This is an interesting conversation. As with so many things in life there aren’t always black and white answers.
Clean air is good, conservation is good, but common (or uncommon) sense is also needed. In talking about Global Warming or Climate Change in general, there are a lot of factors involved, and the biggest influences have nothing to do with humans. That doesn’t mean humans should do nothing, but I would think it would be wise to proceed with caution not just throw it to the wind out of fear. I’m not in a hurry to bankrupt our economy when there isn’t proof that “that” is the solution.
Yes, in many ways Americans can be the “Ugly American”, but we can be some of the most generous people on earth too. Do you think the rest of the world, meaning political powers, are going to lookout for us or themselves?
I live in California and there are on going propositions on the ballot for bonds to clean up the air and water etc. The last one, I forget how many billions - the biggest ever, passed as they all seem to do, but I never see put out to the general public how this money is supposed to be spent or what was done. I don’t see any measurable difference in the last 10 to 15 years. These bonds have to be paid back with interest, as I said before I like clean air and water but I also like taxpayers’ money to be spent wisely. To wildly throw money at a problem doesn’t mean it will get fixed.
It was interesting what Andrew said about China. My nephew was over there this last summer and fall on a scientific exchange program between universities, now the Chinese students are over here. The city my nephew was in, he said the smog was so bad it was almost intolerable. Something interesting he also said was in China, wherever you are born, you are given a certificate of that city and that’s where you must live unless the government gives you permission otherwise, even to go to college you must receive permission to go there which can be difficult for people who were born in rural areas as their test scores have to be higher than students from cities.
I was looking at an interesting web page
http://www.junkscience.com and what they were saying about the ICPP and their different reports. It also has links to get to the reports . Aunti M is right in that one is wise to go to the source.
Did you read through the ICPP's different sites? I did. I like to be a bit informed
quote from web site.
Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing -- to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) -- this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field (witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US climate reports).
They also have an interesting article on green house gases.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Martha
Below is just a summary of article
What are the take-home messages:
* The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
* The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
* The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
* The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
* There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
* The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
* Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
* Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
* Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
* There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
* Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
* Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
I really only wanted to point out that you didn't read what I said and assumed you knew what I meant. And it must be bad...
