a few more thoughts - no proof of global warming? I suppose that depends on your definition of proof, but lets start with agreed upon scientific data
temperature chart from Nasa:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
another from the Climatic Research Unit:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
measurements from Satellites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...llite_Temperatures.png
glacial melting as seen here:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
sea ice melt:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trends_fig1.html
I would hope most logical people - Al Gore haters included, could at least look at data like this - which climatologists have - and conclude that indeed the earth is warming.
With that first big step out of the way - the next discussion is 'what is the cause'?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - yes, it is not the only one. Take a look at this graph:
http://www.brighton73.freeserv...w/paleo/20000yrfig.htm
Take a look at this one as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...n_Emission_by_Type.png
Clearly - our co2 output is the primary cause of the increased levels of atmoshperic co2 - note that I'm not saying that it proves this is the cause of global warming, but it certainly qualifies as something close to a smoking gun.
Don't bring up the garbage out the famous 'hockey stick graph' either - there is plenty of open debate about both sides of that discussion - and there are dozens of other studies which produce very similar results - and even the people who don't like how the 'hockey stick graph - aka the IPC TAR Summary' data was used don't refute these other studies.
Finally - the Hansen model - which had 3 possible scenarios - not the one scenario that anti-GW talking points say was "300% off". His "B" scenario has come remarkably close to what has actually happened over the past 20 years - and if you roll the model used for these scenarios backwards in time, they again appear to be remarkably accurate, as seen here:
http://www.grida.no/publicatio...c_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
Again - CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, but it's contribution is: "According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect." I'll grant you that is a wide spectrum of possible impact - but when you consider the dramatic rise in CO2 concentration that corresponds with temperature increases, it can't simply be tossed aside either.
As for other 'talking points' against man's impact on global warming:
Water Vapor - changes in water vapor levels tend to be leveled out naturally - too much water vapor leads to increased rains, too little is fixed with increased evaporation - more details here:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/st...df/RadiationBudget.pdf
Mars is getting warmer too! - this is a good one - I believe it's even been mentioned in this thread. As mentioned earlier -the only common factor is the sun - and I've already pointed out (in a prior post, more details on satellite observation are available if you want to see them) where that isn't the cause - and when you consider the vast amount of data we have for earth's climate - only talking recent history here - and compare it to the practically non-existent 'evidence' of warming on mars - which apparently only consists of a series of photographs that show some polar melting. We do have some data as well, going back to the Viking landers and the subsequent missions there, but to conclude that global warming is taking place there is just plain false - see this article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
A few final comments - to say there is as much money in the GW-"con" as their is in current energy tech is just plain silly - did you see Exxon's earnings announcement today? Same thing last year - this is the most profitable company in the world - 2 years running - do you really think anything related to GW, or going green, is going to come anywhere close to that in the next 1-15 years?
Why is it a bad thing to try and make the air cleaner - GW or not? Ask people who suffer from asthma about that.
Why is it a bad thing to try and lessen our dependence on foreign fuel sources?
Why is it a bad thing to utilize more nuclear plants - if you are going to make cars electric - fully or partially - more coal plants aren't the answer - and clean coal as it stands today is a pipe-dream. Spend that money to improve the ways nuclear waste is stored, and start building more nuclear plants!
Stop using corn as a source of ethanol - it's a complete waste of time - until you have a better, technologically ready, solution - switchgrass perhaps - keep using corn for food!
I don't like the whole 'carbon credits' thing either - but it's a start.
My final take - the best thing about the whole GW discussion - at least we are finally having it. We are finally taking steps now, and talking about spending money, on solving some of these issues - and whether you believe in man-influenced global warming or not - I find it nearly impossible to say why we shouldn't be taking these steps regardless.
Facebook
Twitter