Global Warming

[Lance]

I believe the global climate is warming. I don't know if humans play a role in the cause or not, but I believe we MUST play a role in trying to mitigate it.

I believe if we continue to ignore the problem, necessary "proof" will come too late to make a difference.

[Blue Monster 65]

Yes, I believe it's happening and I also believe it's largely due to what we as human beings are doing. Do I think that's a bad thing? Well ... yeah, but I'm not sure it's as bad as the worst pessimists want to. I think we could do much better, but I'm not sure we're ready to.

Woof! - Scott

[Superluminal]

I believe its a normal cycle, and that humans are having little impact on it. Google the "Maunder Minimum". Some believe that another MM is coming this century and that we may begin seeing signs of a slow down in warming, if not actual cooling in the next decade. But I don't expect Al Gore or any of the other GW proponents to change their minds. They'll just jump up and down and say, "See, what little we've done is working. Now we need to do more. Buy more carbon credits from Gore's company, raise taxes etc."

[Мастер]

I don't feel qualified to comment on the likelihood that human activities are contributing to warming. The people I know who seem to know what they're talking about it mostly seem to feel that humans are contributing, but there are definitely some exceptions.

But, to the extent that human-caused CO2 emissions are making the world a warmer place, it's a classic free-loader problem. A country that emits a lot of CO2 receives the benefit of whatever it is that they're doing, but the cost is shared by the whole world. Holding the actions of the other countries fixed, it is in every country's interests to keep their own emissions higher than is globally optimal. Unilateral efforts to reduce emissions have the perverse effect of making it less urgent for other countries to do so, and are therefore partly subsidies from the country doing the reduction to other countries.

This is one reason I'm very skeptical about voluntary conservation efforts. I've been hearing shrill shrieking noises my entire life about the need to conserve, and yet it doesn't seem to have the slightest affect on public behavior. But, that aside, what does one accomplish by voluntary conservation? Well, one does reduce consumption. However, one also makes it less costly for others to consume more...

[Мастер]

Buy more carbon credits from Gore's company, raise taxes etc.

I don't know what Gore's saying, as I don't really pay much attention to him. But carbon taxation schemes don't have to be expansive, if the revenues are used to reduce other taxes. If the phenomenon is not real, then a carbon taxation scheme introduces distortions and inefficiency in the economy by trying to solve a non-existent problem. But it doesn't have to lead to bigger government...

[Enzo]

I think it is pretty obvious it is happening.

I think we are a contributing factor.

Having seen that there have been natural variations that seem to go to further extremes is all well and good, but by the same token there have been mass extinctions too. Natural is not always good for you and me.

And for that matter, previous cycle points do not mean that is what is happening to us now.

ANd I am not altruistic enough to stand here and tell the voles and spiders, "oh well, you win, I guess I wil lay down and go extinct."

(No, I don't think we will go extinct from GW. That was hyperbole.)

(Oh my god, what if we get hypervoles?)

Even if the warming is totally natural, I think it makes sense to try to lean it in our favor. After all when the sea level rises 20 feet, either a large part of the world has to turn into the Netherlands, or we reatreat into the hinterlands - or at least to the Superdome. The great desert that was the USA might mean Canada improves its grain production, but really... tell that to Kansas City.

[troubleagain]

I voted "regardless of humans", but I think we do play a role. I'm just not sure it's necessarily as bad a thing as it's being made out to be. Or maybe it is, but it's a necessary thing. I'm not sure what I believe. I just know that cycles happen, they're natural, normal, and will happen regardless of what we do. It's like the folks worrying about things like beach erosion. Look, the shorelines have always changed. That's what they do. You don't like it? Don't build right on the frickin' shore! Nature will have her way. She *will* reclaim New Orleans eventually, she *will* change shorelines, she *will* have warming and cooling cycles.

[Heid the Ba]

I voted "aggravated by humans". I also think we just don't know enough to say whether the current cycle is entirely natural, and whether it will cool off anyway.

[Dragon Star]

I voted "aggravated by humans". I also think we just don't know enough to say whether the current cycle is entirely natural, and whether it will cool off anyway.

Ditto.

[Enzo]

Most definitely beaches change, but...

She *will* reclaim New Orleans eventually

I don't think so. The Mississippi has been channeled by the corps of engineers so that flooding can no longer deposit silt to build up the delta. The delta is eroding away because human intervention has gotten in teh way. The Mississippi would have shifted its main flow to the Atchafalaya or one of the other distributaries a long time ago if not for human intervention for that matter. The current Mississippi path to the sea would have become a secondary flow. And one of the contributing factors to the sinking of some coastal areas is the extraction of oil from under the area. Another gift from mankind.

In short, if NO falls into the sea, it will really be our fault, not nature's. Left alone, NO would be farther and farther inland.

[Arneb]

I voted for the first option, although I wouldn't exclude natural, coincident causes as aggravating factors.

[MM_Dandy]

Most definitely beaches change, but...

She *will* reclaim New Orleans eventually

I don't think so. The Mississippi has been channeled by the corps of engineers so that flooding can no longer deposit silt to build up the delta. The delta is eroding away because human intervention has gotten in teh way. The Mississippi would have shifted its main flow to the Atchafalaya or one of the other distributaries a long time ago if not for human intervention for that matter. The current Mississippi path to the sea would have become a secondary flow. And one of the contributing factors to the sinking of some coastal areas is the extraction of oil from under the area. Another gift from mankind.

In short, if NO falls into the sea, it will really be our fault, not nature's. Left alone, NO would be farther and farther inland.

I think that there's more to it than that. When the Mississippi naturally diverts to a steeper channel, the former delta would erode once the amount of material deposited would be less than the amount of material carried away by the ocean. So, when progression is made in one area, it is usually lost in another. With all else remaining equal, I'd think that as more and more ocean is displaced by sediment, ocean levels would tend to increase, if only by an inkling. However, rising temperatures are melting the glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic, which leads to higher sea levels in a much shorter time frame. At any rate, during the last ice age, the Mississippi was significantly longer due to the relatively lower ocean levels. If New Orleans had been built on the delta back then, it would have gone the way of Atlantis sometime between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago.

As far as drilling is concerned, I'm not sure if it's done in every situation, but I know that rigs can pump material into the well, which has a higher specific gravity than oil, which pushes the oil up, and keeps the volume pretty much static. Even if it didn't, wouldn't off-shore drilling contribute to lower sea levels?

I suspect that we do contribute to GW, but I think nature is playing a more significant role, so far. Even if we are playing a more major role than I believe, I'm inclined to be thinking of ways to mitigate the effects, because it doesn't seem that we are particularly motivated to reduce our role.

[Мастер]

Even if it didn't, wouldn't off-shore drilling contribute to lower sea levels?

I did a lot of wild-ass guessing here, but a quick Google shows 2004 estimated world oil consumption at 80 million barrels per day, and a barrel equal to 5.61 cubic feet. If this was the consumption rate for 100 years (and people have been using oil for more than 100 years, but they haven't been using it at the present rate), then that's a bit under 3 trillion barrels (sounds high to me, but what the hell) used so far, or about 16.4 trillion cubic feet.

The radius of the earth is something like 4,000 miles, which gives a surface area of about 201 million square miles, or about 5,600 trillion square feet. Since about 70% is water, that's about 3,290 trillion square feet. Dividing 16.4 by 3,290, the volume of oil extracted is enough to lower the sea level by 0.0042 feet, or just about 0.05 inches (1.27 mm).

So it doesn't sound to me like the world's entire consumption of oil through all of history would make much of a difference in sea levels, even if it all came from the sea. There's a lot of guesstimation there, and I don't know much about oil production - maybe more than 1 cubic foot of material is extracted to produce 1 cubic foot of oil. But the calculations would have to be off by an awful lot for there to be much of a difference. It doesn't sound to me like oil production operates on a big enough scale to affect sea levels (at least not directly - if burning causes ice to melt in Greenland, that could be a different story).

[Enzo]

I could be all wet - pun intended - but isn't the California coast along San Diego sinking from oil removal? I seem to recall a photo a long time ago from a below sea level shoreline looking up to ocean vessels docked at the piers.

I would not think oil removal would affect overall sea level much, but locally it does indeed affect the level of the land above. Land subsidence is caused by removal of groundwater in many places too.

Yes, of course when gross sea level shifts occur such as during ice ages, then all bets are off for NO. But I do think that left alone, the net result of the Mississippi is an ever growing delta. Granted, millions of years ahead, it would hit the continental shelf and be thus limited, but that is not germane. When the main channel shifts away from the current one, the potential for deposits might be lowered in overall volume, but it would still be a net positive amount.

From Science News 10/13/7 I found this interesting.

SUMMERTIME BLUES. The extent of Arctic Ocean ice hit a modern low on Sept. 16. Magenta outline indicates median September ice coverage from 1979 to 2000.
National Snow and Ice Data Center

[troubleagain]

Well, Katrina also devastated the barrier wetlands that were protecting NO. That's going to be a factor in the future, I'm sure. The aerial photos in NatGeo (last month? the month before?) showed that pretty clearly.

[KLA2]

I voted “aggravated”, but even that may be a bit strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

"Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).
There have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past. Outside these periods, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes."

I am still waiting to hear how man caused global cooling …

The temperature and environment of this planet are not stable or constant.

{Edited to add …}

Reducing pollution, dependence on fossil fuels etc. are common sense. What concerns me is the “throw out the baby with the bathwater” mentality that we must immediately abandon all established energy sources and “freeze in the dark”. Ride our bicycles to work. (40 miles each way, dropping of/picking up 3 children at daycare, dog to the vets, ten bags of groceries on the way home, two large bankers boxes of client records, briefcase, lunch bag. In a snowstorm. Minus 10 degrees.)

Of course, the “third world” demands the right to bring their standard of living (cars, HVAC, etc.) up to ours without interference. Seems fair. :wink:

Once, when these issues were raised, politicians and business said “No way. Too costly.”

Now they have realized the money making / taxing potential, all I hear is ‘Ka-Ching.”

[KLA2]

And. Here (in my opinion) is the reason why people get all emotional and combative over “Global Warming”.

It is not one issue. It is three.

1) Is global warming happening?

2) Is mankind causing / significantly contributing to it?

3) Can mankind stop it (taking any reasonable actions) ?

Point (1) seems to be a given. The other two points are contentious.

This is not a package deal. (Which is probably where Lane was going with the poll.)

[Bill_Thompson]

I believe the global climate is warming. I don't know if humans play a role in the cause or not, but I believe we MUST play a role in trying to mitigate it.

I believe if we continue to ignore the problem, necessary "proof" will come too late to make a difference.

If the top scientists say it is most probably caused by humans, Rush Limbaugh is wrong this time. :wink: