New proof that man has caused global warming

New proof that man has caused global warming

This is the first study I'v come accross that attempts to link a cause with Global Warming. I would like to see a more technical analysis of the results, but this is exactly the kinds of research that can have a chance at influencing policy.

What do you think.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

New proof that man has caused global warming
From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington

The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.

"What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."

Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down.

Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. "The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it," Dr Barnett said.

"All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one.

"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."

Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

"We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it."

In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.

Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. "It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction," Dr Curry said.

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numberous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US.

"The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers."

Oh, heck. I just came accross a cartoon earlier today that strongly suggests women are causing global warming. Here's the theory, as presented in the cartoon: Baby boomers are entering mid-life now. That means that a huge number of baby-boomer women are entering menopause, which means they're having hot flashes in record numbers, and that causes global warming.

Considering that I saw this cartoon on the side of a PC operated by a middle-aged woman today, I'd have to guess she knew something about this and agreed with it.

Re: New proof that man has caused global warming

Originally posted by pba
I would like to see a more technical analysis of the results

This is the report your article is most likely based on. Not that technical either but at least something.

Re: Re: New proof that man has caused global warming

Originally posted by Macallan
This is the report your article is most likely based on. Not that technical either but at least something.

Surely it is mans parameters, and his denial of such, that leads to his destruction. Ie. To live on the surface of the earth.

Not to live on a "space" ship or to live beneath the sea, why is this so complicated for you to believe? Is it because you cannot solve your own problems that you inflict them on others???

I know you will say man needs to seek new horizons. May I suggest he has no right to until he sorts out his present woes.

What percentage of the earths population wants other than
the basics of shelter, food, and clothing and a happy family life? Why do capitalists want to change that with the introduction of consumerism, beats me, any comments, non political?

Agreed, why make it diffulcult when really it's pretty simple.
I thought Global warming developed with Haleys comet passing too close to our sun, creating solar flares, this was when our weather was first interrupted and we noticed our seasons changing.Since then it's snowballed from there.

Originally posted by Rapunzel
.
I thought Global warming developed with Haleys comet passing too close to our sun, creating solar flares, this was when our weather was first interrupted and we noticed our seasons changing.Since then it's snowballed from there.

I blame the Industrial Revolution but as the old saying goes "we are all fools when it comes to the weather"

Blame? Without the weather smiting man's ego on a daily basis, would there be no end!

Oh, heck. I just came accross a cartoon earlier today that strongly suggests women are causing global warming

While as a scientist I reserve judgement on global warming, I noticed a strange lapse in the article. They say this model proves that man is responsible. Well, even that's a stretch - a model doesn't technically prove anything, but it can be further evidence. But beyond that, they make a leap from "greenhouse gases" to "man". Well, then again I didn't read the original paper, maybe the article either leaves stuff out which was in the original or jumps to its own conclusions ...

Originally posted by sgunhouse
While as a scientist I reserve judgement on global warming, I noticed a strange lapse in the article. They say this model proves that man is responsible. Well, even that's a stretch - a model doesn't technically prove anything, but it can be further evidence. But beyond that, they make a leap from "greenhouse gases" to "man". Well, then again I didn't read the original paper, maybe the article either leaves stuff out which was in the original or jumps to its own conclusions ...

Agreed, the article suggests their proof is that their current model can't explain all climate changes naturally so it must be man-made. I hope that's just an over-simplification.
The original(?) article doesn't quite say the same though.

Typical that the Govt here cites farts as responsible and starts trying to tax farmers per head of stock!Sgunhouse do you know anything of the comet headed our way, all I know is that it was visible when the planets were lined up?

there is a big dif between cause and contribute to

Re: Re: Re: New proof that man has caused global warming

Originally posted by minutiae
Is it because you cannot solve your own problems that you inflict them on others???

May I suggest he has no right to until he sorts out his present woes.

what others!


says who? you?

Yes, it is important to note that this was a study based on computer models, and thus should not be taken as proof. The way I understood the study, the model was setup with different factors as variable. One was varying volcanic activity, one tried to reproduce solar flare activity, and so on. One such model was to simulate the effect of manmade greenhouse gasses. The later model most accurately predicted current observations.

Of course, this whole study hinges on how good these guys are at making reliable models. There is always the possibility they tweaked the model to give them the results they wanted. If they can prove their models are accurate, this would be very strong evidence.

Whether we are causing climate change is irrelevant isn't it? The truth is that climate change is happening, the cause doesn't really matter. We have to start acting now to do something about it!

Originally posted by adigaskell
Whether we are causing climate change is irrelevant isn't it? The truth is that climate change is happening, the cause doesn't really matter. We have to start acting now to do something about it!

I agree! If I were you folks I would stay out of Holland.

Originally posted by tc399
I agree! If I were you folks I would stay out of Holland.

Exactly, science has failed us.

The truth is that climate change is happening, the cause doesn't really matter. We have to start acting now to do something about it!

This is a very confusing statement. How can you begin to do something about a problem if you don't know what is causing it? Would it be worth spending billions inproving auto emissions if auto emissions are only 1% of the problem. I'm in favor of general reduction accross the board, but it it should turn out that human production were a small part of the increase in greenhouse gasses, then we would have wasted valuable time and resources trying to fix something that will make no noticeable difference. If the main problem is volcanos or something unstoppable, then perhaps we need to begin focusing on some way to build massive air processors or protective domes for our cities or somehow start working on ways to survive what we cannot stop.

Knowing the cause is essential.

Ok, now you've got my curiousity. "We have to start acting now to do something about it!"??? OK, I'll bite: just what, exactly, do we do to stop something that happens on a global scale, and may very well have been happening regardless of what we may or may not have done to cause it? Ever try to get it to stop raining by yelling "Stop raining!" at the top of your lungs? It didn't work, did it. I suspect we've got the same problem with global warming. Anything we puny humans can do is likely to be inconsequential, and more to make ourselves feel we've done something than to actually stop global warming.

What if the actual cause is that we're in the swing of the pendulum toward warmer times, after having been in a cool spell? How do you propose we stop what might very well be the normal temperature cycles of the planet?

It didn't work, did it.

Originally posted by sgunhouse
While as a scientist I reserve judgement on global warming...

Typical. Just typical.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40
Ok, now you've got my curiousity. "We have to start acting now to do something about it!"???

I would suggest that we work from the ground up, and start being more aggresive about resolving issues that we live with face to face. For example here are some facts about the Earth's water supply:

* According to the World Health Organization, less than 1% of the world's freshwater, or 0.007% of all the water on Earth, is readily available for human world consumption.

* 1.2 billion people — or almost 1 out of 5 people in the world — are without access to safe drinking water and half of the world's population lacks adequate water purification systems.

* 2.4 billion people, or 40% of the world's population, do not have access to adequate sanitation.

* In developing countries, between 90 and 95 percent of sewage and 70 percent of industrial wastes are dumped untreated into waters where they pollute the usable water supply.

* 2.2 million people die each year from diseases associated with unsafe drinking water.

-Source: The Earth Debate

Now, there really is not a lot of guesswork in how to maintain an infrastructure that is capable of providing water which is sanitary and safe for human consumption. It is also of critical importance since thousands of individuals die EVERY day because this need is not being met in vast numbers of societies. Of course this is but a single example of a vast plague of issues that are real and evidenced among people who live amid disease, hunger and refuse.

I would surmise that if we begin to really care in an actionable and resultive manner about the living conditions of our neighbors, then the rest of our home will begin to improve as well, the outcome of being more conscious and respectful of our surroundings.

I guess I just get somewhat miffed as this must be about the umpteenth thread in a variety of forums I've seen in the past year, on whether or not man is causing global warming, but not even ONCE have I seen anyone else header something to the effect of, "Children are dying needlessly because of drinking sewage. What can we do?"

But please, carry on....

Man isn't the only cause of global warming.

The sun is the biggest cause, along with volcanoes, all living breathing things, industrialization, and dead plants releasing millions of tons of hydrocarbons and CO2 into the atmopshere every year.

Volcanoes are actually the biggest factor, since they can release millions of tons of bad stuff just from a slight eruption.

Look at it the other way round:

If Mankind wanted to increase the temperature on Earth and the amount of CO2 and pollution contributing to global warming, he would assiduously dig up/pump up the residue of millions of years of accumulation of carbon-based deposits (eg oil, coal, gas) and would then burn it in any way he could, for example in fires, in cars and in power stations. Day in, day out.

If he then wanted to slow down the process, he would stop burning as much and get his power from other sources such as wind power, tidal power, or nuclear energy of one for or another.

In other words, inverting the argument, of course Man has an impact on Global Warming and signs are. like it or not, that it's a significant effect.

The only reason people are so cynical, IMHO, about Global Warming being real, when the warning signs are all around, is that they don't want to believe in it, they don't want to get rid of their 4 wheel drive or electrical extravaganzas.

Cynicism, again IMHO, is not based on logic, but purely on selfish head-in-the-sand wishful thinking.

It's the same with the resistance to the Kyoto agreement - IMHO the resistance to it comes from people who don't like any agreement which will remotely curtail their own profligate lifestyle especially, it must be said, if they see, together with that, poorer peoples being able to drag themselves up from energy poverty.

I guess I just get somewhat miffed as this must be about the umpteenth thread in a variety of forums I've seen in the past year, on whether or not man is causing global warming, but not even ONCE have I seen anyone else header something to the effect of, "Children are dying needlessly because of drinking sewage. What can we do?"

Your point is well taken. Idealy, we should be equally concerned for both. Certainly, the problem of safe drinking water is something we can actually do something about. There is little disagreement as to wether this can be done or should be done, or if it is really a problem. That's probably the reason you dont see a lot of discussion about it. (I do, however, remember a tread from a few months ago) All that's needed to solve this problem is some people to get off their duffs and open their wallets a little and make it happen. Global warming is not so simple, but still a worthwhile issue to discuss. Its not even universally agreed to be a problem at this point, so there is a lot to discuss.

Re: Re: New proof that man has caused global warming

Originally posted by Macallan
This is the report your article is most likely based on. Not that technical either but at least something.

When designing space heating systems it was estimated each human body produced 120watts of heat, so ten people equals 1200W or the equivalent of a one bar elecric heater. If you take the increase in the worlds population "X" over a century or two and divide by ten the result "Y" should approximate the kilowatts of extra global warming humanely produced(ptu, people thermal units).

As usual "being logical" causes pain in my thalamus a common side effect of genius espescially in those of us that are left-handed. Hope this technical info is what you were seeking, in any case its free.

Let's see how much of this everyone will agree to:

Global warming exists.

Humans may or may not be the primary cause and they may or may not be able to control it. Either way, they are doing nothing to mitigate the potential damage and everything possible to make it worse.

Because of politics, petty bickering, religious differences and money, they will continue to do nothing until the majority of the planet is not habitable by humans.

As the mass extinctions begin everyone will blame everyone else.

If humans survive at all, they will have a completely new and CO2-rich of planet in which to do it all over again.

Originally posted by Xian

* 1.2 billion people — or almost 1 out of 5 people in the world — are without access to safe drinking water and half of the world's population lacks adequate water purification systems.

* 2.4 billion people, or 40% of the world's population, do not have access to adequate sanitation.

* In developing countries, between 90 and 95 percent of sewage and 70 percent of industrial wastes are dumped untreated into waters where they pollute the usable water supply.

* 2.2 million people die each year from diseases associated with unsafe drinking water.

-Source: The Earth Debate

Now, there really is not a lot of guesswork in how to maintain an infrastructure that is capable of providing water which is sanitary and safe for human consumption. It is also of critical importance since thousands of individuals die EVERY day because this need is not being met in vast numbers of societies. Of course this is but a single example of a vast plague of issues that are real and evidenced among people who live amid disease, hunger and refuse.

I would surmise that if we begin to really care in an actionable and resultive manner about the living conditions of our neighbors, then the rest of our home will begin to improve as well, the outcome of being more conscious and respectful of our surroundings.

I suggest that the median population of the earth be standardized at 3.8 billion. Problem solved. If you just farm more grain and provide more water, the population of earth will double in three years and the problem will still exist. Does no one understand that overpopulation is the cause of these problems and not lack of water? Maybe I can explain it another way. As the population continues to increase there simply is no place to put the sewage. That and chemicals is why it is contaminating the water supply. If you increase the water supply it will simply become contaminated as well.

Originally posted by tc399
If you just farm more grain and provide more water, the population of earth will double in three years....

Where did you get this figure and the determinants from?
What is your source?

Originally posted by tc399
Does no one understand that overpopulation is the cause of these problems and not lack of water? Maybe I can explain it another way.

If overpopulation is the cause, then what you really need to explain is how it is then possible that many of the world's most populated areas often have the among the best drinking water, chemical waste, and sewage containment standards.

Originally posted by Xian
Where did you get this figure and the determinants from?
What is your source?

If overpopulation is the cause, then what you really need to explain is how it is then possible that many of the world's most populated areas often have the among the best drinking water, chemical waste, and sewage containment standards.

(1) I am a scientist. I made them up. What a silly question! Make it five years if you prefer. Populations grow exponentially in the presence of sufficient nutrients until they suddenly overpopulate their pond and crash. Google "Rule of 70" for the math.

(2) Where do you mean? Bombay? First world countries have the money to provide clean, flouridated water to ant farms like New York. Third world countries do not. So as urban sprawl overwhelms the water and sewage systems of those countries, the sprawlers get to drink sewage and eat gophers. Marie Antionette lost her head over the issue.

I have to share's Xian skepticism at the Earth's population could double that quickly. I've heard of the rule of 70 myself, but you also need to consider the gestation period for a human is 9 months (3/4 of a year)

How the point about 3rd world urban sprawl is correct. On the fringes of most 3rd world cities are deporable, rapidly growing slums without proper sanitation nor drinking water. These are filled with people flocking to the cities for work,

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon
I have to share's Xian skepticism at the Earth's population could double that quickly. I've heard of the rule of 70 myself, but you also need to consider the gestation period for a human is 9 months (3/4 of a year)

Please Gentlemen! Grant me a bit of dramatic license if you will! If I say 100 years there is no sense of urgency. Even throwing the potential (I would say impending) global warming disaster out to 2050 causes many people to lose interest. In fact, I have just lost interest myself! Thus is the power of naysaying!

But if it's over dramatized then the public won't buy into it either. You'll begin to sound like Chicken Little, meanwhile the pollutors and their allies will quickly and easily poke holes in your arguments. As a result, nothing gets done.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon
But if it's over dramatized then the public won't buy into it either. You'll begin to sound like Chicken Little, meanwhile the pollutors and their allies will quickly and easily poke holes in your arguments. As a result, nothing gets done.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon
But if it's over dramatized then the public won't buy into it either. You'll begin to sound like Chicken Little, meanwhile the pollutors and their allies will quickly and easily poke holes in your arguments. As a result, nothing gets done.

As opposed to the frantic corrective measures being applied now? However, I take your point. Apparently I must post a disclaimer. This is not to you my friend Sanguinemoon, but it is convenient to post it here:

Attention humorless drones: I am inclined to use dramatic and/or humerous license in my rants. If something appears impossible, it is merely a statistic (as opposed to a lie). Do not challenge it as literal, unless I state it as a scientific observation and provide links.

I withdraw my statement that the population of the earth would double in three years given sufficient food and water. It would not. In point of fact, the growth rate is decreasing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm. (AHHHHHHH! Now I feel clean again!!)

However, the point I was trying to make was and is that (1) the number of people on the planet use resources in such a way as to increase global warming past the limits of the natural balance of ebb and flow of warm periods separated by ice ages. (2) The population of the planet IS increasing, thus the stress on the ecological system will increase. (3) Many scientists have provided compelling evidence that the hydrocarbon build-up in the atmosphere is proceeding much faster that the excess can be absorbed by the oceans and it is unlikely, if not impossible, that even if emminent danger is realized, various governments will agree on a solution until the possibility of a solution no longer exists.

I do not care to predict the effects of global warming after 2050, but at some point, probably before 2100, the greenhouse effect will run away. This will not disturb the Earth mother Gaia, who can shape-shift from a methane atmosphere to a CO2 atmosphere to an Oxygen-rich atmosphere back through CO2 and, if necessary, methane again. But this iteration, once begun, will not be stopped by rhetoric or blamestorming and regenerating the earth to a place amenable to mamallian life could well use up the rest of the life of our sun.

There are already billions of tons of CO2 in ice deposits on the bottom of various oceans, most notably the Atlantic and in the Bermuda triangle. One hypothesis, to which I contribute from time to time, suggests that the Chicxulub meteor generated enough heat and shock to free enough of this frozen or bottom-dwelling (in the Caribbean) CO2 to cause a mass extinction from asphyxiation immediately, and a 'nuclear winter' scenario after that. Pumping billions of tons a year of CO2 into the ocean depths will have the effect of creating an asphyxiation bomb. Something may trigger it or it might trigger spontaneously. Another 2km asteroid hit would do it right now.

I am describing plausible scientific theories for what we see in the fossil record and what we see now on the ocean bottom and their relationship to global warming, and reasonable predictions based on the scientific evidence and the history of mankind. Caveat: since it has not yet happened, it is pure speculation to some, an educated guess to others and something which sounds very like Revelations to those of you with a religious bent.

Class is dismissed, thank you for your attention.

Originally posted by tc399
Attention humorless drones: I am inclined to use dramatic and/or humerous license in my rants. If something appears impossible, it is merely a statistic (as opposed to a lie). Do not challenge it as literal, unless I state it as a scientific observation and provide links.

Sorry, but that will not happen. If you want to use "dramatic license" then do as you desire, but if you present information as being straightforward when it is in actuality pulled right out from your arse, then either make note of that in your posts or be prepared to defend the source and validity of any such statement.

So now we know that your population growth figures were a complete farce. Okay, let's move on.

Originally posted by tc399
Where do you mean? Bombay? First world countries have the money to provide clean, flouridated water to ant farms like New York. Third world countries do not.

And there you have stated the contradiction. You first say that overpopulation is the "cause of these problems", but now you have taken into account some other factors. Obviously, your first statement is false. There are regions of the world that are extremely populated, in which some have very poor water supply and quality, and others that have among the very best. Further, there are cultures which are very sparsely populated and have absolutely horrid sanitation conditions. It would have been much more prudent to then determine from that basis what the differences are and why they exist, instead of just throwing a useless blanket of baseless demographic assumptions over the entire subject.

Originally posted by tc399
There are already billions of tons of CO2 in ice deposits on the bottom of various oceans, most notably the Atlantic and in the Bermuda triangle.

I think what you are actually referring to are frozen methane deposits, or 'methane hydrates' which are noted as CH4, and are remarkably stronger in their potential "greenhouse" effect than simple carbon dioxide.

As I twice explained, population growth was not the gist of the post. The realization that I was not speaking literally was apparent to everyone but you and I specifically informed you that I was not speaking literally.
The point is that the result will be the same no matter the length of time involved. Do not become so pedantic that you do not get the point. Every scientist I know jokes and exaggerates except when presenting papers to peer-reviewed journals. If you don't like what I say, please exercise your right to place me on 'ignore'.

As to your second non-point, I stand by my statement. Overpopulation is THE proximate cause of global warming. End of pedantic discussion.

Originally posted by tc399
As to your second non-point, I stand by my statement. Overpopulation is THE proximate cause of global warming.

You're welcome to stand behind whatever you would like. However, you said that "overpopulation is the cause of these problems and not lack of water". Unfortunately, you have done practically nothing to incorporate obvious problems of variance into this statement, nor have you supported it with any real facts other than your "rants".

There's no need to get so defensive and throw a tiff just because people question your assumptions and ask you to support statements which are presented as being somewhat credible. That is just a sign of someone who realizes they are in the middle of a very weak argument and are behaving in ways to distract the issue on to something else, which in this case is a "personality" thing.

I support tc399's remarks about population, my reasoning being as follows.

The life that mankind wishes to have, and has reached to date, needs a lot of resources to sustain. Unfortunately Planet Earth cannot provide these resources for each and every human, and this problem gets worse and worse with every increase in population.

I can think, offhand, of five alternatives to solve this problem.

1 reduce the per capita use of Earth's resources
2 reduce the population (*)
3 arrange that only some of us have this high standard and restrict the others (interpreted by some as "the Third World") to a much lower level so that the resulting average is sustainable
4 find technical means to enable us to have this standard of living without using so many resources
5 migrate the population off planet to another planet/solar system or galaxy

Now whether we consider population, or mankind's greed, or lack of present technical inventiveness, or the size of Planet Earth as the primary cause of these environmental problems is arguable, but it's at the level of nitpicking.

Overpopulation is definitely a primary cause of environmental scarcities and pollution, not the other way round.

(*) So what should we do? Have bloody wars - that will help. Or restrict the number of children to 2 per couple. Take your pick.

Originally posted by Xian
You're welcome to stand behind whatever you would like. However, you said that "overpopulation is the cause of these problems and not lack of water". Unfortunately, you have done practically nothing to incorporate obvious problems of variance into this statement, nor have you supported it with any real facts other than your "rants".

There's no need to get so defensive and throw a tiff just because people question your assumptions and ask you to support statements which are presented as being somewhat credible. That is just a sign of someone who realizes they are in the middle of a very weak argument and are behaving in ways to distract the issue on to something else, which in this case is a "personality" thing.

Although I am not absolutely sure, it seems to me as though we are approaching the same goal with different methodologies. I would rather be involved in a constructive dialogue if possible, but you want to nit-pick. My statement that first world countries have the infrastructure to provide water to high-density populations seems indisputable. The observation that urban sprawl overwhelms the water supply and effluent disposal systems of many third world countries when people flock to urbanized areas (which cannot handle the influx) to seek work is also true. The simple fact is that if there were fewer people competing for the available services, they would not be overwhelmed.

I do not throw 'tiffs' and I do not engage in illogical arguments, weak or otherwise. I teach, but I get tired of explaining simple concepts. Variance is not a factor. If the infrastructure of a district, state or country can support 10 million people and 30 million show up at the door, finding three times more potable water than the system can handle is just the beginning. Usually it cannot be done. In Bangladesh, wells were drilled but they are full of arsenic. If you want to argue that the population increase since 1950 has not stressed the infrastructure of ALL of the countries of the world and is causing mass starvation in some of them and rampant disease in others, feel free. As I have previously noted, more potable water does not translate to food or sanitary waste facilities.

All of these things are facts, not hyperbole. Stop having babies in areas where the parents cannot feed themselves, or expect the babies to starve. I am not connected to a water OR sewer system. I collect ALL of my own water and process ALL of my own sewage. But if an additional three or four people moved into my house I would soon be out of water and the sewage system would contaminate the water table.

I also have enough electricty because I have no heating or air conditioning in my home and my major appliances are Propane gas. I have a secondary water heating system consisting of coils of black ABS in my attic, which provides 120 degrees F in the summer, and I am going to install solar panels to help provide electricity as soon as it is financially feasable. Fine for me, but if four more adults moved in, all of my systems would be overwhelmed and would not work. I hope you see my point here. Whether the population doubles in three years or a hundred years, there are enough extra people right now to overwhelm my infrastructure if they appeared. And this is the case on a larger scale in many countries. That is STILL not the point, but only a preamble. The point is that global warming will not stop. NOTHING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CAN DO will stop global warming from increasing until it runs on it's own terms and those terms may well be catastrophic. Do you think that is a rant? It isn't. Hundreds of grad students are writing Doctoral theses as we speak. Maybe they are ranting too, but the empirical evidence says they are not. So if your concern is that I exaggerated a figure to make a point which is non-trivial in the overall scheme of things, you are absolutely correct. But your criticism is anal, shortsighted and petty rather than constructive and by doing that you are not addressing the situation in which we find ourselves today. You are piddling over details which I skewed on purpose because they were not central to my thesis.

Originally posted by string
Overpopulation is definitely a primary cause of environmental scarcities and pollution, not the other way round.

It is certainly a factor, though I would possibly debate as to giving it the status of a primary cause. For example, you could have say only ten people living on this planet and eight of them could be starving, oppressed, and in physical distress based on how the other two are behaving.

Originally posted by tc399
I do not throw 'tiffs' and I do not engage in illogical arguments, weak or otherwise.

Well, you can label it what you will, but it didn't even have to be a big deal at all. People can and do make mistakes, just as you did with your comment about frozen CO2. Was there also something wrong in pointing that out to you? I only asked for some corroboration and you then proceeded to make a tirade about all sorts of issues that had absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the discussion, and in the process got extremely defensive to myself and the subject at hand. All you really had to do was just say something to the effect of, "Hey, yeah sorry about that, the actual figure would probably be closer to...and so on."

But now you see the much longer route that you have taken.

Originally posted by Xian
...you could have say only ten people living on this planet and eight of them could be starving, oppressed, and in physical distress based on how the other two are behaving.

true - but they would not be major contributors to Global Warming would they.

The crackpots weigh in:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/22/164822.shtml


The Myth of Greenhouse Gases

Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Feb 23, 2005

Listen up. This is very important.

The global warming fanatics have fingered rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), a so-called greenhouse gas alleged to be in the process of shoving the planet into a global microwave and raising sea levels to the point where the world's coastal regions will be submerged.

Story Continues Below

They blame the rise of CO2, now about 370 parts per million and rapidly climbing, on us evil humans for using fossil fuels, driving SUVs and barbecuing frankfurters on our backyard grills. They ignore the proven fact that over millions of years, every time CO2 levels have risen above 200 parts per million, an ice age has occurred.

And in past ice ages, we weren't around to cause the levels to rise. Mother Nature did it all on her own, and she doesn't drive an SUV.

Some 19,000 of the world's scientists and experts on climatology have signed declarations saying that blaming rising CO2 levels on mankind is garbage – junk science at its worst – and they insist that all the available evidence proves their contention.

In fact, the global warmiacs couldn't be further from the truth. As I argued in my January 13 column, Let Eyes See and Ears Hear, and in my 1997 investigative report, "Global Warming or Globaloney," high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are indeed a dire warning that something very unpleasant is about to befall our planet and those of us who reside here, but it has nothing to do with global warming.

Precisely the opposite: It is both the harbinger and the cause of a coming new ice age.

Now comes Robert W. Felix, who in his book "Not by Fire but by Ice" argues persuasively that it is not global warming but ocean warming that is pushing CO2 levels through the roof. Moreover, those skyrocketing levels of CO2 are bringing on a new ice age, which is sitting at our front door right now.

Here's how he puts it: "If today's rising carbon dioxide levels are caused by humans, then what caused the dramatic rise in CO2 levels at the dinosaur extinction?

"Research shows that there was 'a sudden and dramatic rise' in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere at the dinosaur extinction of 65 million years ago. ... [T]oday's rise in CO2 levels can be attributed to our warming oceans. After all, the oceans are known as a carbon dioxide 'sink,' especially when the water is cold.

"But as the water warms up, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This happens in much the same way that a warm bottle of home-brewed root beer will release CO2. And if you give that CO2 no way to escape, the bottle will explode. We've got it backwards. We've got cause and effect in reverse. The CO2 is not causing global warming. Instead, our warming oceans are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. It's not global warming, it's ocean warming, and it's leading us into an ice age."

According to Felix, the oceans are warming as the result of widespread underwater volcanic activity, which he thoroughly documents. He adds that "We've forgotten that this isn't the first time our seas have warmed. Sea temperatures also shot upward 10º to 18ºF just prior to the last ice age. As the oceans warmed, evaporation increased. The excess moisture then fell to the ground as giant blizzards, giant storms and floods (Noah's Deluge type floods), and a new ice age began."

And he warns, "The same thing is happening today. Underwater volcanic activity in the Arctic Ocean far stronger than anyone ever imagined!

"German-American researchers have discovered more hydrothermal activity at the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean than anyone ever imagined.

"The Gakkel Ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meters beneath the sea surface and its 5,000-meter-high summits, Gakkel Ridge is far mightier than the Alps.

"Two research icebreakers, the USCGC Healy from USA and the German PFS Polarstern, recently joined forces in the international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition). In attendance were scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions.

"The scientists had expected that the Gakkel Ridge would exhibit 'anemic' magnetism. Instead, they found 'surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the West and the East of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges.'

"The Gakkel Ridge extends about 1,800 kilometers beneath the Arctic Ocean from north of Greenland to Siberia, and is the northernmost portion of the mid-ocean ridge system.

"To their surprise, the researchers found high levels of volcanic activity. Indeed, magmatism [blazing hot magma flowing from eruptions] was 'dramatically' higher than expected.

"Hydrothermal hot springs on the seafloor were also far more abundant than predicted. 'We expected this to be a hydrothermally dead ridge, and almost every time our water measurement instrument came up, they showed evidence of hydrothermal activity, and once we even "saw" an active hot spring on the sea floor,' said Dr. Jonathan Snow, the leader of the research group from Munich's Max Planck Institute in a 2003 press release.

Researchers found that "Naturally occurring bubbles of liquid carbon dioxide were observed rising from the ocean floor," according to the Associated Press. "For the first time ever, scientists using a camera-equipped submarine have been able to witness an undersea volcano during an eruptive episode.

"Exploring the ocean floor in an area known as the Mariana Trench, last year researchers found bubbles of liquid carbon dioxide being released into the sea, enlarging up to a thousand times and turning to gas as they drifted upward."

El Niño Related to Ocean Warming

"Ice ages looked like El Niño," Felix wrote, citing an article in the July 12, 2002 issue of Nature. "During past ice ages," he continued, "the tropical Pacific Ocean behaved rather as it does today in an El Niño event. ... Shifts between warm and cool global average temperatures look like super El Niños.

"Our seas, heated by underwater volcanism, are leading us directly into the next ice age ... and we don't even know it.

"That's what El Niño is all about," Felix explained. "Warmer seas send excess moisture into the sky, leading to increased precipitation.

"Worldwide flood activity is the worst since before Christopher Columbus. In Poland, it's the worst in several thousand years. In the U.S., precipitation has increased by more than 20 percent just since 1970. This is no coincidence.

"When that precipitation begins falling in the winter, you have the makings of an ice age."

The book is an easy read, even though it is crammed full of technical detail that Felix manages to explain even to scientific dunderheads like me. He goes into great detail, for example, in explaining why a reversal of the earth's magnetic field helps cause ice ages, as it has in all past ice ages, and points out that all previous magnetic reversals were preceded by declining geomagnetic field intensity, which is falling.

"During the past 2,000 years geomagnetic field intensity has plummeted more than 50 percent. Five percent of that decrease occurred in the past 100 years" – a sign, he writes, "experts warn may be a precursor to a new reversal attempt."

Felix emphasizes that the record proves that we are on on the verge of the onset of a new ice age. "Ice ages begin and end abruptly every 11,500 years. First comes an enormous flood, a Noah's Deluge type of flood, which ends the previous ice age. Then comes a period of warmth similar to today's ... which lasts about 11,500 years. Then the next ice age begins – catastrophically.

"That 11,500-year cycle of warmth followed by an ice age has returned like clockwork for millions of years. To hope it won't happen again just because humans now inhabit this planet would be wishful thinking."

On his Web site, www.iceagenow.com, Felix tracks the number of incidents building up to the onset of an ice age, including charting current underwater volcanic eruptions heating the oceans, and rainfall (think California), temperature and earthquake records now being broken.

He emphasizes over and over again that the onset of an ice age is both sudden and violent, lasting about 20 years, and anyone paying attention to what is happening to our planet will understand that we are probably somewhere in that 20-year period now. When it ends, huge numbers of us will go extinct, just as did the dinosaurs, and just as rapidly and as violently.

Let me recap: Felix has demonstrated convincingly that rising levels of CO2 are the result of ocean warming, not because of human activities, and that high levels of CO2 cause vastly increased precipitation, which results in vastly increased snowfall in moderate temperature zones and in the polar regions, which in turn brings on ice ages.

In short, he has told us the reason why CO2 levels have gone through the roof, what caused those levels to increase and what the result will be.

Anyone who reads this blockbuster of a book and pays attention to his regularly updated Web site will understand just what we face, and will come away with a feeling of absolute contempt for those politically inspired global-warming advocates who are lulling many of our fellow human beings into dangerous complacency.

The threat is here; the threat is now.

Let me close with something I wrote last month:

"If the current geological holocaust now under way is the result of a natural cycle – in this case, as I argue in my study, another needed regeneration of the planet – it's not an act of God but an act of nature. Sure, God – the author of nature – could put a stop to it, but it could well be that He wants us to sit up and take notice – to use the disasters to warn us to straighten up and fly right while there's still time – bad times are a-comin' and we had better be ready spiritually.

"We're on notice. Christ told us that those with eyes better see, and those with ears better hear. We had better keep our eyes and ears open. Time's a-wastin'."

Deus exaudi nos

Originally posted by string
true - but they would not be major contributors to Global Warming would they.

Just let me know which way to screw my head on and I'm with you.

I thought we were talking about "environmental scarcities and pollution".

here is a movie that explains the real cause...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_mkR2oac

OK, here it is: Right now, where I live, it is hot. It is humid. It has been raining and shows every sign of doing it again.

I look at my calendar. It is June first. Around here (Chicago, Illinois) it generally does get hot, humid, sometimes rainy and generally sticky at this time of year. It's the beginning of the Summer season, after all, and that's to be expected right about now. Global warming? I think not. More likely, it's the change of seasons that we've had since time immemorable. It gets cold in the winter here, too. Not much new about that either.

There's also not a great deal I can do about either of those extremes, either to cause them or to ameliorate them. So, I try to live with what is. Ultimately, I suspect it's all any of us can really do (unless you've come up with a way to control global atmospheric conditions and you haven't told the rest of us yet--- please tell us, I could do with a way to guarantee it won't rain here tomorrow).

Sigh...
I -perhaps- view AGW in a way that most of you don't: Follow the money! Ice core records (research...remember when that used to be done? Before computer simulation made experience and experimentation passe) show something other than what "proponents" of Global Warming, as the latest, greatest threat to "the planet" need, to do...
What is it, they want to do, again?

===========================
I probably won't post this link again... Science and politics make...I was gonna say, "odd bedfellows;" but, no. Nowadays, there's a pinp/prostiture relationship And I don't like it.
I'll continue to read the paper, visit <RealClimate> and <ClimateAudit>, but I agree with Wegman: Deuling websites ain't how science is supposed to be done.

If man causes global warming, why is Mars suffering from it?