[Dragon]

Contribute, as in emit a lot of various gases which increase the effect. On the other hand, the dust could also prevent light from reaching Earth and thus cooling it down. It all depends on the type of eruption. I'm not a volcanologist, so I can't say for sure what the general balance is (though I've heard it's in favor of warming).

[watsisname]

I believe you may have heard incorrectly.

Although volcanic eruptions do emit CO2, they also emit copious SO2 and aerosols, which have a more strongly negative radiative forcing.  So, the net forcing is negative, and this lasts for a few years.  One of the best examples of this is the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, one of the largest eruptions in recent history, which cooled the earth's surface by about 0.3°C.

It is also worth noting that although this cools the surface, it has a heating effect on the atmosphere higher up.  The same eruption heated the stratosphere by about 2 to 3°C.  The reason for this is just radiative physics -- the volcanic aerosols reflect the sun's shortwave radiation and thus prevent it from reaching the ground, so the ground cools.  However, they also strongly absorb the longwave radiation, and thus the stratosphere heats up.  Essentially, this is the greenhouse effect operating in reverse.

And in fact, scientists I know about agree that the climate is indeed warming up and changing, but it's perfectly natural.

Really?  Which scientists?  If it is not human activity causing the majority of the current warming trend, then what do they propose is causing it?  How do they explain the good correlation between the observed temperature record, the post-industrial CO2 record, and theory?

One we can't remedy with stupid limits on CO2 emission (which only ruin the economy because of how much they cost).

Even if we put climate change aside, acting to prevent the further acidification of the world's oceans is stupid in your opinion?

[Kszyhu]

One we can't remedy with stupid limits on CO2 emission (which only ruin the economy because of how much they cost).

Even if we put climate change aside, acting to prevent the further acidification of the world's oceans is stupid in your opinion?

You're assuming that those limits work as intended. Countries, which can't stay under the limits won't reduce their emissions, they'll just pay more.

[Nuke]

What would you prefer to name it?

"climate modification" would probably be the best thing i can think of. this implies the changes to climate not caused by natural phenomena. you have a baseline "natural" climate cycle, upon which we are imposing a "modification" (either incidental or intentional). we know scientifically that the climate will change on its own without any tampering, so calling it climate change will cause confusion. especially those that say that the earth goes through cycles and iterative processes that effect the climate, which is for the most part a correct understanding of how "natural" climate works. these people assume climate change is a "natural" phenomena and are correct in doing so. the people who deny climate change are using scientific knowledge to come to that conclusion and i find it disturbing that the greenies call these people dumb for doing so. if anyone is dumb its the science types that misnamed the phenomena in the first place without forethought for how the words would inevitably get twisted in the political theater.

[watsisname]

One we can't remedy with stupid limits on CO2 emission (which only ruin the economy because of how much they cost).

Even if we put climate change aside, acting to prevent the further acidification of the world's oceans is stupid in your opinion?

You're assuming that those limits work as intended. Countries, which can't stay under the limits won't reduce their emissions, they'll just pay more.

I'm assuming that a cap-and-trade system is the most economically viable method of giving countries an incentive to reduce emissions.  If there's a better method to achieve that goal I'd be interested in hearing it.

Alternatively, we could just focus on adaptation as per Dragon's suggestion.  I agree with him that adaptation is a smart and perhaps eventually necessary idea, but if we don't do anything to curb GHG emissions then the problems we would face could go way beyond "rising sea levels".  Hence why I mentioned increasing ocean acidification, which is not a cheap fix nor something we could easily adapt to if it were to get out of hand.

Furthermore, one could argue that adaptation alone would end up being far more expensive than trying to reduce emissions now.

[Unicorn20]

...wait, what? Am I really not banned after all?

Well my 2 gold doubloons here is that mitigation is generally estimated to cost at least 4% of world GDP, the price for which you could feed and educate every person in poverty several times over.

The cost of dealing with the problem microeconomically through regulatory approaches is quite high and it makes a lot more sense to deal with the problems as they come, at least until there's affordable alternatives to fossil fuels.

[Dragon]

I believe you may have heard incorrectly.

Thanks for clearing this up then. The place where I read that could have had outdated or inaccurate info (or be biased, unfortunately).

And in fact, scientists I know about agree that the climate is indeed warming up and changing, but it's perfectly natural.

Really?  Which scientists?  If it is not human activity causing the majority of the current warming trend, then what do they propose is causing it?  How do they explain the good correlation between the observed temperature record, the post-industrial CO2 record, and theory?

Well, the correlation between temperature and the presence of certain gases (CO2 and Methane, mostly) in atmosphere is correct. What is doubtful is that the increase of the CO2 amount has been caused by humans. Sources proposed include: tropical forests (their balance for CO2 production is either near 0 or positive, due to intensive rotting that's going on in there), volcanoes (though it's been said that their "warming balance" is actually negative, it's doubtless that they produce both CO2 and Methane) and swamps (a lot of Methane and CO2 production). IIRC, somebody also blamed algae (but I'm not sure of that one).
As for names, I can't name any of the scientists who made this theory right now (I've just got back from a trip to the shooting range and my first time on a 12-gauge. It was fun. ), I'm pretty certain that I once read it in either "Life and Knowledge" or "World of Science" (titles translated from Polish). They're both quite respected newspapers.

One we can't remedy with stupid limits on CO2 emission (which only ruin the economy because of how much they cost).

Even if we put climate change aside, acting to prevent the further acidification of the world's oceans is stupid in your opinion?

You're assuming that those limits work as intended. Countries, which can't stay under the limits won't reduce their emissions, they'll just pay more.

That's why I said they're stupid. They're ruining countries that can't afford them. Surely, we should make sure our factories don't poison every living thing around them. But many countries don't have a way to reduce CO2 emission, simply because they're too poor and are unable to implement cleaner technologies. Closing the factories and power plants that produce too much CO2 causes their employees to lose work and in places where the factory was an only workplace, they end up impoverished and/or turning to crime. Attempting to force poor countries to implement technologies they can't afford isn't really a good idea. There is, of course, have an alternative of buying limits from the countries that have an excess of them (rely mostly on nuclear plants, for instance). But that way, they don't reduce anything and instead of gathering money for eventual upgrades, they end up spending it to buy limits that'd allow them to keep their emissions as they are.
My concept is that for the time being, we shouldn't focus on CO2 at all. This should eventually be handled, but there's still time for that. What should be done is promoting nuclear or solar power, which could simply make old coal plants obsolete (and we could get to other industries later). Another source, transport, should solve itself if the fuel prices will continue to act as they do (read: rise to criminally high levels).

[watsisname]

What is doubtful is that the increase of the CO2 amount has been caused by humans.

Actually, as far as AGW goes, this is the least doubtful thing of all.  Human activities are responsible for essentially all of the recent (since the dawn of the industrial age) CO₂ increase.

What should be done is promoting nuclear or solar power, which could simply make old coal plants obsolete (and we could get to other industries later). Another source, transport, should solve itself if the fuel prices will continue to act as they do (read: rise to criminally high levels).

I agree completely, but how would we best promote nuclear/solar over coal besides a cap-and-trade system?

[Mikes]

I agree completely, but how would we best promote nuclear/solar over coal besides a cap-and-trade system?

France is doing it now (heavily promoting nuclear) - while Germany wants to quit nuclear altogether. European Politics gonna be interesting.

[Klaustrophobia]

I agree completely, but how would we best promote nuclear/solar over coal besides a cap-and-trade system?

easy.  we just take the decision out of the hands of the political morons who don't know **** about nuclear power and are just afraid of the n-word.

[Unicorn20]

easy.  we just take the decision out of the hands of the political morons who don't know **** about nuclear power and are just afraid of the n-word.

What?

What the heck does that mean?

Pronuclear jihad? Nuclear engineers of the world unite to seize the means of power generation?

As for the suggestion at hand (doing nothing about gasoline emissions and pushing nuclear), I agree, although solar is very uneconomical. Going nuke would be fairly simple if the political will was there. It's just a matter of allowing public utilities and contractors to phase out coal and start breaking ground for more cleaner, (usually) cheaper (or at least with greenfield costs spread out over a greater period of time) nuclear plant designs instead of coal ones. It's really a matter of how long it takes to convince people that nuclear power is far from the most polluting power source. Construction of solar cells pollutes/kills people quite a bit as well.

If economic considerations and not Captain Planet fans were taken into account in constructing the power grid since 1970, nuclear energy would be far more common today than it is.

Cap and trade is not necessarily going to deal with the problem if ideological objections to nuclear power remain.

[Grizzly]

If economic considerations and not Captain Planet fans were taken into account in constructing the power grid since 1970, nuclear energy would be far more common today than it is.

Perhaps, but Uranium is also an expandable resource. Eventually it is going to run out. Investing in renawbles is in the long, long run, the only option.

(Or hydrogen plants)

[ssmit132]

Well then, would nuclear (fission) be a good interim option until we can get either fusion or efficient renewable power going?

[Grizzly]

Well then, would nuclear (fission) be a good interim option until we can get either fusion or efficient renewable power going?

Yes. Unfortunately, We have two sides in the dutch political spectrum on this issue: One side that thinks that renewables are not worth it, and one side that things that Nuclear is terrible.

The result: Powerplants running on coal .

[ssmit132]

Also, the Dalai Lama says that nuclear power is a good thing.

[karajorma]

...wait, what? Am I really not banned after all?

You are now. You've been warned about using an alt-nick before.

[Dragon]

What is doubtful is that the increase of the CO2 amount has been caused by humans.

Actually, as far as AGW goes, this is the least doubtful thing of all.  Human activities are responsible for essentially all of the recent (since the dawn of the industrial age) CO₂ increase.

This sounds interesting, but in the article I've read they had shown a chart of CO2 (or was it another gas, maybe methane?) changes over the last few million years, and IIRC, it clearly showed that humans don't have much to do with that. I really have to find this article.

I agree completely, but how would we best promote nuclear/solar over coal besides a cap-and-trade system?

For instance, by making nuclear plants more accessible and convincing the people that nuclear plant=/=nuclear bomb. While Uranium is expandable, there's still enough of it to support human power requirements for long enough for us to invent and start building fusion plants. Near the equator, heater-type solar plants could be built (America is considering this, IIRC). Also, efforts should be made to make local solar batteries and heaters an accessible option. Still, nuclear power is the way to go, first fission and then most likely fusion.

There's one more thing that should be looked into. If humans really do produce most of the CO2 increase in the last years, then we should also look into things that could easily produce less CO2 than they do now. For instance, in Krakow, there's a lot of old houses with coal powered stoves. Every winter, these are a nuisance (CO2 is hardly the only thing that comes out of them, especially that people tend to also use them to burn trash...). Their users are frequently too poor to afford anything else. If electric power could be cheaper and government could, for instance, pay them to switch to electric heaters (and convince them to throw their trash into special containers for recycling), this could greatly reduce their CO2 emissions. I don't know in how many places this is the case, but people should be encouraged to abandon outdated technology that frequently produces a lot of pollution.

[Nuke]

If economic considerations and not Captain Planet fans were taken into account in constructing the power grid since 1970, nuclear energy would be far more common today than it is.

Perhaps, but Uranium is also an expandable resource. Eventually it is going to run out. Investing in renawbles is in the long, long run, the only option.

(Or hydrogen plants)

liquid fluoride thorium reactor ftw!

also people need to stop worrying about nukes. you love them and they love you back. everyone seems to be going with small scale nuclear arsenals as a deterrent, and we dont have the global firepower of the cold war at our disposal anymore, which is quite sad. so long as we have enough nukes to glass a small dictatorship which also has nukes, we will be quite ok.

[watsisname]

This sounds interesting, but in the article I've read they had shown a chart of CO2 (or was it another gas, maybe methane?) changes over the last few million years, and IIRC, it clearly showed that humans don't have much to do with that. I really have to find this article.

It was probably CO2.  And yes, it is true that the earth's CO2 concentrations have changed and presumably will continue to change due to natural causes.  The most significant driver of these are semi-regular fluctuations in the earth's orbit and obliquity (the Milankovitch cycles).  CO2 concentrations respond to those temperature changes, (the amount of CO2 the ocean can absorb is a function of temperature, for example), as does temperature respond to changes in CO2 (the well-known greenhouse effect).  This video lecture goes into the subject in more detail, very highly recommended.

But, so what?  You suggest that just because nature can do it means we can't do it ourselves?  Evolution occurs naturally and has happened naturally for billions of years, therefore we can't do artificial selection?

Take another look at the info I'd provided, and better yet check the sources they cite.  There's an obvious and measurable anthropic release of CO2, there is an obvious and measurable increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere, the two correlate extremely well with one another, and with the research I provided earlier there are no natural mechanisms at work that can explain the current trend.  There is no reasonable doubt that we are responsible for the post-industrial CO2 increase.

(Honestly I'm astounded that people argue this, a decade ago the big argument was that yeah, we're adding CO2, but either the global temperature isn't rising or CO2 doesn't have the effect that scientists claim it does.)

Besides, the issue isn't just the change so much as the rate of change.

This, too.  A cursory glance at the CO2 record will show that the natural shifts take a fairly long time to occur, much longer than the current rise.

[karajorma]

Besides, the issue isn't just the change so much as the rate of change.