Global Warming ... on Mars
by Ted Slater on 02/02/2007 at 4:51 PM
Turns out there's something to this global warming thing. NASA is reporting that there's been some notable climate change taking place on Mars:
[F]or three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
It's likely just a natural phenomenon, something brought about by increased solar activity. But you have to wonder if it's the result of human meddling. After all, there are a couple of American made SUVs roving around up there that weren't there when President Bush took office.
Come to think of it, let's just say it's Bush's fault and be done with it.
(Oh, this is going to be a fun discussion.)
HT: WorldMagBlog
1. Becca said the following at 5:07 PM on Feb 2:
It's discouraging that the global warming question is nearly always approached as a political issue rather than a stewardship issue.
Until it's seen as a question beyond politics, it will never be approached in a balanced manner.
(And while the liberals can get unnecessarily shrill on environmental issues, things like this don't make conservatives much easier to take seriously.)
2. Ted Slater said the following at 5:08 PM on Feb 2:
I need to add that Mars isn't the only planet warming up. Evidence indicates that Pluto is warming up, Neptune's moon is getting warmer, and that Jupiter is heating up as well.
Honestly, I don't think Bush can bear responsibility for all this planetary warming. I think Rove's behind it.
3. Ted Slater said the following at 5:10 PM on Feb 2:
Becca -- referencing the Guardian? Now there's an unbiased source.
/s
4. Jethro said the following at 5:37 PM on Feb 2:
Ted, I think you're forgetting the wide ranging influence of the military-industrial complex!
5. Farley said the following at 6:00 PM on Feb 2:
Ted, Ted, Ted...your bias is showing. :)
6. Aaron said the following at 6:47 PM on Feb 2:
Ted that made my day. Seriously. I had quite a laugh. I've just heard way too much about global warming over the past week.
7. Jethro said the following at 6:47 PM on Feb 2:
Seriously though Ted, jokes about Rove on Mars aside (although he may well be an alien.....) you don't actually doubt that global warming is occurring do you?
8. Leah said the following at 6:50 PM on Feb 2:
Are you just trying to be antagonistic, Ted? Because there was no other reason to say "Come to think of it, let's just say it's Bush's fault and be done with it. (Oh, this is going to be a fun discussion."
9. Leah said the following at 6:51 PM on Feb 2:
You wanted examples of overstepping the line, well here you go...
10. Anna said the following at 7:05 PM on Feb 2:
Perhaps Becca's source is biased, Ted, but you haven't shown us a refutation of the story. That might make your case better than your rather snide comments that ignore any question of Christians' responsibility to act as wise and caring stewards of the world God has entrusted us with.
11. Thea said the following at 7:11 PM on Feb 2:
Could someone please explain to me why so many christians have a hard time with the concept of human activity playing a role in global warming? I find it very perplexing because I do not think the two need to be mutually exclusive. Yet I see many christians who are just as vehemently opposed to the concept of global warming as they are to both abortion and homosexuality. I am mostly curious as to the reasons for this as I have never gotten a straight answer before from these enthusiastic global warming deniers. They talk about how the concept of global warming is not valid, but I am curious as to what global warming has to do with religion.
12. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 8:10 PM on Feb 2:
Richard Willson, a Columbia researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute reported a few years ago that the sun itself has noticeably increased output over the past few decades, on top of a general trend of the past few centuries. I guess stars don't have climates, so we'll call it stellar warming?
13. Ted Slater said the following at 8:18 PM on Feb 2:
Global warming, if it exists, is likely due to increased solar activity, a natural phenomenon (as shown in global warming on other planets in our solar system).
Consider this: Some people say it's the warmest it's been in a century. In other words, they're saying it was warmer 100 years ago. What caused it then? If it is instead the warmest year since 1000 A.D., what caused it to be warmer then? Natural cycles.
I am enthusiastically in favor of stewardship of the planet. This topic is very relevant to Christians. God put us here to, among other things, tend the garden. But the truth seems to be that global warming, if it's occuring, is more due to solar activity (and maybe volcanoes and cows) than human activity. Some are trying to make this a political issue, and I think it's primarily a natural one. Temperatures ebb and flow as the source of our warmth (the sun) ebbs and flows....
That said, again, I'm all for wise stewardship of this planet that the Lord has entrusted to us. Let's resist the temptation of blaming politicians for all our planet's ills.
14. Dave said the following at 9:23 PM on Feb 2:
To mirror some of the other comments, what in the world does this have to do with Christianity? I really don’t think it wise for posts from the editors to enter the partisan political realm. There are more than enough divisions within Christianity to keep us busy, we really don't need to get into political discussions, do we?
15. Jacob said the following at 9:25 PM on Feb 2:
I think it is prudent to take into consideration that we have only had the ability to measure weather for the last hundred or two years. We could very likely have long-term weather paterns that we are simply unaware of.
Regarding biases, we all have them and the only one who is fooling around with them is the one who is afraid to admit his. No one is neutral and not even scientists are completely objective.
16. Leah said the following at 11:10 PM on Feb 2:
Thea, I don't know if it has to do with Christians refusing to acknowledge global warming simply because of religious issues, but rather they're just uneducated about it. As for me, well, while I think global warming is quite real, I don't know if I believe everything I hear about it. For example, while polar caps are melting, other parts of the world are getting cooler (like various parts of Australia) yet the really cold areas are getting less snow ... I think it's just a matter of humans not fully understanding the ramifications of global warming or what it really is.
17. Becca said the following at 11:54 PM on Feb 2:
One other thing - even if we don't know for certain that humans are a primary cause of global warming (though the new Whitehouse-endorsed report suggests a very high level of certainty), shouldn't we take action anyway, just in case?
It's not the sort of thing thing any responsible steward would want to take a chance of being mistaken on.
18. Robert J Espe said the following at 9:04 AM on Feb 3:
Well, it is 35 below zero in MN today. I sure wish some of that global warming would make its way up here. I think anyone who experienced the blizzards in Colorado this year would feel the same way.
One other possible spin. As Christians, we believe in a global flood. The flood is the most likely trigger of the ice age, which formed the glaciers that shaped my home and dug out beautiful Lake Superior. Those glaciers receeded from MN when the ice age started to end. It would make sense that eventually, they would recede completely and the ice age would come to a close (after all, it's been 5,000 years since the flood, bout time those ice cubes melted) Palm trees have been dug out of arctic permafrost, if it was tropical before, it could be again.
Just because it might be getting warmer does not mean we caused it. Besides, the only way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emmission is not only to scale back our industry, but to halt the development of every country in the world and live in agrarian communities. I'm enough of a hippy to maybe go for it, but I don't see anyone else joining me, so I guess we'll find out what will happen, because the world isn't giving up machines, and the undeveloped countries certainly aren't no matter what the US does. So it is kind of silly to argue about.
19. Chris Krycho said the following at 9:21 AM on Feb 3:
A sense of humor is a good thing to have, people. Even if you disagree, at least realize that Ted was intentionally trying to set up the conversation to be a little bit more lighthearted instead of turning into a verbal brawl.
The consensus remains out on whether global warming is really happening, at this point - contrary to what propaganda like Al Gore's recent movie on the topic, An Inconvenient Truth, would have you believe. Scientists are split. Particularly those scientists who do not have anything riding on the question of global warming - research dollars, etc. - tend to be skeptical of the claims being made, and I've heard numerous physicists, meteorologists, and climatologists who are not studying the current trends actively but have read the vast majority of the research simply and clearly state that global warming does not exist.
Why do most conservatives reject it, then? Because, especially as questionable as it is, global warming tends to be simply a way for extremist liberals to once again find ways for the government to impose more control over everyone's personal lives. Often the very same people are attempting to implement things like the Kyoto Protocol -- which can be easily demonstrated to be statistically irrelevant in terms of total output for so-called "greenhouse gases" -- and then complaining about the stifling of Third World countries' abilities to get going economically, missing the fact that is a direct connection between the two, as well as between many other extreme environmentalist positions. I believe we ought to be good stewards. That does not mean bowing down at the altar of nature and placing "nature" -- over which we have little control anyway -- on a higher level than our fellow men and women. Men and women who need to be fed, clothed, and above all to hear the gospel of Christ. Christians have traditionally been -- and largely remain -- against government taking an active hand in micromanaging people's lives. I repeat: we need to be good stewards. Part of that, though, means understanding the realities of what is actually happening rather than listening to the shrill cries coming from extremists and the mainstream media.
In case anyone doesn't remember, twenty years ago the threat wasn't global warming. It was that we were headed into the next ice age. Given the drastic flip, I (and most other people of a scientific bent that I know) are disinclined to believe the raucous cries of those shouting our doom and destruction. In any case, there's little we can do. If we reduced our "greenhouse gas" emissions by fifty percent in the whole world -- which is literally impossible short of destroying the whole world economy and sinking the world into a dark age, but let's assume it anyway -- that would change the total amount of "greenhouse gases" being pumped into the air by less than 1%. The vast majority of greenhouse gases come from things like volcanic activity; and when I say vast majority I mean around 98%. It's the same issue with deforestation and how that's going to hurt us: it won't, though I do think we ought to be good stewards and use our resources wisely. Why won't it hurt us? Because nearly all the respiration (conversion of CO2 to less "greenhouse-ish" gases) that occurs on the planet is done by green algae in the oceans, grasses, etc. Enough so that it would be irrelevant if every tree on the planet was wiped out.
Again, I'm all for stewardship. Informed stewardship, not panicking because the mainstream media likes 30-second, fear-inducing sound bites.
- Chris
20. Becca said the following at 9:32 AM on Feb 3:
Ted, I don't think anyone blames politicians for global warming. It's a human problem, not a politician problem.
As a person who accepts that global warming exists - much as I wish I didn't have to - I certainly consider myself at fault and struggle with what I can do better to soften my portion of the blame, and I've never met anyone who accepted global warming who didn't feel the same way.
21. mindlab said the following at 9:39 AM on Feb 3:
Beautiful. Despite the ever present whining, sarcasm IS an important part of humor, and your post was wonderfully sarcastic. Hopefully the poor Martians are able to survive this climatic disaster. . .
22. Farley said the following at 10:43 AM on Feb 3:
Ted,
I would be interested in reading more from the unbiased sources of your information. The current upward trend in global temperatures is a known fact (see URL below); therefore, you can remove "if it exists" from the term "global warming". The real question involves the influence of human activity. Who do we trust to provide answers? Not politicians. Not theologians. Not radio talkshow hosts. Not special interest groups. Scientists also have their own biases, but since this issue doesn't involve presuppositions against God's existence, I believe the most reasonable tack is to follow their lead. If the majority of scientists are wrong, then they are wrong. However, I would rather be wrong following those with expertise in this field, than be wrong following those without any training in earth sciences. Would you accept that this is the most reasonable approach? If not, then what is? Again, I would like to read from your unbiased sources. I guess that goes for anyone viewing this thread with information proving no influence of human activity on global warming, please indulge me and provide these sources.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
23. JB said the following at 10:53 AM on Feb 3:
I think that global warming presents us with a problem of practical epistemology. I am not personally a climatologist and I haven't studied the field, so how should I assess what seem to be competing claims about the science? I'm forced to rely on the expertise of others. It seems that I ought to reject GW when the scientific community rejects it, have doubts when there seems to be a lot of debate, and accept it when the scientific community accepts it. I think that's the way we usually assess scientific claims that go beyond our personal knowledge. Take the health risks of tobacco for example. 99.99% of the doctors you'll meet will tell you that smoking causes cancer, though you might find the odd person online who says otherwise. I think you'd be smart to go with the scientific consensus, even bearing in mind that we have historical examples of the scientific orthodoxy being wrong.
On global warming, while there are some scientists who deny that it is real/caused by humans/harmful, I think it's pretty clear that the overwhelming consensus, both in the US and abroad, is that GW is all of those things. There is still a lot of uncertainty about what can or should be done about it, but I don't see that we can justifiably reject anthropogenic global warming as nonexperts. I am curious, though - if you don't believe that GW is real and caused by humans, why not? Do you think that you can identify a flaw in, say, the latest UN report that the authors missed? Do you believe that the researchers involved are all biased? Do you have another reason?
24. April A. LaLande said the following at 11:32 AM on Feb 3:
As a certain Nobel peace prize nominee said this last week, if global warming is indeed happening, who says it is a bad thing? Maybe we can utilize it for good.
Here in the lovely state of Oregon, we've had the coldest winter any of us can remember. Global warming seems to be a lot of baseless hype, but I say, bring...it...on!!!
25. Laura said the following at 12:55 PM on Feb 3:
I have no doubt that global warming is caused at least in part by human activity. Even if it's not, the massive release of pollutants into the atmosphere that started with the Industrial Revolution and has grown exponentially in the 20th and 21st centuries can't be considered good Christian stewardship of creation. Having lived in a third world city with basically no regulation of these matters, I can say with great certainty that it's bad to live with polluted air and water. I don't believe that God wants children to get sick and die much more easily, all because they can't breathe. That for me is enough reason to support government intervention in the free market to make businesses behave responsibly towards the environment.
26. Farley said the following at 1:01 PM on Feb 3:
Ted,
In addition to my previous comment (which has yet to post), the Republican arm of the House of Representatives has web-posted the record from a committee hearing on global warming's science and politics. It is very enlightening testimony.
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=24
27. Jacob said the following at 2:49 PM on Feb 3:
Laura,
While it may be possible for other governments to carry out such actions, how to you justify actions by the U.S. national government against polluting businesses according to our laws? You won't find a constitutional mandate for it, and what isn't mandated for the national government is the responsibility of individual states, assuming said power is not given to the states either. No one wants to drink dirty water, including businessmen, but we should not expect the government (especially at the national level) to fix all of our problems. It's not their job, it's our's.
28. Jethro said the following at 3:10 PM on Feb 3:
I'm sure this will go down like a lead balloon, but has anyone seen An Inconvenient Truth?
If so, personal dislikes of Al Gore aside, how do you explain away the data which shows that the earth is at its hottest in millions of years? Or that in an independent review study of articles on global warming in respected scientific journals, that none had actually published any articles refuting global warming?
Ted, you sound very very sure about the causes of global warming. Can I ask how you are so certain and how you reached the conclusion that human influence has not played a part?
29. Ted Slater said the following at 3:14 PM on Feb 3:
OK, after doing more research, I have to conclude that, just as temperatures are rising on other planets in our solar system (likely due to increased solar activity), temperatures have been rising slightly on Earth over the past few hundred years.
The question is "Why?"
Scientists say that it's the result of the following four things:
1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space
We can't do anything about the first three items, so what about the fourth?
Research indicates that less than 0.3% of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity. In other words, approximately 99.7% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor.
I began this thread to make light of those who are trying to get us to panic (perhaps in an effort to increase governmental control over our lives), and who are blaming people (mostly President Bush and large businesses) for what's clearly a natural phenomenon. Pollution is bad, of course, but that's a different topic from "global warming."
(As an aside, there is less pollution in the States now than there has been in years. Not more.)
Here's something to think about. Consider the object that is responsible for "warming" our "globe": the sun. Its mass is about 333,000 times Earth's mass. The sun's diameter is over 100 times that of the earth. It's HUGE! Doesn't it make sense that if the sun's output fluctuates just a bit (which it does), then the way it warms the earth would fluctuate just a bit (which it does)?
If you have some time, and are up to getting some real information about this issue, visit this page. Then take the Global Warming Test.
Sorry to get all serious with you. It just struck me as time to bring the facts to the table on this obviously contentious subject.
30. Anna said the following at 4:09 PM on Feb 3:
My local newspaper had a really interesting article today about Christians becoming involved in the environmental movement : http://www.startribune.com/614/story/977169.html
31. Brooke said the following at 5:22 PM on Feb 3:
I did a research paper on global warming a few years ago and it is pretty easy to find sources, no matter which side you take. But should we take the risk the global warming is not real?
32. Laura said the following at 5:54 PM on Feb 3:
Jacob,
I justify it in that it's the right thing to do. When state governments DON'T live up to their responsibility to take care of the problem (and their citizens are either too unaware or apathetic to force them to do so), the federal government has to do something, because pollution doesn't respect state or national boundaries. The federal government has a responsibility to protect ALL American citizens, not just those in states that ask for it.
I'm not a strict constructionist, but I could make a pretty good case for government involvement under the interstate commerce clause by arguing that pollution interferes with business and labor.
33. Farley said the following at 5:56 PM on Feb 3:
Okay Ted,
If you want to base your beliefs on Monte Hieb, that is your choice. Who is Monte Hieb, you ask? Well, I couldn't find any links on his website to check his credentials. I couldn't find any links listing peer-reviewed articles he has written. His references to other people's works are mostly from the 1990's -- obsolete, in terms of data reliability. Even some of his pages haven't been updated in years. Still, who is this guy? I found that he is an engineer with the West Virginia State Office of Miners Health, Safety and Training. It makes me wonder how an engineer with the WV State Office of Miners Health, Safety and Training, could understand the significance of gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
I asked the question before, and will ask it again ... What is most reasonable?
1) Believe the overwhelming number of scientist who's expertise resides in climatology, or
2) One engineer with the West Virginia State Office of Miners Health, Safety and Training
You can pick #2, if you want. As a Christian desiring truth as well as The (T)ruth, my stewardship says go with #1. If memory serves me, I think even President Bush recently choose the first option.
Also, I'm not trying to be a pain or make the discussion contentious; only to help you by some information. You choose to do what you want with it; you are ultimately responsible for what you believe. But think about this, you may have an even greater amount of responsibility, due to your position of influence.
... just some stuff to consider.
34. Ted Slater said the following at 11:47 AM on Feb 4:
Here are three more links for those of you who are interested in better understanding the facts and fictions behind global warming:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279a.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 (written by the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT; yeah, he knows what he's talking about)
http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm
35. JB said the following at 12:59 PM on Feb 4:
Ted,
Of the three sources you've cited in your posts, only one was authored in part by a climate scientist. The "Geocraft" articles were written by a mining engineer and the Competitive Enterprise Institute article was authored by a political scientist. The National Center for Policy Analysis (an organization, by the way, which receives a good portion of its funding from automobile manufacturing and oil interests) article was at least written in part by a Dr. Singer who appears to be a well-regarded scientist.
The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which found good evidence for anthropogenic global warming, was authored by 145 scientists and reviewed by hundreds more. Many of the lead authors of the report came from the United States' own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is an organization trusted by our government with people's lives when it makes predictions about the weather.
If you read a study supported by all of the major pediatrics associations in the world that said that chemical X was bad for children but one scientist receiving funding from a chemical manufacturer disagreed, would you let your child get near the chemical? Of course not. When you assess technical information outside of your own specialty, you rely on scientific consensus, not the lone voice in the wilderness. So why is it that you place your faith in Dr. Singer above the hundreds of scientists who wrote the UN report? Maybe Singer is right and the other scientists are wrong but I don't think I'm technically competent to be able to judge between the competing claims. Are you?
36. Farley said the following at 4:37 PM on Feb 4:
The NCPA and CEI are both special interest organizations; they are flatly against anything suggesting government regulation. Lindzen from MIT is one of a handful of credentialed skeptics of global warming. Yet, the volume of increasingly reliable data and accurate computer modeling have strengthened the case for global warming, not against it. The results of these improvements can be seen in the conversion of a skeptic, Ronald Bailey at Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/150.html). I sent a comment yesterday that you have not posted at this time, laying out a highly logical argument for which you have not refuted. In the medical field, if a clear overwhelming majority of specialists suggest that you have a condition, are you going to believe them? I bet you would. Why is this no different? It smells like relativism, to be quite blunt.
37. Dale said the following at 6:23 PM on Feb 4:
Regardless if "global warming" is real or not, do we not trust our Heavenly Father to see us through any crisis that may arise?
I try to be a good steward just for the sake of it and not to avoid global warming.
On a lighter side, NOW is the time to start investing in A/C companies :) get in on the ground floor!
38. Paul said the following at 6:54 PM on Feb 4:
Thanks for the links Ted. At first glance these look convincing, but all of these scientists are reported to be funded by the fossil fuel industry, and more importantly, they don't appear to have been subject to any form of independent scientific appraisal. Often scientists that refute human-caused climate change are speaking outside their particular field of expertise, so it would be useful if you could provide any links that you have to peer-reviewed research that has been published in reputable scientific journals.
Yes, solar activity does cause changes in climate (as we can see on other planets), so does volcanic activity. There is a lot of evidence that has been gathered from permafrost and geology that shows us a good correlation between climate and a range of natural factors up until the time of the industrial revolution. Fortunately, God has designed the world with a little inbuilt tolerance, so that the climate can vary, and within certain limits we are still able to thrive and maintain our stewardship of it.
Beyond the start of the industrial revolution though, scientists have failed to find to make any climate model come close to fitting the natural influences alone (even many billions of dollars of research conducted on behalf of Exxon seem to have failed to do this). However once the increase in carbon dioxide that can be attributed to mankind is taken into account, the models start to correlate again with recorded data.
The compelling scientific argument that is being widely reported at the moment does recognise that there are a lot of natural factors at play, but also goes on to demonstrate that human influences have the potential to push our climate outside of the bounds of it's safe created order, unless we act very quickly.
It's a real shame that a large chunk of the church has been hoodwinked into believing those politicians who deny our affect on global warming, just because we happen to agree with them on a number of other unrelated issues.
39. Jessica said the following at 7:18 AM on Feb 5:
Once again, I would like to point out that there are many suppositions and claims that people are making about global warming---on both sides of the fence. It bothers me so much that both liberals and conservatives bash each other on this very issue, in addition to people who attack environmentalists for caring about the world we live in.
Once again, we have look beyond the smokescreen and look at the motives of behavior and positions. I really believe that the global warming is really a smokescreen for bigger issues going on the world---war, poverty, hate, genocide, etc. I also believe that the global warming issue is really a distraction to issues about the planet we live in that have an affect on our lives and the lives of others.
Air and water pollution is a classic example of this, and it affects those who live and work in cities every day(although some more than others). However, I am aware that solutions for these issues should be reached without endangering and sacrificing the lives of other human beings. I believe that is a matter of balance---caring for the environment we live in so that we can function the way were created to function, but not putting my desire for a harmonious environment above human needs. (I believe that all environmentalists have been lumped into some sort of stereotype that they care more about the lives of animals than human beings, which I believe is the same sort of stereotyping that deeply divides us and brings us further from the truth and the love of God we are to convey to others.
40. Becky F. said the following at 10:25 AM on Feb 5:
Whew! I just read through all the comments, and I think that some people were a little too high strung on this issue in saying that Ted doesn't know what he's talking about, that Global Warming is a political issue and has no reason to be on The Line, etc.
This may sound funny/odd, but as Christians we don't have to talk about Jesus in every topic we discuss together. Also, Christians should participate in politics to make sure we are being represented by our democratic republic, and to make sure we have good people in office.
That being said, to bring the Christian issue back to these environmental issues: I think we've forgotten here that when Adam and Eve sinned and God brought death into the world, that death happens to not just human beings, but animals, plants, and the earth in general. All creation is cursed along with human beings. Just look at the increase of natural disasters in the past few years alone. It's signs of the end times (see Matt. 24 and Mark 13), so it's not necessarily a bad thing to the Christian (except that we have less and less time to preach the Gospel to all nations).
I don't remember who made the point about the Great Flood, but I'm sure that it greatly changed the earth (and aged the earth, but that's a different topic!). Also, it was a great point that since weather patterns have really only been measured over the last few centuries, there are probably a lot of weather patterns we do not know about, being that the earth was around for a couple thousand years before we thought to make measuring weather a science.
Something else to thing about, the sun is a star. Stars do not last forever. A lot of stars die out. Who's to say that the sun is not getting old and tired? But that's just something else that may scare people.
I agree that it is very important to try to take care of the earth, or "tend the garden" as Ted quoted. We should take care of and love all God's creation in response to His love for us. And we are collectively starting to do a better job of this. The government does not have to do it, because there are global business organizations like the ISO 9000 (www.iso.org) that are an honor to be a member of, which have much higher environmental regulations than most governments.
Sorry this ended up being really long, but I just think that we've forgotten that these changes in the earth were prophesied by Jesus as being signs that His second coming is closer. And, while we should be good stewards of the gifts that God has given us, we need to remember that He is in control and HE knows what He's doing.
(P.S. It's the coldest I ever remember here in St. Louis, MO too. Today's high is only 20 degrees, and it's been like this for a while. Our summers aren't much hotter than they usually are either lately, in the upper 90's for most of the summer.)
41. Peter Mac said the following at 11:15 AM on Feb 5:
I do find it disheartening that despite the current warming trends in the global climate, little is said in the way of critiquing the solutions that have been brought forward to fix the problem (assuming human activity is the cause and we can do something to change it). I hear only "conservative" voices throwing out stuff about volcanoes and cows producing most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (unsubstantiated but uncontested), and no one coming up with campaigns to cap the volcanoes or plug the cows, thankfully. Some have said (sarcastically) that the ice caps might possibly be melting because of the black ash dropped from planes to make the ice visible to satellites for things like Google Earth, etc.
There is little said from a "liberal" standpoint of the data showing a yearly decline in pollution in America over the past decade, and no one saying, "Good job America; keep up the good work!" Dell Corp. and Citibank’s respective promises to plant trees on behalf of those who return old computers or sign up for paperless bank statements have impressed me, but they are not trumpeted or heralded apart from the companies’ own advertising, despite their immanent practicality. As a friend once stated, recycling is a later resort, not an end in itself. I too can remember the "second ice age" scare from a couple decades ago, so I can't help but withhold judgment initially and be very skeptical that this isn't actually just a political use of natural phenomena, conveniently used to help a candidate turn themselves into a savior, or at least paint their opponent as a devil (don't suppose this doesn't happen in the scientific community too--Intelligent Design debates have caused a ruckus for dissenters there as well).
Perhaps the reason most (American) Christians disbelieve global warming as much as they do (apart from those who deny anything that might require them to change their lifestyle in some small way) is that it is often used by liberal sources as support for GOVERNMENTAL control of the problem or "crisis." It can't be denied that this debate is a highly charged one, or even that it is a debate in the first place, each side's respective stack of evidence notwithstanding. Stewardship of God's earth is a human privilege extended by a gracious God for a period of time. When he sees fit to intervene catastrophically in human history again (have we forgotten to look forward to his reappearing?) then he has guaranteed a New Heaven and a New Earth where righteousness dwells. It is his earth, after all, and Christians should not be vilified for remembering that that is the determining factor in how we treat it, or for calling to account the proposals of those who don’t believe that the earth belongs to him in the first place.
42. Motte said the following at 1:24 PM on Feb 5:
As one might suspect, I'm in Ted's corner on this. So here's a link I found on Breakpoint's blog -- thepoint.breakpoint.org -- from a real climatologist whom even Farley may have difficulty discrediting. =)
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
43. Steven said the following at 3:16 PM on Feb 5:
20 years ago, even just 5 to 10 years ago, the evidence showing global warming was neither strong nor overwhelming. Now, scientists in seemingly unrelated fields are observing different trends that all point back to global warming. And even more recently, scientists are finding evidence that the most significant part of global warming can be traced back to carbon created from burning fossil fuels.
Arguing against the reality of global warming even 5 years ago could have been a reasonably intelligent debate. With the overwhelming evidence that is available from scientists across the world in countless different fields, the debate is becoming more of a demonstration of how we (myself included) refuse to open our minds to a factual debate but rather would prefer to stick to a set of beliefs that was made before all of the facts were on the table. Everyone owes it to themselves to seriously consider the facts, not rely on old research or simply what friends and parents claim (unless that friend or parent is writing peer-reviewed articles, of course).
What we should be looking at is the awesome chance for making an Apollo space program like effort for finding renewable resources to be good stewards of our planet that Christ provided. There are so many possibilities for solutions, but so many people try to argue a belief that is outdated and uninformed. No offense to anyone. I was strongly opposed to global warming scientists just 6 months ago, until I took the time to look at the research. My views changed in light of facts, not environmental dogma.
44. Anna said the following at 3:20 PM on Feb 5:
I have a feeling some people think I have no sense of humor about this topic, but really, why not err on the side of caution and believe that global warming exists? I don't want to pass down this problem to my children and grandchildren -- why put their lives in danger?
Motte, the Dr. Timothy Ball who wrote the article you refer to is simply not as great as you seem to think he is. With just a simple Google search, I found (and, granted, the information is from a "global warming is real" viewpoint"), that he has only 1 published book on climate change -- from 1972. Searches by the blog's authors turned up only 2 peer-reviewed articles he had written. I have to echo JB and Farley -- since the majority of us commenting or writing here are not scientists, why the rush to endorse the very small minority of scientists (most with questionable ties or few peer-reviewed works) who claim global warming caused by humans is nonexistent?
Source: http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-first-canadian-phd-in-climatology
45. Farley said the following at 7:13 PM on Feb 5:
Sorry for the delay, Motte. It looks like Anna has taken care of things very well. Good job, Anna! If you need (or even want) more information on Dr. Ball, here is a good article from the Vancouver Sun ( http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4399cb65-c847-4d63-ac8c-21c045ec90ed&k=50786 ). I've asked the question a couple of times regarding 'what is reasonable', but no one has challenged the logic. I would like someone to prove it wrong. However, if the logic is sound and accurately representative, then what is our responsibility to the resulting conclusion? Do we dismiss it and continue to believe what we want? Or, do we soul search and change our path? It is a pointed question, yes, but necessary in determining good stewardship. It also speaks to maintaining integrity in this world and honoring God.
Finally, believe it or not, I'm not telling anyone what to believe; I have no agenda other than the truth (as much as we can know it). I do want to challenge people to prove their belief through valid logic, and have the courage to change course, if necessary. It is difficult; I've done it. Look over the previous posts. Look at my logic. If it is wrong, then tell me; I'll gladly change course. If it is not wrong, then it is up to you to make a tough decision.
Thanks for your time, and Ted's time, on a challenging subject. :)
46. Leah said the following at 7:25 PM on Feb 5:
Whether global warming itself actually exists or not (and I think it does), it's very obvious that human activity still affects climate change. That should be all we need to know to spur us into action.
47. Ted Slater said the following at 8:06 PM on Feb 5:
Leah, I don't mean to be contentious, but I am interested to know what the "action" is that you want us spurred on toward. Please specify what will inhibit global warming, and how your proposed action will bring about any significant change.
Again, I honestly don't mean to be rude, but your answer will tell a lot about what you see as specific causes of increased greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2 and methane, how humans are responsible for them, and how we can then cool things back down.
I hope this question isn't "overstepping the line." ;-)
48. Becca said the following at 9:42 PM on Feb 5:
Ted, I think you've asked a good question. It's a hard one to answer, because it's true that there's little we can do that will have immediately significant results. That's part of what makes the whole problem so scary for those of us who accept that it exists.
One idea (which in my opinion would solve many problems beyond global warming) is for humans to start living on a smaller scale again, as we did in the past. How many of us drive a good distance to go to Walmart or the mall to buy our clothes, food, and other stuff? It would be much more fuel-efficient (and it would build community!) if we walked down the street to the store for these things - and even if we still drove sometimes, it would be mostly for shorter distances. Taking the smaller-scale living idea a little further, it would also help a lot to get raw materials more locally too -- less foreign produce and foreign-manufactured clothing and other goods, and more local crops and locally-produced (or even homemade) clothes and housewares etc. This would mean much less fuel used on getting these goods to our homes, and therefore less (if even by a little) CO2 in the atmosphere.
Another important source of greenhouse gases is the raising of larger livestock - like cows, as mentioned - for human consumption (see also this paper from scientists at the University of Chicago in .pdf). So another obvious way that we can take a little action is to reduce our consumption of larger livestock like beef and pork. It's not even necessary to stop eating these meats altogether - I think I'd die if I couldn't have some good hot beef chili in this cold weather (and keep in mind that colder temperatures in temperate regions is another symptom of global warming (see also this article, a summary of an article from the respected journal Nature) - it's not about each specific place on earth getting warmer, but about the earth getting warmer overall). A simple reduction in our consumption - and therefore in the "manufacturing" - of livestock would certainly do something toward reducing the amount of methane going into the atmosphere.
Obviously, the actions of just one person, or of a small group of people aren't going to change the world all at once -- but Christians are used to that, and persevere in spite of it. We all hope that someday the whole world will faithfully love their neighbors as themselves and love the Lord above all, but we don't seriously think that the actions of ourselves and our fellows alone will accomplish that -- but we still set an example and hope that it makes some change, however small. Any action on global warming will probably have to be approached the same way, at least at the beginning.
So doesn't seem right to dismiss taking action in the first place just because it wouldn't initially (or possibly ever -- who knows) bring about any "significant" change. That's like saying that we shouldn't talk to other people about what we believe because it might not make a difference to them right away, or that we shouldn't try to stop hunger or abortion or crime because they are such difficult things to fight, and we might not be able to make any change. Embracing hopelessness doesn't seem like a very Christian approach to the problem.
Even if any action taken doesn't spur any immediate significant change in the physical problems of the earth, it may at least cause people to begin to think about our planet a little more thoughtfully. A large part of why the earth's environmental problems (from global warming to simple littering) exist is because we take our earth for granted instead of giving thanks and being good stewards of it (even in the smallest, most insignificant ways).
49. Becca said the following at 9:59 PM on Feb 5:
Oops - in my last comment, the link I put in for "colder temperatures in temperate climates" only covers the last half of the point I was making (the one about it being an overall raise in temperature, not a raise in temperature in every area of the earth). Here is a better link, and a link to a .pdf of another scientific article on the subject. I shouldn't rush so much when I'm typing my posts!
50. Chris Krycho said the following at 2:13 AM on Feb 6:
Becca, while I admire your willingness to answer those questions, there are significant issues with nearly all of the suggestions you raise - namely, that you ignore the economic repercussions of attempting to do what you suggest. Particularly in your "smaller living" idea, you miss the fact that doing what you suggest would drive up prices dramatically and simultaneously drive down efficiency enormously. While it might seem an attractive idea in many ways (certainly the sense of community would be wonderful!) that reduction in efficiency would likely result in increases, not decreases, in the amounts of pollutants of various sorts put out. Rather than a few large machines used to work fields, for example, farmers would all have to own their own. Transportation would be more involved and more time-consuming and might possibly (and indeed, even probably) require higher volumes of fuel, given a more delocalized distribution network. More importantly than any of these factors, though, in my mind are that while all of that might be manageable in America, it certainly wouldn't be in third- or even second-world countries where all the economic development possible is needed. Walmart is a good thing for people in those kinds of communities. Likewise, our having large amounts of foreign imported materials, food, etc. is generally good for the world's economy, and the more economic stimulus that growing countries can get, the sooner their poverty rates can fall and their people can be put in healthier, more sanitary conditions. Livestock are necessary, too, and cutting back is, well... rather pointless. I'm coming from a physics perspective here, and the amount of extra methane being released by cows and pigs that are being raised is so insignificant that at an experimental level, it's what's generally considered "trivial" when working equations. You leave it out. The sheer number of other animals on the other planet makes domesticated animals used for beef, etc. production irrelevant.
I don't disagree that we need to be good stewards. Again, I have to point out though that that means more than just "cutting back." At times it means doing the exact opposite. For example, the best way to reduce so-called greenhouse emissions longterm probably involves allowing them to go up right now so that developing countries can develop to the point where more environmentally safe processes are actually affordable for businesses and governments in those countries. Of course, any such suggestion meets with political attack and cries of irresponsibility, despite the fact that a simple but robust analysis of the situation from an economic standpoint strongly suggests that doing just that will be far and away the best solution long term.
51. Farley said the following at 8:52 AM on Feb 6:
The focus has seemed to change from the existence of global warming, to policy-based arguments. Could it be that the reason some do not acknowledge the majority scientific opinion, is purely because of a concern over any resulting policy?
52. PaulD said the following at 9:18 AM on Feb 6:
"One idea (which in my opinion would solve many problems beyond global warming) is for humans to start living on a smaller scale again, as we did in the past. "
As a practical matter such shifts will not occur on a sufficiently large scale to make a significant difference unless the changes are in some way coerced through government policy. Even if the developed countries were willing to enact intrusive government policies needed to curtail economic activities, there is little reason to believe that developing and emerging economies would be willing to enact similar policies.
In the long-run the only solution to reducing greenhouse gases will be a technological solution. So one aspect I this debate I find puzzling is that those who are so concerned about greenhouse gases are not willing to embrace the only existing technology that does not create greenhouse gases and is technologically and economically viable -- i.e. nuclear power. Sure, nuclear power has its downsides but they would seem to pale compared to the concern that New York and all the world's major port cities will be under water in the next hundre years.
53. Becca said the following at 9:32 AM on Feb 6:
I'd be the first to agree that there are issues with my suggestions. That's why we should all hope that more people get involved in solving global warming issues - the more ideas on the table and the more discourse about them the better off we'll be. It would be an incredible thing if economists, theologians, scientists, housewives, and students (and many more) would all set their minds on environmental responsibility and stewardship and really focus on how to live in a way that reflects these values while remaining practical.
The problems with the "smaller living" idea that you point out are certainly present if everyone begins to live that way all of a sudden - but that's definitely not something that's likely to happen. If just a few people in one community began to live that way and the idea caught on more gradually the transition would happen more slowly, and less efficiency would be lost because business would have had time to acclimate to the change.
I also agree with you about the situation in third and second world countries -- but there's no reason why their economic development needs to include the same amount of pollution that ours has. For example, it would be great if in addition to supporting the development of alternative energy sources at home (something that Bush has, thankfully, been somewhat interested in), America could support their proliferation in those developing nations. The best way to make things like solar power commonplace is to make them the norm from the beginning. (And before you knock solar power, I've stayed at a beautiful house in Maine that's completely solar powered -- and it had a computer, fridge, and everything else. You'd have never guessed that it wasn't "on the grid". And I'm sure the cloudy days issue is much less of a problem in certain parts of Africa and other nations than it is in rainy summertime Maine!)
On the cow issue, the article I linked to states "agricultural livestock" release 17% of the methane in the atmosphere --- certainly somewhat significant, at the very least. Furthermore, the article also explains that the reason they produce so much methane is because of the way the digestive systems of cows and other grazing animals work - so it's not an issue that's made irrelevant by the sheer number of other animals on the earth, since most of those aren't cows. (You should check out the University of Chicago article on the issue, by the way -- it also factors in other aspects of the meat industry, particularly transportation -- it's a really neat paper.)
You're also right that more than just cutting back is ultimately necessary. I only suggest cutting back as a first step, because people are even less likely to take action if they need to make whole sacrifices right off the bat.
Also, Farley, that's a really, really interesting question. I hope someone answers it!
54. Farley said the following at 10:11 AM on Feb 6:
Becca, I hope someone answers it as well. So far, the silence is deafening!
55. Becky F. said the following at 10:25 AM on Feb 6:
"The problems with the "smaller living" idea that you point out are certainly present if everyone begins to live that way all of a sudden - but that's definitely not something that's likely to happen. If just a few people in one community began to live that way and the idea caught on more gradually the transition would happen more slowly, and less efficiency would be lost because business would have had time to acclimate to the change."
I'm sure there are many people in most of our neighborhoods who already live this way, because they have no choice but to do so since they may be unemployed or working for minimum wage, which is kind of sad, but that's a whole different issue.
I really like the idea of moving back to when life was simpler, but the way society is now... it's pretty much impossible. With so many people moving to the "ex-urbs" and out of the suburbs, yet still working in the city, it's really hard for these people to walk anywhere within a reasonable distance. Also, in colder areas it is no fun at all to walk anywhere with the freezing wind blowing in your face. In the spring/summer/fall, sure. Although, in hot places it can be just as agonizing walking somewhere in the summer. I think it would be fun and great to have a more "small town" feel to life, but with the ideals of our society as a whole, I just don't think it would catch on enough to make any difference.
Heck, I'm all for going back to a barter system, because I hate money and I wish it wasn't necessary. ;)
56. Ted Slater said the following at 10:29 AM on Feb 6:
Becca -- water vapor accounts for 95% of "greenhouse gases."
If you disregard that (which you really shouldn't), you're left with CO2 accounting for 99.4% of remaining greenhouse gases and methane as 0.47% of greenhouse gases. If all cows are responsible for 17% of methane, then they contribute less than 0.08% of all non-water vapor greenhouse gases. If you include water vapor (which is a "greenhouse gas"), the effect that cows' methane has on our environment is in fact extremely minor.
From an objective standpoint, this really is insignificant, no?
57. Becky F. said the following at 10:39 AM on Feb 6:
Ok Farley, so I went back and read all your comments. I think it is perfectly reasonable to go ahead and agree with scientific majority opinion when there is no good evidence to prove otherwise. I'm not necessarily saying that I do not believe that global warming exists, personally, it's just not an issue that I care about enough to really do something about it. Issues I care about are church and family. I like to be informed of things outside of that, but I think it's much more important for me to be concerned about people I come in contact with, and caring for them.
Just an aside, we have to be careful what majority opinions we're going to agree with (not that science is necessarily wrong on this issue, but the next generations may find they are, we can't know), because majority opinions have been very wrong before. At one point, the "majority" of America believed that slavery of black people was ok. Currently, the "majority" of America believes that macro-evolution is pretty much the only reasonable origin of the world and that abortion is perfectly acceptable. Now, we know that those things are certainly wrong because we have substantial Biblical evidence.
It's all about discernment, and environmental issues don't have any strong Biblical stance besides taking care of God's gifts to us, so I think it's safe to say that people can hold their own opinions on these types of issues.
To reiterate, I think that trying to do something about global warming, etc. is great. I'm not going to be one to jumpstart anything or propose any solutions, but I'll go with the flow with whatever society decides to do about it. And like I'd said before, the world is in God's hands. He is in control, and the world deteriorating is a sign that the end times are coming closer.
58. Becky F. said the following at 10:45 AM on Feb 6:
I have a question. How are we supposed to find good, reliable sources that do not talk about the weather patterns of warming/cooling being in 100,000 year patterns or that a million years ago, blah blah blah...? Most of these scientific sources are coming from an evolutionary standpoint. What are good Christian science sources that we can agree will be accurate sources for environmental issues that don't hold the veiw that the earth is even older than 10-20,000 years old? Does Answers in Genesis talk about global warming and environmental issues?
59. Farley said the following at 11:10 AM on Feb 6:
Ted,
What is your degree in climatology? Phd, Masters, BS? I assume that your reasoning from a purely scientific aspect (with percentages, and all), is backed up by solid understanding on your part, of gas concentrations and the like, right? I mean, really, you do understand it, don't you? If you didn't understand it, how could you logically reason from a position of non-understanding?
60. John said the following at 11:23 AM on Feb 6:
" ...environmental issues don't have any strong Biblical stance besides taking care of God's gifts to us ..."
Well, this is kind of the whole point. My understanding is that for the real hardcore deep ecology types, environmentalism is more than just preserving clean water and old-growth forest. It's a religion to them. They worship Gaia the mother goddess; the earth is sacred to them. Paul was thinking of people like them when he wrote that mankind "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator .." (Romans 1:25)
We can argue about the causes of global warming (and my money is on the sun, not so-called greenhouses gasses as the culprit) but we must understand that when we debate dyed-in-the-wool environmental types, we are having a spiritual, rather than merely a scientific discussion.
Pray that they come to know the Creator who made the Earth and who one day will remake it anew.
61. Esther said the following at 11:26 AM on Feb 6:
Farley, I don't claim to be a climatologist, but I did get a degree in biological science from an Ivy League university. I've seen a lot of data from both sides of this issue, and worked with these "credentialed scientists" that keep being referred to. Unfortunately, much of the reseach now being done starts with the assumption that global warming is a major factor. Scientists are specialists, most know one subject in a great deal of detail, and may or may not have a good broad perspective of the whole situation. Also, climate and environmental issues are a huge multivariabled arena. If a researcher starts out looking for a particular trend, it is much easier to find that trend than not, and often when the data doesn't support the initial theory, it is easy to say that there was something wrong with the data or that "further study is needed".
All this to say that "proving" global warming is a difficult task indeed, as is "disproving" global warming. Even if we manage to figure that one out, the next question is whether or not human activities have an effect on global climate. Then, supposing we could prove that humans do have a significant influence, are there responsible means for us to improve these conditions?
I believe that the switch to debating policy issues comes from the very resonable sense that emotional, well-intentioned policies can have long term detrimental effects. Not to open another can of worms, but socialism is a very attractive philosophy (we'll all live together as equals, sharing all our possessions and pooling our labor), yet those nations that have tried it haven't had much success. Is it wise to enact policies with potentially large economic effects, out of the argument that, "we can't risk the potential long-term effects on our (hypothetical) children"? So far, while I have seen some reasonably good information that climate may be changing, I haven't been convinced that it is due to human factors, or that the policies currently suggested are very practical.
I love nature, the outdoors and wholly support living a conservative (on all levels) life. I am just as disgusted by unneeded wastes of fuel and resources as any "tree-hugger". Unfortunately, I've seen a number of situations where organizations have attempted to make environmentally sound changes and faced huge resistance from the environmental movement. It is easy to talk about everyone getting solar panels and driving hybrid cars, but when it comes down to something practical like putting up a windmill farm, there seems to be a lot of confusion about appropriate policies of stewardship.
62. Motte said the following at 11:27 AM on Feb 6:
To Farley, et al.
You guys are wearing me out, but I'll give it one more go. =)
First, the "majority of scientists" argument as proof of the causes of global warming is sketchy at best. Farley, if you are referencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), their rules put the emphasis on reaching a consensus, regardless of dissenting opinions. As pointed out a the recent WSJ article, "I bet Galileo would have had a rough time with that." And also, "A consensus early last century would have given us eugenics." The article goes on to state that the IPCC is very much a political "supercommittee" that "does no original research" but simply relies on documents from "both peer review experts and review by governments." (emphasis mine) And governments have their own political "agendas".
It really is a great article. It's written by Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London. In it, Stott predicts that the concern over human-induced emissions will soon be replaced by "serious uncertainties of water vapor and clouds." As proof, he quotes Dr. Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center. "'The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperature is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification.'" (emphasis mine)
Finally, to Farley's question about a concern over resulting policy. You bet! Again, Mr. Stott answers this quite well:
In other words, the climate is way out of our control no matter how many regulations we put on our consumption of fossil fuels.
63. Ted Slater said the following at 11:27 AM on Feb 6:
Farley -- that I've earned two master's degrees is irrelevant to this discussion.
The facts remain that greenhouse gases consist of water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxides and some other things. That fact remains, regardless of who says it. Are you challenging that fact?
It doesn't serve our conversation to promote such logical fallacies as "appeal to authority" and "ad homenem."
64. Becky F. said the following at 11:41 AM on Feb 6:
Ok, I did some googling and answered my own question. Answers in Genesis does have two articles on global warming written by a retired meteorologist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/global-warming
65. Farley said the following at 12:26 PM on Feb 6:
Also, I find it interesting that you linked to Wikipedia on logical fallacies. An 'appeal to authority' is not what I have done; and I would glady make the distinction for you, at your request. If people take the time to read the Wikipedia link, they will find the following paragraph...
"An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. However, referencing authority may carry a high enough probability of truth that it be feasible to base decisions on it."
May I refocus your attention to the final sentence?
66. Paul said the following at 1:32 PM on Feb 6:
Ted - Yes water vapor is far more prevalent than all the other greenhouse gasses put together, and it has the greatest warming effect.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, the greenhouse effect is generally a good thing, as it reduces the rate that the earth radiates heat and raises the equalibrium temperature of the planet's surface, making it livable (otherwise the temperature would average about -18C). The volume of water vapor in the atmosphere is fairly stable, although it does increase with temperature, and any imbalance is restored in a relatively short period of time (about a few months).
On the other hand, the other greenhouse gasses are much less stable. They can remain in the atmosphere for longer periods of time (this varies depending on the gas, from a few decades to a few centuries), so the gasses quickly accumulate and have a long term additive effect on temperature (which also causes a feedback effect in water vapor concentrations making the situation worse).
A useful analogy would be to imagine that you are paid a monthly wage that equals your outgoings, but then you start spending a little more each month (lets say just 5% more). You start off with a small overdraft that looks quite managable, but very quickly you get into the situation where it will take you a very long time to repay the debt, if at all, even if you make quite drastic cutbacks (to think that you managed to keep your bank account in balance when you were spending 95% of what you do now).
67. Leah said the following at 10:50 PM on Feb 6:
Sorry it took me a while to respond.
Ted, my point wasn't that we should take action- it's probably a good idea, but I don't really care one way or the other. My point was that the existence of global warming shouldn't be the point we are arguing. All we need to realise is that humans do affect climate change, whether this be global warming or other effects, and so take responsibility for that. I mean, God did put us in charge of his creation.
68. Ted Slater said the following at 6:48 AM on Feb 7:
Farley -- as one who appreciates the opinions of "experts" you may find this article interesting: http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
Apparently the "State Climatologist" of Oregon believes that “most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations."
Of course, he's received $5 million in bribes from Exxon. At least that's what I've heard. I think. Or, wait, he's never published anything. Um. Anything "legitimate," that is. Oh, and a politician wants him jailed for disagreeing with the majority. OK, maybe not "jailed," but the governor does want him to stop talking. What have you heard about the state climatologist of Oregon that disqualifies his opinion?
69. Farley said the following at 10:04 AM on Feb 7:
As a result of our off-line discussion, Ted, I am ending my part in the conversation with a final comment.
I DO appreciate the opinion of "experts". "Experts" who, to the best of our knowledge, have no connections to special interests on EITHER side; questions of credibility must be asked. It is not to say that their facts are wrong; only untrustworthy. George Taylor does not appear to have any ties special interest groups on any side. I think it is fair and appropriate to add his name into the mix of credible scientists. But which side? Is he skeptical of human influence? To the contrary, in his response to an article in the Willamette Weekly (see links below), he states:
"The issue is not “do humans affect climate?” Clearly there IS a human influence. The question is, “how much?” In my opinion, natural variations dominate the climate system, and will continue to do so. I have NEVER denied the human influence, but unlike Phil Mote I do not believe human impacts dominate the climate system."
I suggest that he is only disputes the level of human influence. This makes it hard to discern where he fits in the argument.
Regardless, he holds a view at odds with the majority of other credible scientific "experts". Which brings us back to my original question, "what is more reasonable?" If we hold all of our sources to the same standard of criticism, we still come up with a major majority vs. a minor minority. Therefore, I am convinced (until proven otherwise), the most reasonable and appropriate position for us non-experts, is to accept the majority of "expert" informed opinion, as we would in any other field--medical, for example.
I hope I have added something positive to the whole discussion. I wish you all well.
George Taylor links:
Willamette Weekly (unknown agenda) http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6655
George Taylor's Response to article http://www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/page_links/publications/taylor_response.html
Oregon League of Conservation Voters (green agenda)
http://olcvblog.typepad.com/olcvblog/2007/01/if_you_asked_me.html
Other Drudgereport link:
The Daily Times
http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS01/70206001/1002
70. Anna said the following at 10:05 AM on Feb 7:
Well, Ted, for one thing, Oregon's legislature abolished the position of "state climatologist" in 1989. This guy just has kept calling himself that.
Oregon's current governor: "He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know.
Source: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1170041105154270.xml&coll=7
71. Paul said the following at 10:54 AM on Feb 7:
"I did a research paper on global warming a few years ago and it is pretty easy to find sources, no matter which side you take. But should we take the risk the global warming is not real?"
If global warming can be averted by simple lifestyle changes, then certainly we should make some simple lifestyle changes. However, as I understand the issue, the world would need to make major reductions in greenhouses gases to have any significant effect on global warming. With today's technologies, the only way to make such changes would be to cause major reductions in economic activity and growth. This does not involve simple changes in lifestyles. Major reductions in economic growth would result in a large segment of the world's population remaining in perpetual abject poverty. In addition, insofar as wealth is highly correlated with reduced mortality rates, many more people would, to put it bluntly, die if economic activity is signficantly curtailed.
There are risks of doing nothing and there are risks of doing too much.
72. PaulD said the following at 8:22 AM on Feb 9:
There has been much talk on this thread about the "consensus" of scientists on global warming, which I think is highly misleading. For those who appeal to the authority of scientific "consensus" I would ask you to define more precisely what you mean.
Based on my research, I think most climate scientists would agree that the average global surface temperature has increased by a little more than one-half degreeFahrenheit in the past one hundred years. During this period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased significantly due in part to human activity. I think scientists agree that the increase in CO2 has contributed to the increase in average surface temperature. Beyond this, I think the idea that there is a consensus of scientific opinion begins to fall apart.
How much has the increased concentration of CO2 contributed to global warming over the past onehundred years? Global climate is poorly understood and from what I have read the best attempts to quantify the effect of CO2 on global temperatures are at best still nothing more than educated guesses. Contrary to some assertions made on this thread, computer models of global climate are not able to accurately track past or current global climate conditions.
Some scientists have models that predict the future impact of CO2 on global warming. The models predict a range of outcomes from relatively minor global warming to catastrophic global warming. I think that is a widespread acknowledgement among climate scientists that our ability to model future climate change is poor. Again, I think honest climate scientists would acknowledge that predictions of future global temperatures are still nothing more than educated guesses.
When people talk about the "scientific consensus" on global warming, many people understand this to mean that there is a consensus that human activity will cause catastrophic global warming in the next one hundred years. I do not believe that there is anything close to a scientific consensus regarding this. I think there is a consensus that scientists have observed global warming and that some of the warming has been caused by human activity.
73. Stan said the following at 6:51 AM on Jun 11:
Looking at many records of extreme weather conditions of the past, I see a wide range of bizarre activity that went on a hundred years ago, or so, that proves that there were really hot days in March, cold days in July, etc., huge hurricanes , and every other type of phenomenon that we see now. "Oh, well this one is bigger, fiercer, more destructive", etc. That's what they said then. I always have felt that records were made to be broken, no matter what. Of course, somewhere, there is that one that maybe can't be, but, with all that, while we may all feel less guilty cutting back on our outputs of this and that, I believe the study done that suggests that if we did EVERYTHING that we could to cut back all the proper emissions that may contribute to G. W., it would cost untold billions, and make absolutely no measurable difference, not even a quarter of a degree. The light bulbs Gore and others want us to use, are filled w/ mercury, and if one breaks in your home, to dispose of it properly, and clean it up, according to the toxic hazard safety standards out there, would cost you THOUSANDS to do it effectively. Sounds great for our families, and our envirnment, too! And... Who's got the money to pay rediculous gas, electric, and heating cost, and then run around, planting a zillion trees in their lifetime to offset their "carbon footprint". What a crock of crud!