http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming.html
Yes, we are wrong. Very wrong.
Yes, we are wrong. Very wrong.
Could we be wrong about global warming?
- Thread starter msbae
- Start date
Interesting find. Thanks!
That half the "warming up" can't be explained by current models doesn't mean that it isn't relevant; we should still be doing something about it.
It's definitely a troubling study, as it indicates that we are being far too conservative about our future projections. It provides strong evidence that we need to be much more aggressive about cutting CO2 emissions to meet the goals of a <2 degree temperature change. The fact that warming will be much greater than any model predicts is definitely not a good thing.
...or maybe it means we should be doing something about all that water vapor, since it's a far more prevelant and influencial greenhouse gas that carbon dioxide. 
If these projections are true, I could be enjoying fresh seafood and balmy winter temps here in Denver in no time!
Water vapor may indeed be part of the feedback loop that will result in greater temperature increases than predicted, but it doesn't change on its own - only in response to other changes. It's important to distinguish between actual forcings (like CO2 and methane), which drive the temperature changes, and feedbacks (like water vapor) that respond to those forcings. Water vapor has such a short residence time in the atmosphere (~10 days) that it cannot cause temperature changes, which by definition require perturbations to equilibrium.
I doubt that Global Warming [aka Climate Change] isn't happening.
The extent to which humans contribute to Global Warming seems to be the big debate. I think it's silly to say we have zero impact, but equally that we are 100% responsible. Within that, are humans able to make significant enough changes to reduce the human contribution, and does that matter?
On the globe of the earth itself, I'm not sure Global Warming will necessarily be an overall bad thing. For certain people in certain areas, it will be a bad thing.
I'm looking forward to Las Vegas becoming a Tropical zone
The extent to which humans contribute to Global Warming seems to be the big debate. I think it's silly to say we have zero impact, but equally that we are 100% responsible. Within that, are humans able to make significant enough changes to reduce the human contribution, and does that matter?
On the globe of the earth itself, I'm not sure Global Warming will necessarily be an overall bad thing. For certain people in certain areas, it will be a bad thing.
I'm looking forward to Las Vegas becoming a Tropical zone
I'd rather be wrong about global warming and fight to prevent it or reverse it than be wrong about it and NOT do anything and end up, you know, wrecking the planet.
Seriously, what is WRONG with controling emissions and reducing the crap we pump into the air by the tons? Even if it's doing nothing majorly wrong it's certainly not doing anything GOOD!
People need to stop being punks over this enviromentalism thing and just start doing things that, on the surface, are better for the whole.
What harm, really, would come from running all our cars off Hydrogen and pumping water vapor intgo the air rather than continuing to use oil and pumping all kinds of chemicals cand compounds into the air?
It'd cost a little money. Oh no. The losses with the way we're doing things rights now are far worse: Our PLANET.
Seriously, what is WRONG with controling emissions and reducing the crap we pump into the air by the tons? Even if it's doing nothing majorly wrong it's certainly not doing anything GOOD!
People need to stop being punks over this enviromentalism thing and just start doing things that, on the surface, are better for the whole.
What harm, really, would come from running all our cars off Hydrogen and pumping water vapor intgo the air rather than continuing to use oil and pumping all kinds of chemicals cand compounds into the air?
It'd cost a little money. Oh no. The losses with the way we're doing things rights now are far worse: Our PLANET.
I agree.
No, just ourselves.
We can certainly wipe out species and really mess up the balance of nature. But I don't think we could realistically destroy the biosphere (i.e., make it unlivable). And I really don't think we have the capability of destroying the planet itself. Life will survive, in one form or another.
The only thing that's at risk is our own survival. If we mess up the balance of nature sufficiently, we undermine our ability to live here. Undermine it enough, and we won't be able to live here. That's the best reason to take care of the planet.
Otr failing that, our quality of life as a species. I think it's far more likely that, rather than wiping humanity out, global warming will simply cause us to have a really bad day, every day, for about the next thousand years. Drought, famine and flooding in different places leads to massive refugee waves, which leads to overcrowding, economic shocks, international tensions, wars, plagues, etc, etc. Won't kill us all, but it will be dystopian for sure.
Well, if WE are going to save the planet, someone better go and do something about the developing countries where new concentrations of industrial wealth.. err... infrastructure are increasing, because they don't give a rats ass about what they're putting in the air.
...and we'd better saran wrap the oceans also. Contrary to a previous statement about water vapor only staying in the air 10 days, the amount staying there isn't sddressed in whatever it was they were citing. Cause and effect is funny, and you can often skew results to look like you want by playing with the start and stop points of a cycle you're documenting.
...and we'd better saran wrap the oceans also. Contrary to a previous statement about water vapor only staying in the air 10 days, the amount staying there isn't sddressed in whatever it was they were citing. Cause and effect is funny, and you can often skew results to look like you want by playing with the start and stop points of a cycle you're documenting.
All of this is true except for one thing, Silver. We do have the ability to destroy the planet's biosphere. It would take every nuclear weapon ever made but, it could theoretically be done.
Also, Water Vapor isn't technically a gas but, it is responsible for over 70% of the Greenhouse Effect. Since we have no way to affect or control the Hydrologic cycle, I sincerely doubt our efforts to reduce/counteract whatever the global warming phenomenon really is will have much effect with current technology. Besides, the Greenhouse Effect isn't a bad thing at all. Without it, all the Sun's energy would just bounce off the planet into space, making it impossible for life to exist here.
Running cars on Hydrogen would be prohibitively expensive. Currently, the only way we get Hydrogen for industrial use is as a by-product from oil/natural gas wells. When we find a way to economically extract deuterium from the oceans, Hydrogen power becomes more viable.
As for a car's future powerplant, I see them being powered by batteries and solar panels. Those fuel sources are much less volatile than Hydrogen. Also, the Earth is bombarded by the Sun with enough energy in a hour than all of Humanity generates in a year. Considering that, I'd say further development on Photovoltaic cells seems like a good way to go.
Oh, I know. But that's why I wrote "realistically" instead of "theoretically." For that to happen, it would require a coordinated carpet-nuking of every part of the Earth's surface. And THAT would require a lot of wackos or nihilists, all armed with nukes, with the same agenda and working together. And how likely is that? The sane ones have enough trouble cooperating.
And in the end, one of the plotters might change his mind, or a few islands in the Pacific might get overlooked, a missile might misfire or fail to launch, or maybe the plotters would become victims of their own nukes before they could launch everything.
Any of those things happens, life survives. Sure, it might only be lichen and cockroaches, but you still have a viable biosphere that can eventually recover. To quote Ian Malcolm, "Life finds a way."
Basically, in every one of these scenarios, we wipe ourselves out before we can pose a threat to the planet. So it comes back to what I said: the only thing that's at risk is our own survival. And we need to take better care of our environment ... for OUR sakes. The environment can handle a lot more abuse than we can.
And Mother Nature can wipe us out anytime she wants, which is another good reason I don't worry about the environment too much. It didn't take a lot of effort on her part to turn my hometown into a swamp nearly 4 years ago.
Well, we should at least take care of Mother Nature as far as we can. If she decides to "take care of" us another way, well...
Orbital Solar and Orbital Weather modification grid. It is the only way. With Orbital Solar we could make enough energy to actually pump desalinated water into desert regions and eliminate all deserts on the planet forever. We could suck CO2 out of the air, crack water and combine the carbon and Hydrogen to make Octane and the factory would spew out Oxygen!
I say we re-terraform the planet to make it a greener nicer planet. Shrink the deserts down to 1/2 their current size and provide enough farming capacity to feed 3X the current population. We could even move our cities underground and move our green houses there too. We could take ecologically damaged areas and use robots to re-buld them, all we need is really cheap and plentiful energy.
I say we re-terraform the planet to make it a greener nicer planet. Shrink the deserts down to 1/2 their current size and provide enough farming capacity to feed 3X the current population. We could even move our cities underground and move our green houses there too. We could take ecologically damaged areas and use robots to re-buld them, all we need is really cheap and plentiful energy.
The only way to do what?
I had no idea it was so simple!
By the way, this
is in conflict with this:
Shrinking the deserts down to 1/2 their current size counts as damaging them. Rather than suggesting ways to repair the damage, perhaps it would be simpler to not damage them in the first place.
Everything would be so much easier with a global technate!
American farmers already grow enough food to feed every hungry mouth on Earth. Hungry people don't get much of that food because of idiot politicians on both sides. The idiots on our side just buy the food through farm subsidies and let it rot in a grain silo or storage warehouse. The idiots on the other side want their people to be hungry and hopeless so they don't lose their tyrannical control.
Also, there are numerous lifeforms that depend on a Desert Biome. Eliminating them would upset the balance of nature. Besides, where else are we going to dump waste that will continue being hazardous to Humans?
