Global Warming? My A$$ Its Cold Outside

I can't believe this is a serious discussion. Ignore the scientists because as FRPLG says, it's all propaganda. Just go back to high school science class. Did everyone sleep through it?

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc.) absorb infrared radiation from the sun and refract it in the form of heat. The more fossil fuels you burn the more carbon dioxide and methane you put into the atmosphere. Thus the more of the sun's infrared radiation is absorbed and refracted, hence global warming.

These are simple chemical properties we've known about since the 1800s. Brush up people, either bust out your chem book or go rewatch Breaking Bad on Netflix.

So the argument, its really cold outside so it cant be a thing such as global warming doesnt work with you?

Dont listen to fox new then:

Jon Stewart of ‘The Daily Show’ rips Fox News on climate change (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/01/07/jon-stewart-of-the-daily-show-rips-fox-news-on-climate-change/)

I can't believe this is a serious discussion. Ignore the scientists because as FRPLG says, it's all propaganda. Just go back to high school science class. Did everyone sleep through it?

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc.) absorb infrared radiation from the sun and refract it in the form of heat. The more fossil fuels you burn the more carbon dioxide and methane you put into the atmosphere. Thus the more of the sun's infrared radiation is absorbed and refracted, hence global warming.

These are simple chemical properties we've known about since the 1800s. Brush up people, either bust out your chem book or go rewatch Breaking Bad on Netflix.

Yes. You must be right b/c once greenhouse gases are pumped into the air they stay there forever!!

There is, actually, another side to the equation in that GHG's have an atmospheric lifetime (form most it is a few years). The question is whether the rate of production the GHG's with longer atmospheric lifetimes is outstripping the ability of the world ecosystem to absorb/dilute and ultimately disperse the GHG's and, if so, to what extent. That is a complex question dependent on climate models which, in turn, depends on the variables and assumptions used in those models.

So the argument, its really cold outside so it cant be a thing such as global warming doesnt work with you?

Dont listen to fox new then:

Jon Stewart of ‘The Daily Show’ rips Fox News on climate change (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/01/07/jon-stewart-of-the-daily-show-rips-fox-news-on-climate-change/)

It doesn't work with me. Extreme cold, as counterintuitive as it might seem, can provide evidence for global warming. The theory of global warming doesn't say it gets warmer every single day. Instead the theory predicts stronger and more bizarre weather patterns. Such weather patterns can include the strongest hurricane on record (like we saw last fall) but also things like Panama icing over (which has not happened and I use just as an example).

There is also the question of what the ecosystems reaction to the warming is. It isn't as simple as GHGs exist and therefore the earth is warming. There is evidence to suggest that the quotient of warming introduced via GHGs is being offset by some other counter reaction...hence the lack of warming in the last 17 years. The main theory is that the ocean is storing up the heat deep within. I haven't read as much on this theory so I don't quite understand the specifics.

To me the main issue remains: does it really matter? Is the warming enough to actually cause negative issues? Are the effects being oversold? Are the effects even properly understood?

I have noticed - purely on a personal anecdotal level - that the focus does seem to be shifting to what effect GHG's are having on the oceans and their role in climate control.

A quick google found this: Oceans losing ability to absorb greenhouse gas | UCIrvine News (http://news.uci.edu/features/oceans-losing-ability-to-absorb-greenhouse-gas/)

From the article (as I said, it's all in the modeling):

When we measure the carbon concentration of seawater, it’s not possible to distinguish carbon that originated from fossil-fuel burning and the large background level of natural carbon. So instead of trying to directly measure the increase in ocean carbon, we created a mathematical model based on tens of thousands of ship-based measurements collected over the last 20 years that allowed us to determine where and how long ago the water in the ocean’s interior was last at the surface. The model was then used to track all of the ocean’s water masses backward in time to when they last exchanged carbon dioxide with the atmosphere. We reconstructed a year-by-year inventory of the manmade gas in the ocean from 1765 to 2008. This allowed us to identify trends in the uptake of human-generated carbon dioxide.

My thought is this, an influx of man made pollution pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial age cant be good for the environment as a whole. My guess was the planet wasnt fist pumping like yes this is exactly what I need.

The mental image of the earth fist pumping gave me a nice laugh. Nice work, Chico.

Yes. You must be right b/c once greenhouse gases are pumped into the air they stay there forever!!

There is, actually, another side to the equation in that GHG's have an atmospheric lifetime (form most it is a few years). The question is whether the rate of production the GHG's with longer atmospheric lifetimes is outstripping the ability of the world ecosystem to absorb/dilute and ultimately disperse the GHG's and, if so, to what extent. That is a complex question dependent on climate models which, in turn, depends on the variables and assumptions used in those models.

Again, you're overthinking. You are a good thinker but sometimes you just do too much of it. The question is not whether the greenhouse gases can be absorbed. They would be absorbed at the same rate regardless. The question is how much would be in the atmosphere if we controlled our emissions better, vs how much would be in the atmosphere if we just burned fuel like China.

Focus on the actionable.

Again, you're overthinking. You are a good thinker but sometimes you just do too much of it. The question is not whether the greenhouse gases can be absorbed. They would be absorbed at the same rate regardless. The question is how much would be in the atmosphere if we controlled our emissions better, vs how much would be in the atmosphere if we just burned fuel like China.

Focus on the actionable.

lol ... someone telling me I am overthinking an issue. I am shocked! shocked!! I have never, ever, ever been accused of that before ... well, not since yesterday.

Generally, I agree with your second statement. It is good to limit GHG emissions. It's just not that simple, however, because of the economics and the politics surrounding enforced limitations of GHG.

What is the cost of controlling emissions versus the likely harm to the environment and our economy? If the limitation of our emissions by complying with Kyoto would be significantly detrimental to our economic health but have minimal effect on the potential change to the environmental harm caused, then should the US adopt radical and detrimental economic strictures while China is allowed to ratify Kyoto but be exempt from compliance as a non-annex country (China took over top GHG emitter from the US in 2006)? As such, understanding the reality of climate change (including the earth's intrinsic ability to handle GHG emissions) is essential for the US to make rational policy decisions in its adopton of environmental regulation.

Is the environmental end really near and will it have a radical, detrimental effect on our economy greater than the cost of harm caused by a longer but less radical transition to greener technologies? [BTW - Even though we have not adopted the Kyoto strictures, our GHG emissions have already decreased through such incremental changes].

See. Clear as a bell with no more thought than absolutely necessary.

lol ... someone telling me I am overthinking an issue. I am shocked! shocked!! I have never, ever, ever been accused of that before ... well, not since yesterday.

Generally, I agree with your second statement. It is good to limit GHG emissions. It's just not that simple, however, because of the economics and the politics surrounding enforced limitations of GHG.

What is the cost of controlling emissions versus the likely harm to the environment and our economy? If the limitation of our emissions by complying with Kyoto would be significantly detrimental to our economic health but have minimal effect on the potential change to the environmental harm caused, then should the US adopt radical and detrimental economic strictures while China is allowed to ratify Kyoto but be exempt from compliance as a non-annex country (China took over top GHG emitter from the US in 2006)? As such, understanding the reality of climate change (including the earth's intrinsic ability to handle GHG emissions) is essential for the US to make rational policy decisions in its adopton of environmental regulation.

Is the environmental end really near and will it have a radical, detrimental effect on our economy greater than the cost of harm caused by a longer but less radical transition to greener technologies? [BTW - Even though we have not adopted the Kyoto strictures, our GHG emissions have already decreased through such incremental changes].

See. Clear as a bell with no more thought than absolutely necessary.

These are all excellent points. Maybe I misread you before, I thought you were contesting whether global warming was actually happening. That's the view that drives me nuts and is devoid of the most basic understanding of science. You're raising entirely different questions, which basically boils down to: what is the impact of global warming, and does that impact really matter to us. I love thinking about those questions, and I definitely personally prioritize economic need above almost all else.

These are all excellent points. Maybe I misread you before, I thought you were contesting whether global warming was actually happening. That's the view that drives me nuts and is devoid of the most basic understanding of science. You're raising entirely different questions, which basically boils down to: what is the impact of global warming, and does that impact really matter to us. I love thinking about those questions, and I definitely personally prioritize economic need above almost all else.

Yeah. I wasn't particular clear in my first couple posts and, truthfully, was hedging b/c of my earlier doubts on the subject. Based on what I believe to be the widely held "black box" belief of the scientific community, however, I now believe global warming/climate change is happening and is being affected by human GHG emissions.

It is the predictions of doom and gloom and the call for immediate and economically crippling environmental regulation that has me skeptical. I think both the world and humans are more adaptable than current assumptions/predictions would indicate.