I'm worried what people will do to try to 'fix' Global Warming.
Like what? Turning off your lights? Buying more efficient appliances? Investing in wind and solar power generation? If you think that everybody concerned about global warming advocates drastic geo-engineering projects like fertilizing the ocean or spraying light-reflecting chemicals into the atmosphere, you're sadly mistaken.
What would prevent China or Russia to start geo-engineering and come back to the rest of the world "it's fixed, now everybody can still burn carbon as much as they please" ? It is interesting to me that, if I break a leg, the doctor does not tell me "don't take the stairs anymore". Understanding the root of a problem is only one aspect of the scientific approach. Why it would be logical not to even discuss the possibility of geo-engineering, considering the economic and political potential consequences, is just beyond my understanding. I think "nobody is concerned" would at least deserve a little bit of elaboration in the discussion before being dismissed that easily.
The thrust of concerns about CO2 emissions relate directly to the energy problem. We already know that much of the geopolitical arena, as well as many of our military concerns and expenditures, stem directly from issues of oil. Consider for example that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor primarily to protect its move into Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, executed to protect its oil interests.
Carter once authorized the use of tactical nuclear weapons to protect our oil interests in the Middle East.
Currently, we are losing approximately 1/2 trillion dollars a year to foreign oil suppliers. T. Boone Pickens, famed billionare and oil man, says that this represents what will be the largest transfer of wealth in human history.
With CO2 comes toxic pollution that drives up the cost of medical care.
And finally, as India and China come online, there is a reasonable expectation that energy will be the driving force that starts WWIII.
Hopefully you already realize the threat posed by global warming in terms of displaced populations, disease, contaminated drinking water, the loss of fresh water through glacial melting, crop failures, famines, fires, floods, and perhaps eventually the collapse of the economy...
I'm sorry, what was the concern again?
It is not a matter of action coming without risk, but it is a fallacy to think that a lack of action is an acceptable option or less risky. If you want to worry, then worry about both sides of the issue. A viable option to fossil fuel will solve most problems.
I think it's the crazy stuff like deploying a blanket of mirrors in space to shield the earth, to filling the atmosphere with noxious gases, to painting the earth white, without even knowing if the warming has ended ( global warming stopped in 2005 and has been declining since). Whether it is just a dip or a real downward trend, we don't know yet.
We've been suffering in the mid US from below normal temperatures for the last 4 years. Any measures to cool the earth would be catastrophic to our ecosystem.
The worry is that the people with the power to do them advocate these sort of schemes!
Where do you get your information?
It is stated by practically every definitive scientific organization that global warming is undeniable. The only debate relates to how significant is the role of CO2 emissions.
From the 2007 report for policy makers.
Even if CO2 played no role in warming, which we know it does, and which we know will also dominate the climate systems based on the current release rates, it would make sense to curb warming to whatever extent we can.
All of those crazy solutions have been linked to in previous discussions.
It is also a fallacy that most of these techniques would be irreversible. If we find that the warming slows or stops, we can stop the intervention. What's the problem?
That isn't an answer. I posted a report from the organization designated to make sense of this. You posted nothing.
The IPCC? I thought it was agreed that most of the people that created these reports were not actually scientists.
I'll read it and see if anyone is a scientist in the field they comment in. And if the comments were not subsequently dismissed, as many were.
Do any of the IPCC reports discuss these crazy extreme measures?
While you do that, keep in mind that many IPCC predictions have been found to be grossly over-optimistic. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html, for example, which predicts a much larger sea level rise than the IPCC.
It's also very misleading to say that the planet has been cooling since 2005. Three years have passed since 2005 ended: 2006, 2007, and 2008. 2008 was the tenth warmest year on record, exceeded only by years that are within the 1998-2008 period. And you can't do meaningful statistics on the remaining 2 data points.
And each of those years were cooler than 2005.
Yes, that's called doing statistics on small numbers. Once you actually plot the data, you get something like this: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Yeah and I bet in 1940 people were in panic by the never ending temperature climb...
My statement was that people are seriously considering to do drastic measures to kerb this apparent global warming. They use the "Humans made this mess, humans will fix this mess" ideology which is incredibly moronic. We don't understand the problem, we really don't. There are dozens of contradictions to what is causing the global warming, a plethora of variables that govern the complex nature of our climate and yet people have the audacity to fix what isn't broken. We're going to increase cloud reflectivity or remove CO2 from the atmosphere and cause terrible problems.
I don't understand how removing the CO2 that humans put in is going to do anything except revert the planet's climate to its pre-industrial state. Despite the complexities involved in climate modeling, it's clear that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet; that part is beyond doubt. I'd agree with you that more data is needed before one can say increasing cloud reflectivity is safe, though; unlike low CO2 levels, that's not something Earth has experienced in its recent history.
No its not.
I don't want to sound derogatory, but do you happen to be a planetary scientist? You're directly contradicting the vast majority of planetary scientists, including the national academies of every major industrialized country, in making a statement that contradicts both climate models and experimental data. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming, and note that this article is a Featured Article with more than a hundred references.
Oh excellent source, a wikipedia article.
I don't have to be a planetary scientist to say that it is not clear. Theories spring up, are debunked and are replaced by new ones. If it were so evidently clear I wouldn't be here discussing this with you.
I remember when it was clearly obvious that global warming was caused by chlorofluorocarbons depleting the ozone layer.
Uhm, do you see what your data is doing at the end of your graph?
That Wikipedia article is a Featured Article and has more than 130 references, all of which are legitimate scientific papers. It's probably the best source on global warming you'll find on the Internet.
I've no reason to take your word--the word of a layman--over that of hundreds of thousands of experts in the field. Saying it isn't clear that global warming exists is like saying it isn't clear evolution occurred: the experts believe one thing and the general public quite another. In cases like that, I know who I'm siding with.
It's fallacious to draw conclusions based upon two or three data points!
1. Recognize what energy is.
2. Develop a responsible mindset toward it.
3. Conserve its presence in nature.
4. Minimize its environmental impact.
5. Generate it only for basic needs.
For some reason I cannot find any global warming graphs / charts that show data up to 2009. They all stop at around 2000...what's with that? I want to see the trend...
Separate names with a comma.