[watsisname]

Apologies, MP.  Upon first reading your post I mistook it as being of the form 'climate has changed before; thus we don't know if the current trend is natural or not'.  I've seen so many arguments of that variety that it got my knee-jerk reaction going.

That the methane from the arctic is very old does not in itself demonstrate that its release is not part of a natural cycle, correct, and it's ludicrous for anyone to say that it alone is proof.  But given the timing I would say it is pretty darn suggestive.  That was all I was pointing out and I believe Kara was doing the same.  A more complete understanding of why it is not just a natural cycle stems from the trends in temperature and atmospheric composition, along with radiative forcing and how human activities have affected it.

I wouldn't call it lying, but a case of bias stemming from the fact the results are not entirely conclusive and can be interpreted either way, so everybody interprets them to be like they expected. Politics that are revolving around it don't help the matter the slightest.
Also, even if taking the "worst case" measurements, it can't be said we're responsible for the current growth, but, at most, that we've influenced it. The question is how much. Opinions here vary from "detectable" to "catastrophic".
If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Agreed, the politics really doesn't help matters at all.  Sadly, GW is a major political issue and the public doesn't often get exposed to just the basic science.
 
As for what degree is human caused versus natural, scientific consensus right now is that we are responsible for the vast majority of current warming.  Do we know the exact extent down to the percentile range?  Of course not, but multiple lines of investigation lead to very similar answers -- they are summarized here.  Interestingly, it appears that in recent decades, the natural change in radiative forcing is negative, and human activities are completely overwhelming that.

There is also the image I provided in my first post, which comes straight from the IPCC.

Another line of evidence is thus: graphic
If climate history is modeled with the human GHG emissions, then the models very accurately recreate the observed temperature record (red curves).  If you remove those emissions, the temperature change is insignificant (blue curves).

[Dragon]

The negative natural change is strange, but might be just an anomaly. This isn't a fast process afterall. It does indeed seem that humans do contribute to global warming.
However, natural or not, this may not be a bad thing. Higher temperatures mean longer vegetation period, which could be an opportunity for farmers. The Gulfstream may get messed up, but interactions between ocean and atmospheric temperature aren't quite understood yet. Ice may melt, but that'd mean we've got dams to build, which we know how to do (and at the current pace, we've got more than enough time). I think that instead of trying to stop it, humans should start thinking about how to exploit it. Cutting CO2 emissions is one thing, but getting rid of GHGs already in atmosphere wouldn't be easy. Also, note that recent advancements reduced other aerosol emissions which actually cooled the planet a bit (though there were many other problems with them).

[MP-Ryan]

Apologies, MP.  Upon first reading your post I mistook it as being of the form 'climate has changed before; thus we don't know if the current trend is natural or not'.  I've seen so many arguments of that variety that it got my knee-jerk reaction going.

You're forgiven 

[Beskargam]

aw everything i wanted to say has been said. I do want to point out that we can trace the co2 that has been released by human sources because it has a seperate isotope from natural sources of co2. However. this does not take into account the co2 released as a secondary feedback mechanism.

also, how do i stick a picture in here? have a graph that is relevant.

furthermore:

You're right about this one. I'm also a heat lover, so if there's global warming, I'd welcome it. I live far from the sea, so it's not like I have to fear flooding.
I only hope the warming doesn't destabilize the gulfstream, since with it gone, Poland would have a climate similar to Canada (only without the mounties, oil and French-speaking Quebecois, eh? ).

this = bad. because it might make your place hotter. or it might not. which is why the term climate change is better (semantics) because weather patterns are going to shift. not every place will get hotter (though the earth on average will). and even if say it made everything hotter, where i live is hot enough in the summer, it doesnt need to be more so.

[Mika]

this = bad. because it might make your place hotter. or it might not. which is why the term climate change is better (semantics) because weather patterns are going to shift. not every place will get hotter (though the earth on average will). and even if say it made everything hotter, where i live is hot enough in the summer, it doesnt need to be more so.

We are actually predicted to have a lot to gain if it keeps getting warmer and warmer. Why should I try to make a world better place for you guys down there? No, I'm not going to worry about my CO2 emissions, let the larger nations do that first and then we have a deal.

[Dragon]

The first line was obviously a joke (well, I do indeed prefer when it's hot, but that's it). The second was a half-jocular summary of the actual dangers. The Gulfstream is the most recognizable part of the climate change (since it'd affect most people in Europe and America), but hardly the only one. Changes in global air and water circulation are very difficult to predict, as we don't know enough about them to simulate them. They could bring longer vegetation period and warmer winters, or they could freeze everything north of Spain to bone. Or make summers around Houston downright lethal instead of merely though. Different areas will undergo different changes, and preparing to them (and maybe exploiting them) should be the way to go.

[Mongoose]

One of the main global concerns with climate change is that it's going to create more severe droughts in places that are already subject to them, and most of said places tend to be in the poorer parts of the globe.  Somehow I don't think people in sub-Saharan Africa will be jumping for joy if Finland happens to get warmer winters.

[Mika]

One of the main global concerns with climate change is that it's going to create more severe droughts in places that are already subject to them, and most of said places tend to be in the poorer parts of the globe.  Somehow I don't think people in sub-Saharan Africa will be jumping for joy if Finland happens to get warmer winters.

But again, why should that affect my life - or more bluntly, why should I freeze my ass here so that the droughts would not be that harsh elsewhere? This mess is not of my doing, and if anyone, it is the old industrialized countries, China and India that should do something. From what I see, China and India are actually putting a lot more resources on that than US or EU! If the CO2 regulations are not globally accepted and controlled, it is an economical suicide for a country to start putting up legislation limiting the output. Which is probably going to hit hard in EU in the following years too.

[karajorma]

Quite.... no.  To both you and kara.

Once again we get back to the reason why I'm finding it increasingly hard to give a damn about Gen Disc. Everything has to be an argument for someone to prove their superior intellect.

You might have noticed that I posed questions, not gave statements. I didn't say it was proof. I merely pointed out that it is evidence. Yes I'm well aware that natural releases from methane hydrate have happened in the past and will happen again in the future. Did you assume that we thought it just built up forever?

Watsisname pretty much summed up the rest of my argument, which is good since it means I don't need to.

[Alex Heartnet]

I keep hearing about methods to cut pollution that primary involve the common citizen.   I don't think I have ever heard of a proposed method that involves making changes to the big corporations that produce the goods that the common citizen uses in the first place.  We can't just tell everyone to stop driving cars when society expects us to have the mobility a car provides.  Are big, industrial corporations most responsible?  How about big government?

Maybe we should start taxing corporations based on how destructive they are to the environment instead of just pointing the finger at the consumer all the time.  It might ultimately be more productive to take a bite out of the car factory owner's profits then to go after the people who buy the cars for lack of alternative methods of transportation.

[redsniper]

Set the underground methane on fire.

Do IRL Ergo Proxy.

[Beskargam]

I keep hearing about methods to cut pollution that primary involve the common citizen.   I don't think I have ever heard of a proposed method that involves making changes to the big corporations that produce the goods that the common citizen uses in the first place.  We can't just tell everyone to stop driving cars when society expects us to have the mobility a car provides.  Are big, industrial corporations most responsible?  How about big government?

Maybe we should start taxing corporations based on how destructive they are to the environment instead of just pointing the finger at the consumer all the time.  It might ultimately be more productive to take a bite out of the car factory owner's profits then to go after the people who buy the cars for lack of alternative methods of transportation.

errr. we have air quality control standards. in the US we require catalyitic converters on cars. we have the national ambient air quality standards. which covers this. it doesnt work by directly legislating against the business, but by putting pressure on the state to control air quality. if they exceed the standard they get their funding yanked. so states want their funding, so they in turn put pressure on any business that are emitting to much air pollution. now these regulations could be tighter.  but we do in deed have legislation covering this. somebody with better knowledge of law could provide more info tho. btw one of the ways states can put pressure on businesses is taxes and fines.

the solution is never to cut, say cars (though many americans, I included could use more walking), but to find other alternatives of either transportation, or ways to go about transportation that are less polluting.

from my understanding most of the laws in general do not "stick it to the consumer".

[watsisname]

also, how do i stick a picture in here? have a graph that is relevant.

You can upload it to sites like imgur and copy the link to the image here with [img] or [lvlshot] tags.

[Alex Heartnet]

errr. we have air quality control standards. in the US we require catalyitic converters on cars. we have the national ambient air quality standards. which covers this. it doesnt work by directly legislating against the business, but by putting pressure on the state to control air quality. if they exceed the standard they get their funding yanked. so states want their funding, so they in turn put pressure on any business that are emitting to much air pollution. now these regulations could be tighter.  but we do in deed have legislation covering this. somebody with better knowledge of law could provide more info tho. btw one of the ways states can put pressure on businesses is taxes and fines.

the solution is never to cut, say cars (though many americans, I included could use more walking), but to find other alternatives of either transportation, or ways to go about transportation that are less polluting.

from my understanding most of the laws in general do not "stick it to the consumer".

And yet somehow the environment is still a mess even with current regulation.  The current system is clearly inadequate.  Apparently we either need to do a much better job enforcing existing regulations, come up with entirely new ones, take a more radical approach somehow involving de-regulation, or come up with another solution that is not listed here.

[karajorma]

Set the underground methane on fire.

Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth. The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.

Yeah, that will work.

[watsisname]

I wonder how much CO2_eq that would put in the atmosphere.

[Sushi]

Set the underground methane on fire.

No possible way that could go wrong

[MP-Ryan]

Once again we get back to the reason why I'm finding it increasingly hard to give a damn about Gen Disc. Everything has to be an argument for someone to prove their superior intellect.

You might have noticed that I posed questions, not gave statements. I didn't say it was proof. I merely pointed out that it is evidence. Yes I'm well aware that natural releases from methane hydrate have happened in the past and will happen again in the future. Did you assume that we thought it just built up forever?

It has nothing to do with arguing to prove a superior intellect.  It has everything to do with someone making a silly, facile statement that in no way actually helps the real science around climate change.  Telling Alex (and the tone was telling, not asking) this:

Hell the fact that the methane is proving to be thousands of years old seems to speak against this being a natural warming cycle, right?

creates the illusion of holes in a scientific position which deniers will attempt to pick apart.  That's doing everyone a disservice.

You may may meant something else, but you said this, and it needed correction.  If you think that means I'm "proving my intellectual superiority" I don't really give a damn.  It's not about my ego, it's about false arguments that don't help (and actually hinder) the actual debate around climate change.  Stuff like this is why deniers in North America have so much material to work with to distract from the real issues.

[MP-Ryan]

And yet somehow the environment is still a mess even with current regulation.  The current system is clearly inadequate.  Apparently we either need to do a much better job enforcing existing regulations, come up with entirely new ones, take a more radical approach somehow involving de-regulation, or come up with another solution that is not listed here.

Whenever I see someone talk about enforcement of existing regulations, it raises little red flags for me because it's what I do for a living.

The trouble with enforcement is you have to actually prove someone is breaking the law.  When laws are worded badly, or not designed to deal with the things that the public thinks they should deal with, that leads to unenforceability concerns.  Most environmental law has not been historically designed to deal with the challenges we face today.  That means new regulation (designed to be enforceable and deal with specific industries) is necessary, rather than deregulation.  The regulation of water resources and pollution is spotty around the world, and it's been regulated for well over a hundred years in many countries.  The idea of carbon regulation is so new that no one has worked out an effective and enforceable system of regulation.

And I agree with your point about regulation of corporations and industries - the "polluters pays" principle has been sadly neglected in most of the G8, nevermind the rest of the world.  The trouble is, corporations being what they are and profit designed the way it is, most of that expense is guaranteed to be passed along to consumers regardless.

[Mikes]

And I agree with your point about regulation of corporations and industries - the "polluters pays" principle has been sadly neglected in most of the G8, nevermind the rest of the world.  The trouble is, corporations being what they are and profit designed the way it is, most of that expense is guaranteed to be passed along to consumers regardless.

Classic/Neoclassic and even some semi-modern economic theories are at the root of most of our major issues. That's what you get when you blindly elevate a theory that is not even statistically verified and has numerous holes and contradictions to your primary guideline for society and let social evolution run its course.

Hilariously actual scientists who often have only cursory knowledge of the hogwash kinda "science" that is economic theory are usually also heavily restrained by it's consequences and have to bow their heads when they get told  that their work is not feasible due to financial constraints.

Next: Financially viable solutions that make everyone involved feel good about "having done something"... but do nothing to address the actual problem.

Well... at least those bas*ards who are ruining our planet now have to pay for it.... (yay?)