Global Warming/Strange Weather Patterns

This is simply wrong.There are some things we know even if there is much we don't know.1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is, higher levels of it trap more heat.
2) We are adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.From the above to we know we are warming the earth. Now the question is "How much?". Then the next question is "So what?"Is anyone disagreeing with the idea that we are responsible for almost all (or all) of the increase in CO2 levels over the last century and a half? If so we need to see why someone would disagree.Then we can move to what the effects of that might be and if we should worry about them or not.Here is one statement that I would make:If we add enough CO2 to the atmosphere then we will eventually flood almost all of Florida. Now how much is "enough" and when is "eventually"?

I think we also agree that there are a lot of things going on. From that we would expect variations.Have we agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Have we agreed that human activities are increasing it? Is the increase a large fraction of the background levels?As for the graph I see some difficulties:1) The time frame that we would expect human inputs of CO2 to have an effect are almost exactly the time frame of the graph. In other words we can't see the background. This was already pointed out in post 8 (Message 8) here. If someone picked the post 6 graph over the post 8 graph I would suspect them of trying to mislead me.2) I don't see the estimated cumulative amount of CO2 that we are supposed to have produced. The nature of our economies and use of fossil fuel would suggest to me that a lot of it would be post 1970 but I don't know. If we are superimposing a steady trend on a naturally varing background then we would expect there to be downturns up until the steady trend overwhelms the background variations. The longer term sure suggests that this may be happening.3) The US temperature graph is of little value to me in making any decision at all. All the models that I have seen predict variations in specific areas of the world not that all will increase.As I understand it they do all predict an larger increase in higher latitudes which is exactly what is being seen now. What I don't know is if other explanations or models do the same thing.One other thing that I think we can all get out this:The whole climate issue is complex. We will not get the conclusive answer untill we complete running the experiment. If even the more moderate concerns of those worried about global warming are correct then we will face extreme hardship. If the more wild concerns prove to be true then we face catastrophe.When one is faced with this kind of decision it is useful to take out some insurance. In spite of the doomsayers about the economic difficulties there are a couple of things that seem likely to me. One is that it is certainly not all negative on the economic side. Wasting fossil fuels the way we do here in North America (Canada is particularly bad on a per capita basis) is clearly NOT contributing to our economic well being. The other is that it is only economic and this should prove to be more reversible than watching the streets of Manhatten disappear under the waves. And one thing is a fact: enough warming, human or natural, causes that to happen as a relatively minor cost of the changes. I'll have to have a look at why they signed this. Do you have the reasons or are they what you are already posting. They are, I believe, outnumbered by those who disagree with them. There is, of course, reason to be interested in where the consensus lies but if I want to make up my own mind I have to ignore that and try to examine what is behind their decisions. I agree with you on this. One question, when did they all sign? The evidence has been piling up on this rather quickly in recent years and there have been more and more of the hold-outs recognizing that the most reasonable conclusion is that we are, indeed, toasting ourselves. Then what is the help that it is and what is the evidence for this?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-27-2005 21:28 AM

No that isn't what I was saying. It isn't the individuals on either side that I'm talking about. I'm sure that if you picked the weakest of the "pro" global warming camp and the most concerned of the "anti" camp you would find two people with identical views. In fact, more over lap than that. It is when they are asked to come down with a non grey answer that they end up in a camp.What I am saying is: of the various scenarios worried about in the global warming context some are more moderate than others and some less so. I don't think it is possible to rule out the more extreme ones yet. Those extreme cases could result in major ice melting within decades. Major still doesn't mean the whole Antarctic sheet.Remember there are best cases, moderate cases and worst cases. At one extreme (best case) the global warming that has occured is part of a natural cycle and we don't effect it at all and it will within only a few decades swing the other way. The worst case is something like loss of the entire Antarctic ice sheet by 2100 or earlier and a raise in sea levels of 200 feet! Stack that worst case up against any conceivable economic disruption that we would experience by cutting our CO2 emissions.How likely is each of all the various cases? I don't think anyone knows. I don't think any can be ruled out. I never had any idea that you felt any other way.I agree that we should be careful about what we take in as being known and not and, if we believe that an issue is important, we should look at the details.I don't know enough yet (or ever?) to make my own decision on this but the kind of stuff I hear from those who think everything is just fine and dandy smacks of being suspicious. We won't impune anyones motives (other than the current US administration which I consider tainted as hell) but we shouldn't impune the motives of those who have expressed serious concern either.

I certainly don't agree with your set of possible outcomes. There are a range of different variations within your best case. That is from significant net benefit to very minor.The middle of the road is simply unlikely. If there really is a long term trend in global warming (natural or not) there will be impacts. If the warming is a lot they will be large. The chance of it balencing out in some way seems to be too small to consider.The negative impact case is too much under one umbrella. The worst cases possibilities are simply so very, very much worse than the mildly bad ones that I don't think they can be grouped like that.I found one paper on enhanced plant growth.
Good newsHowever I remember, but can't find, some studies done that suggests that, in the real world, it won't be so rosy at all.Here is one that shows "benefits" but not all of them good.
Publication : USDA ARSThis one suggests that one study may be misleading so care is required.
http://www.bio.uu.nl/.../PDF/2001_Poorter&Perez-Soba_Oec.pdfHere is another overview givein both good and bad news:
http://www.iet.msu.edu/Tox_for_Journ/News%20Items/co2.htm

quote:

---

Quoting experts, Gelbspan says that increased CO2 will force more rapid plant respiration. When that forcing is accompanied by slightly elevated temperatures, the plants will stop growing and their yields will dwindle.

---

and

quote:

---

Of more immediate concern, Teeri says, is that "new research has shown that elevated CO2 in the atmosphere, reduces the nutritional quality of at least some plants. When these lower quality plants are fed to herbivores, the herbivores grow more slowly. When carnivores (and omnivores, including humans) consume these herbivores, the carnivores grow more slowly. We now need to determine to what extent elevated CO2 causes these types of responses in important agricultural plants and animals, most of which have not yet been studied."

---

Now I have a lot more digging to do too. We might as well see what we can learn and I hope others will jump in too.

The British magazine "New Scientist" of Feb 12-18 has an article on global warming. I will try to post the main points by editing this post as I go.It has the C02 graph of Mauna Loa we have already seen. There seems to be no argument that we are increasing CO2 levels.An interesting point is the satellite measurements of IR radiation from the earth. From 1970 to 1997 it has been decreasing. This suggests that inspite of various effects that might cancel the greehouse effect the overall net result is a traping of more IR.It mentions work by a David Parker of the UK's Met Office that looked at the temperature measurements on both windy days and clam days. The idea being that city "heat islands" should have different effects on different kinds of days. They get results that suggest the heat island issue isn't messing up the temperature measurements.Here is the article online (and free it seems)Page has gone | New ScientistThey discuss both skeptic and proponent's views.

As noted the earth is warmer inside. Therefore it is losing heat through it's surface. It has to! That is the second law of thermodynamics.Since the specific heat of the atmosphere isn't all that great (warning the rest is guess work not calculated) if we weren't tossing off some of that energy that is coming up form below AND not gaining from the sun we would be getting hotter and hotter over the long term. We know that the earth hasn't been steadily gaining (unless it is for the last few decades -- a separate issue) so it is managing to lose the heat from the interior for a net loss.