mechanism and varies. Now a human comes along and turns the tap to increase flow by 3%. The colander fills to overflowing (eventually), though the "natural" variation in water pressure may allow it to slightly drain at times. That's a "significant" effect, caused by human influence.

If we're adding our 3% to this effect (sometimes more as the other contributing factors diminish, sometimes less as the other contributing factors increase), how can you entirely dismiss that we have any effect? Moreover, if it's our 3% that causes the colander to fill, how can you entirely dismiss that we have a significant effect?

I can nearly dismiss it because it isn't 3%. It's actually, well, I'm not sure really. It's Co2 plus every other gas we spew, most of which are more effective at driving a climate than Co2. Then add hundreds of natural processes such as the sun, our orbital tilt, cloud cover, and what have you. So when you increase the sink tap flow by 3%, what you're really doing is increasing one out of hundreds of possible factors up by 3%. And as I stated in my last post, this sacred 3% is not measurable in comparison to everything else that is also changing constantly. Then add to that the fact that we can't indirectly place any blame on Co2 for a change in climate (yet).

A "sinkhole" is a hole in the ground caused by water flow and erosion. "Carbon sink" is the term you're looking for.

Right then

 

[Famine]

I can nearly dismiss it because it isn't 3%. It's actually, well, I'm not sure really. It's Co2 plus every other gas we spew, most of which are more effective at driving a climate than Co2.

We weren't talking about the climate. We were talking about carbon dioxide:

1. Humans produce 3% of all Co2. Nature produces the other 97%.

So when you increase the sink tap flow by 3%, what you're really doing is increasing one out of hundreds of possible factors up by 3%.

We weren't talking about the climate. We were talking about carbon dioxide:

1. Humans produce 3% of all Co2. Nature produces the other 97%.

 

[Sam48]

We weren't talking about the climate. We were talking about carbon dioxide:

Well your question asked whether or not I was certain that our 3% of Co2 had any effect. By "effect", I assumed you meant on our climate. If that's not the case, what are you asking?

 

[Famine]

Well your question asked whether or not I was certain that our 3% of Co2 had any effect. By "effect", I assumed you meant on our climate. If that's not the case, what are you asking?

3. Now, if you believe that our Co2 contribution does in fact have a significant effect on our climate, you must then throw every other climate driver out the window, or in other words, assume they've stayed fairly constant. The reason you must believe they stay constant is because scientists have yet to figure out a way to properly distinguish our contribution from that of nearly every other contributing factor that plays into a change in climate. But of course, we know other factors aren't holding constant as they're constantly changing. In fact, they've always been changing. So to suddenly blame a completely natural event on Co2 alone is very ignorant. Now, of course, there is a very very small chance that the climate has in fact stayed fairly constant and Co2 has in fact changed the climate in some way, but the odds are hugely stacked against that idea.

I was refuting that. I mean, you posted it and I even quoted it before I refuted it...

 

[Sam48]

I was refuting that. I mean, you posted it and I even quoted it before I refuted it...

I understand your point, and yes, we do have an effect, but it's a significant effect (If even that) applied to an insignificant factor (Co2).

...but humans also cause deforestation which removes a natural carbon sink (and as global temperatures increase, a certain amount of land becomes desertified already, so we're not helping).

That's a bit far out.

There's also something misleading about the greenhouse effect percentages. Water vapour makes up the other roughly 97 percent that carbon and other gases doesn't, but then unlike carbon dioxide water vapour in the form of clouds also reflects an enormous amount of the sun's energy. I don't have figures but I'd expect that makes its contribution a lot less than the 97% figure suggests.

What do you mean by "a lot less than the 97%"?

 

[Touring Mars]

Very sure. Humans contribute very little (Which I can show you if you wish).

Please do... that the Earth's climate has been radically different in the past does not mean that anything that humanity can possibly do is insignificant in comparison.

The simple answer to that would be; We don't know

You cannot be 'very sure' and then say that 'we don't know'. As Famine says, this is every bit as bad as an environmentalist claiming that they know for certain exactly how the climate is changing. There are uncertainties associated with every process that we know about, and there are also processes that we probably don't even know about to add to that. But, this does not equate to being able to say that the net effect of all human activity has been totally benign. Far from it infact.

So to suddenly blame (a completely natural event) on Co2 alone is very ignorant.

To put the blame solely on CO2 would be quite wrong, but find me a single professional climate scientist who has ever done that. CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases are just a few of many influences on the climate. Ironically, CO2 levels are one indicator that is relatively easy to measure (both current and historic levels) as well as being one that can be attributed to 'non-natural' sources as well.

By quoting those (inaccurate) figures regarding CO2 levels in the atmosphere, you give me the impression that you simply believe that these small numbers somehow constitute proof that CO2 (or any other anthropogenic influence) must be benign. Yes, CO2 levels - relative to other gases - is very low. But what of it? CO2 levels have not strayed outside the range of 180-300 ppm for several hundreds of thousands of years. Yet, in just over a century or so, we've already reached 391 ppm. Furthermore, CO2 levels are projected to keep rising - even climate change skeptics have projected levels of 570 ppm by the end of this century (that is three times the historical low, and double the mean historical high). Others project far higher rises are expected, up to ~1000 ppm (or roughly four times the historical average) by the end of this century alone, and that CO2 levels will continue to rise beyond that.

The point is, 0.018-0.030% sound like very low numbers - 0.0091% is an even lower number (which is the excess CO2 currently around that cannot be adequately explained by natural events alone), but the question is, are these numbers significant? The short answer is a very likely yes - and not, as you have suggested, a definite no. It is the relative change in CO2 and other long-lived GHG's that is of concern, because of the potential for warming that increasing levels of these gases hold. Of course, other processes that we don't know a great deal about may act to mitigate the warming influence of these gases in ways we still don't fully understand - but this would still be an effect that has been precipitated by something that we have done - the cause may be manmade, but the effect will be 'natural'. The key question for me is, how can we be so sure that our influence of the climate does not exist, or is entirely benign? It would really help to have a firm answer to this before we quadruple the amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere...

 

[Sam48]

You cannot be 'very sure' and then say that 'we don't know'.

Now, of course, there is a very very small chance that the climate has in fact stayed fairly constant and Co2 has in fact changed the climate in some way, but the odds are hugely stacked against that idea.

To put the blame solely on CO2 would be quite wrong, but find me a single professional climate scientist who has ever done that.

They wouldn't state it quite like that. Instead of using words like "solely", they always use words such as "primarily", or "main" (Words that leave room for others, yet they never really tell you what they are).

It would really help to have a firm answer to this before we quadruple the amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere...

The issue with this is that it's just not practical. Co2 is just one of hundreds of factors that play into climate change (It's also not the only one we're effecting). And since there is no way to distinguish Co2's effect from that of all other factors, we can't even say Co2 has caused any warming at all.

The beauty of science is that it's always striving to be right and constantly correcting itself. The main issue, however, is that the science behind global warming doesn't. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical and ask questions. However, with global warming, it's quite the opposite. Anyone who denies global warming is compared to holocaust deniers, and flat earth believers. In science, if you think you already know what your looking for, you will find it, but that's not science at all.

 

[homeforsummer]

The main issue, however, is that the science behind global warming doesn't. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical and ask questions. However, with global warming, it's quite the opposite. Anyone who denies global warming is compared to holocaust deniers, and flat earth believers. In science, if you think you already know what your looking for, you will find it, but that's not science at all.

I disagree totally. First, science is being skeptical and asking questions, that's why we still don't know for sure whether man-made CO2 is contributing to global warming. Secondly, there are as many scientists who say AGM isn't real as those who do, so people who deny it are no more or less scorned than people who believe it.

 

[Sam48]

I disagree totally. First, science is being skeptical and asking questions, that's why we still don't know for sure whether man-made CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Not according to these folks: NOAA, IPCC, US GCRP.

"Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and
induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be
larger than those observed during the 20th century." The IPCC

"The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases." US GCRP

Secondly, there are as many scientists who say AGM isn't real as those who do, so people who deny it are no more or less scorned than people who believe it.

I'm not sure it's as half and half as you think, but you're right, there are scientists on the other side of this. However, who's making the decisions here? Yup, it's the one's who support the theory of AGM.

 

[homeforsummer]

Not according to these folks: NOAA, IPCC, US GCRP.

...who are just some of the groups involved. The scientific community is, overall, fairly skeptical which is why no consensus has yet been formed.

I'm not sure what you're implying anyway. It makes me wonder how many people would still dismiss AGM even if every one of the world's top scientists said it was occurring and could prove it.

I'm not sure it's as half and half as you think, but you're right, there are scientists on the other side of this. However, who's making the decisions here? Yup, it's the one's who support the theory of AGM.

If the powers that be truly supported the theory of AGM they'd be doing a lot more than they are right now. There's far too much political pressure for any government to make significant changes based on any AGM theory. As far as the U.S. goes its only a matter of circumstance that you have the policies you have. With a republican government it wouldn't really matter what pro-AGM scientists were saying. It didn't make Bush sign the Kyoto treaty. As far as I'm aware, Obama hasn't even signed it yet either.

 

[Sam48]

...who are just some of the groups involved. The scientific community is, overall, fairly skeptical which is why no consensus has yet been formed.

Can you list any major scientific organizations that consider themselves "skeptical", or undecided, regarding AGM? I've looked around, but find nothing, though I'd like to be wrong.

I'm not sure what you're implying anyway.

I'm implying that the scientists who believe in AGM want to apply what they consider to be an aid in order to prevent the worst case scenario that they predict (AKA cutting back massively on Co2 emissions). They are currently doing this through government (Although most AGM believers believe they aren't doing so very effectively) via the IPCC and NOAA. This leads to economic distress.

If the powers that be truly supported the theory of AGM they'd be doing a lot more than they are right now.

If the cost outweighs the potential benefit, then they do not implement. In all matters, the money comes first.

 

[homeforsummer]

Can you list any major scientific organizations that consider themselves "skeptical", or undecided, regarding AGM? I've looked around, but find nothing, though I'd like to be wrong.

I'll have a look around though to be fair, I was speaking in conjecture (though several top university scientists seem skeptical). Maybe I'm mistaking uneducated public opinion for scientific consensus.

I'm implying that the scientists who believe in AGM want to apply what they consider to be an aid in order to prevent the worst case scenario that they predict (AKA cutting back massively on Co2 emissions). They are currently doing this through government (Although most AGM believers believe they aren't doing so very effectively) via the IPCC and NOAA. This leads to economic distress.

If the cost outweighs the potential benefit, then they do not implement. In all matters, the money comes first.

Does not compute. If there is no financial benefit to be had, then it isn't done, right? Therefore none of the policies put in place so far can have led to economic distress.

The economy has far bigger things to worry about than bringing down industrial CO2 levels. If we use the car industry as a handy example again, cars are more efficient now than they ever were, car companies are more profitable now than they ever were and they're selling more cars now than they ever were (I've had so many "record high profits/sales" press releases over the past few months they've lost all meaning).

Tightening CO2 standards are making cars more affordable to run so they certainly aren't causing economic distress in that particular industry. Hell, those low-CO2 vehicles we like to call electric cars are helping sell more regular cars... The car industry seemingly has more emissions-based regulations than anything else, and its thriving.

 

[Dotini]

Can you list any major scientific organizations that consider themselves "skeptical", or undecided, regarding AGM? I've looked around, but find nothing, though I'd like to be wrong.

I am a member of The PhysicsForums.com, which is affiliated with The National Geographic Society and The Scientific American. They do not have a single forum or thread for climate change, or where it can even be mentioned. They are very strictly moderated such that any post discussing it anywhere, anytime, is deleted and the poster is given a severe infraction or banned.

I gather the reason for this is that it generates such heat that it drives the moderators mad trying to control the discussion to the high standards demanded of their forum members. I have noticed extremely subtle hints dropped in certain posts that indicate major skepticism of AGM.

I used to believe that a certain amount of global warming, maybe up to 80%, was caused by human activity. After several years study of the sun, magnetic fields, cosmic rays and clouds, I now believe it may be less than 20%. But it is impossible to be categorical because the evidence seems much less than totally persuasive.

FWIW,
Steve

 

[Sam48]

Does not compute. If there is no financial benefit to be had, then it isn't done, right?

Just because the people of a given country are struggling doesn't mean the government is. What leads to economic distress are things like carbon taxation or Co2 caps on production possibilities.

The economy has far bigger things to worry about than bringing down industrial CO2 levels. If we use the car industry as a handy example again, cars are more efficient now than they ever were, car companies are more profitable now than they ever were and they're selling more cars now than they ever were (I've had so many "record high profits/sales" press releases over the past few months they've lost all meaning).

Tightening CO2 standards are making cars more affordable to run so they certainly aren't causing economic distress in that particular industry. Hell, those low-CO2 vehicles we like to call electric cars are helping sell more regular cars... The car industry seemingly has more emissions-based regulations than anything else, and its thriving.

But would they be better off without such regulations? Probably, yes.

If emissions were not of anyone's concern, gas prices would be. So cars would still be very much efficient. Regulations limit the free market, but, as you pointed out, can sometimes have an opposite effect.

I am a member of The PhysicsForums.com, which is affiliated with The National Geographic Society and The Scientific American. They do not have a single forum or thread for climate change, or where it can even be mentioned. They are very strictly moderated such that any post discussing it anywhere, anytime, is deleted and the poster is given a severe infraction or banned.

Interesting, but the NGS is not associated with government. The Scientific America though, I'm not sure.

 

[homeforsummer]

Just because the people of a given country are struggling doesn't mean the government is. What leads to economic distress are things like carbon taxation or Co2 caps on production possibilities.

I've seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest either individuals, industry or government has been adversely affected by CO2 regulations.

But would they be better off without such regulations? Probably, yes.

Now that is conjecture.

If the regulations were that bad then the manufacturers wouldn't have all agreed to the 54.5 mpg by 2025 CAFE regs. Every single manufacturer has happily agreed to them.

Amusingly, it seems to be the car dealers themselves who've objected to those particular regs.

There are so many factors involved in making a fuel efficient car that also happen to make for a better car in general (aerodynamics, thermal efficiency, usability, quietness, low friction, light weight etc etc) that it's impossible to say with any certainty at all that makers would be "better off" if CO2 regs didn't exist.

If emissions were not of anyone's concern, gas prices would be. So cars would still be very much efficient.

Convenient then that fuel efficiency and CO2 output are directly linked then, right? Whether fuel or emissions is leading the way, a benefit in one will benefit the other directly.

 

[Dapper]

I've seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest either individuals, industry or government has been adversely affected by CO2 regulations.

I think there may be some relevant info in here-
http://www.wvcommerce.org/app_media/assets/publications/energy/PoweringAmericaFuture.pdf

 

[Sam48]

I've seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest either individuals, industry or government has been adversely affected by CO2 regulations.

Here's one example: http://www.investorsinsight.com/blo...cap-and-trade-bad-for-the-economy-amp-us.aspx

If the regulations were that bad then the manufacturers wouldn't have all agreed to the 54.5 mpg by 2025 CAFE regs. Every single manufacturer has happily agreed to them.

Amusingly, it seems to be the car dealers themselves who've objected to those particular regs.

There are so many factors involved in making a fuel efficient car that also happen to make for a better car in general (aerodynamics, thermal efficiency, usability, quietness, low friction, light weight etc etc) that it's impossible to say with any certainty at all that makers would be "better off" if CO2 regs didn't exist.

Yes, it is tough to say, but I think I see what you're getting at.

Convenient then that fuel efficiency and CO2 output are directly linked then, right? Whether fuel or emissions is leading the way, a benefit in one will benefit the other directly.

Indeed

 

[Vince_Fiero]

If we're adding our 3% to this effect (sometimes more as the other contributing factors diminish, sometimes less as the other contributing factors increase), how can you entirely dismiss that we have any effect?

I was thinking about chaos theory on all of this, will it be a minimal human contribution that does create a catastrophe?
And which human intervention would it be, the one that wants to make money at no-matter what cost or the one that wants to save the world, but does it all wrong?

 

[Touring Mars]

The issue with this is that it's just not practical. Co2 is just one of hundreds of factors that play into climate change (It's also not the only one we're effecting). And since there is no way to distinguish Co2's effect from that of all other factors, we can't even say Co2 has caused any warming at all.

The beauty of science is that it's always striving to be right and constantly correcting itself. The main issue, however, is that the science behind global warming doesn't. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical and ask questions. However, with global warming, it's quite the opposite. Anyone who denies global warming is compared to holocaust deniers, and flat earth believers. In science, if you think you already know what your looking for, you will find it, but that's not science at all.

I haven't met a single scientist who compares skepticism over AGW to holocaust denial - creationism perhaps, but not AGW. I have no problem with someone who can point to scientific evidence that supports their case against AGW, but frequently, criticism of climate science is not coming from this angle at all, but is based considerably more on conjecture. As a case in point, when it comes to understanding our influence over the climate, you seem convinced that it is not possible to delineate the human component from other drivers of climate. I would say that this is not mere skepticism of climate scientists and those who endorse their conclusions, but skepticism of science itself.

Discussions about who believes what, what we should do about it, and what the consequences of action (or inaction) may be, are, for me atleast, secondary to the main point. My main interest is in establishing what is actually happening, and keeping an open mind about that. There is no doubt that we have altered the state of the atmosphere and of the land, and there is evidence that this in turn has affected the state of the oceans (i.e. the efficiency of the oceans as carbon sinks). What remains in some doubt is just what effects (and how much of these effects) will transpire as a result of these changes we are known to have made. But, what you are saying is, because we cannot fully decouple our own influence from natural drivers of Earth's climate (such as solar activity), then our influence must be zero. However, there is a growing mass of evidence to contradict this opinion. We know for certain that we have changed some conditions that are known to affect climate, and it is very likely that the observed warming over the past century was not simply the result of natural variations alone - or atleast, it is nigh on impossible to explain the observed change without taking our contributions into consideration.

 

[homeforsummer]

Here's one example: http://www.investorsinsight.com/blo...cap-and-trade-bad-for-the-economy-amp-us.aspx

A pretty poor example. The article even says itself:

The bottom line is, it is all about intrusive government control of our lives, from what cars we can drive to how much energy we can use in our homes and businesses. It is not about carbon emissions or global warming (if it exists). It's about expanding government and indirectly raising our taxes.

Again, I refer back to your previous comment:

I'm implying that the scientists who believe in AGM want to apply what they consider to be an aid in order to prevent the worst case scenario that they predict (AKA cutting back massively on Co2 emissions). They are currently doing this through government (Although most AGM believers believe they aren't doing so very effectively) via the IPCC and NOAA. This leads to economic distress.

If the cost outweighs the potential benefit, then they do not implement. In all matters, the money comes first.

Cap-and-trade has basically nothing to do with global warming beyond it being a front for the restrictions. "The money comes first" - the government has clearly seen some benefit in it for themselves (and not just pro-AGM democrats but also anti-AGM republicans who voted on it too), otherwise it wouldn't have passed.

Either way, it's not really a good example of measures to cap global warming negatively affecting the population, as the bill is clearly not a measure to cap global warming.

The best example is still the auto industry, that by making its cars more efficient is also selling more of them and keeping buyer confidence high.

 

[Sam48]

Cap-and-trade has basically nothing to do with global warming beyond it being a front for the restrictions. "The money comes first" - the government has clearly seen some benefit in it for themselves (and not just pro-AGM democrats but also anti-AGM republicans who voted on it too), otherwise it wouldn't have passed.

Of course, but that's not how they sold it to the public and the companies effected by it.

Either way, it's not really a good example of measures to cap global warming negatively affecting the population, as the bill is clearly not a measure to cap global warming.

Not very substantially, no. But every little bit helps, right?

The best example is still the auto industry, that by making its cars more efficient is also selling more of them and keeping buyer confidence high.

I can concur there.

I haven't met a single scientist who compares skepticism over AGW to holocaust denial - creationism perhaps, but not AGW.

I didn't mean for it to sound as if scientists were stating such.

I have no problem with someone who can point to scientific evidence that supports their case against AGW, but frequently, criticism of climate science is not coming from this angle at all, but is based considerably more on conjecture. As a case in point, when it comes to understanding our influence over the climate, you seem convinced that it is not possible to delineate the human component from other drivers of climate. I would say that this is not mere skepticism of climate scientists and those who endorse their conclusions, but skepticism of science itself.

I am skeptical of the science itself. More importantly, however, we know for a fact that we can't distinguish given factors yet. There's really no other way to put it. That's the big issue I have because to make up for this lack of information they simply use models (Which we now know are wrong).

What remains in some doubt is just what effects (and how much of these effects) will transpire as a result of these changes we are known to have made. But, what you are saying is, because we cannot fully decouple our own influence from natural drivers of Earth's climate (such as solar activity), then our influence must be zero.

I did not state that at all. What I'm saying is, even if we are influencing the climate, we cannot prove it to ourselves yet. I could honestly care less about the whole idea of global warming if the story ended right there, but it doesn't. People are being taxed and limited by governments around the world all in the name of saving the planet from climate change. That's what bothers me.

However, there is a growing mass of evidence to contradict this opinion. We know for certain that we have changed some conditions that are known to affect climate, and it is very likely that the observed warming over the past century was not simply the result of natural variations alone - or atleast, it is nigh on impossible to explain the observed change without taking our contributions into consideration.

What do you consider our "contribution" to be?

 

[Famine]

The best example is still the auto industry, that by making its cars more efficient is also selling more of them and keeping buyer confidence high.

I've been thinking about this and I think it's a bit specious.

Car manufacturers have been making their cars more efficient and they have been selling more. We cannot say that by making them more efficient they've been selling more - it's just correlation, not causation. They've also been making them heavier, more powerful, faster, more gadget-laden, safer to be in and safer to be hit by them - I don't think we can say that they've been selling more cars because you can run into people and not kill them...

Probably the biggest factor in more cars being sold is that there's more people (15% more in the last 15 years) and more countries are becoming more developed. I'd say the comparative engineered-obsolesence is a second major factor (cars live to 10, new car buyers ditch them at or around their 3rd birthday). Everything else is just advertising.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've been thinking about this and I think it's a bit specious.

Car manufacturers have been making their cars more efficient and they have been selling more. We cannot say that by making them more efficient they've been selling more - it's just correlation, not causation. They've also been making them heavier, more powerful, faster, more gadget-laden, safer to be in and safer to be hit by them - I don't think we can say that they've been selling more cars because you can run into people and not kill them...

Probably the biggest factor in more cars being sold is that there's more people (15% more in the last 15 years) and more countries are becoming more developed. I'd say the comparative engineered-obsolesence is a second major factor (cars live to 10, new car buyers ditch them at or around their 3rd birthday). Everything else is just advertising.

Good point, though it's worth noting that sales of more economical cars are rising vastly quicker than less economical cars (anomalies like Bentley aside whose sales are dictated by different market demands) and though much of that is down to the price of petrol, that's entirely motivated by increasing efficiency.

If petrol prices rose the way they have and cars got no more efficient, then sales wouldn't have been increasing the way they have, regardless of factors like population growth.

Likewise my point about buyer confidence: The auto industry - like very few other industries so heavily influenced by the cost of energy - has proven time and time again that it can offset the rising cost of motoring by making cars that are cheaper for people to run. That motivates demand as people will always want something that'll take less from their pay packet each month.

There's no question that at least in the short term the increased efficiency is beneficial for us too. You can soon go out and buy a 260-odd horsepower, petrol BMW 328i that matches my 100-horsepower Fiat on economy (or if you like, matches it's 200hp diesel (unreliable) equivalent from ten years previous)... that's mightily impressive and good news for car enthusiasts as well as just Average Joe, as it means that cheaper-to-maintain petrols will still be viable in 10, 20 years to come and we won't all have to drive diesels.

 

[dautolover]

I'll make no hesitation here, I take the scientific community's assertion that we are in a state of global warming (or, for the weak of heart, "climate change") very seriously.

We kind of know what did it... pollution, industry, automobiles, energy.

Yet, as with everything else, I take a step back and look at how my actions contribute to the solution or to the problem. In short, I get a massive "hypocrite label" on the top of my forehead. And this is why...

I cannot gloss over the fact that my presence in this online community is based on a simple interest: cars. Fast cars. My dream is to get a gas guzzling V-8 sports car, take it around the track, and spend hours and money on shredding tires and pumping high octane gasoline onto my car's engine. Will this dream materialize into something real? Unlikely, cause I'm broke. But, if I had the chance, I would take it.

We are people with contradicting ideas. We want to do so much in this world, and we want to do it so fast, that we fail to notice that adherence to one ideal leads to the detraction of the other.

My question is simple... how do we, as members of GTPlanet, which I'm sure implies that many of us are impassioned for cars, reconciliate our commitment to environmental protection and our interests for excess [of engine] power? Can it be reconciled? If not, what ideal would you discard?

 

[Sam48]

This topic would probably be better off here:https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=64596

Where I would gladly de-bunk most of what you have to say