Polar Bears, Global Warming and Bush.
 

What is going on in the Bush administration? In a backhanded way they acknowledged "global warming" by saying polar bears may be endangered. I think the notion that polar bears are endangered is laughable, and I wonder what his real motivation is. Perhaps we are being prepared for "liberal" science and what to expect with Democrats in power or perhaps Chaney has invested in polar bear hide futures.

Those Bad News Bears

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...52201796298639

I am going to look forward to reading all of the comments praising Bush for protecting polar bears and acknowledging global warming even if it was in a backhanded way. on the otherhand, I think I now agree with a previous post about the Bush administration manipulating science for political purposes. Funny how things change.

Too bad Bush is such a liberal. :mad:

I think i remember bush acknowledging the existence of global warming a while ago. You find bush's about face odd, i do too. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who holds his perspective accountable to reality.

In any case, here is another, longer, take:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...lar-bears.html

I'm not an expert in the livelihoods of polar bears and neither are you. It seems like the problem is that the amount of ice is declining as is the number of polar bears. This is a fact regardless of your take on global warming and the u.s. fish and wildlife service acknowledges this and a spokesperson specifically denies that global warming is relevant to the endangered designation.

The global warming issue is tangential to the endangered species designation. It only comes in when one tries to explain the earlier thaws, and it will probably come as no surprise to anyone if the bush administration skirts the issue of global warming altogether when it comes to polar bears.


That being said, ace, i find it hard to understand how you can have so much faith in the predictive ability of economics, despite the fact that economists are wrong just as often as they're right, while completely rejecting the notion that large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might cause the earth to retain more heat than it normally would.

So when does he finally do a 180 on Iraq? I mean this could be a preemptiuve strike to bring people back to the Republican party so that Clinton, Obama and Edwards don't have it so easy in 2008.

Also, a few organizations that agree that polar bears are endangered:
The UN
The World Wildlife Foundation
National Geographic
BBC News
People who should know more about polar bears that anyone all agree that they are endangered. I'd hardly call that laughable. What I do find a bit laughable is when scientists are labeled 'liberal', and suddenly all their findings are moot or lies. Most researchers are either liberal or conservative, so is all science bullshit? Maybe gravity doesn't exist because Newton would have voted for Clinton? Galileo was clearly liberal, so we can't really believe that stars are billions of miles from Earth, right?

Maybe instead of judging scientists on their supposed political leanings, we can judge them by their research.

I don't get the question. Seems like every week we hear about new glaciers disappearing or new enormous ice shelves breaking off in the Arctic. How can anyone still deny that the globe is, for want of a better word, warming? Hell, I've seen charts of average global temperatures that SHOW a measurable, several-degree upward trend.

The cause of that trend is absolutely debatable, as are the results of it for humans and other species. But I find it shocking that there's anybody who can look at temperature trends and other tangible measurements and still say that global warming is a myth. You might as well argue that the planet is 6000 years old; it's perfectly valid as a matter of faith, but it's sure not what the physical evidence indicates.

E pur si muove, willravel!

Ah, two points for quoting Galileo!!! :thumbsup:

The predictive ability of economist using mathmatic models is contengent on the assumptions used. I have faith in logic and math not in economists. My faith in people with a few exceptions has usually lead to disappointment.

We know polar bears adapted to cold conditions having evolved from brown bears and the thought that we will make significant changes to industrial policy and the use of fossil fuels for the benefit of polar bears, who most likely will continue adapting to whatever their conditions are, is on its face kind of silly. So I reject the whole idea of connecting polar bears to global warming as some kind of tool to prove anything or make political points.

If objective science tells us the globe is warming because of industrial and fossil fuel greenhouse gases, I won't reject or dispute the science. However, I will reject proposed solutions if I think they are unfair to what is important to me. I would assume you would do the same.


I am not rejecting global warming. I just don't understand it, given the history of this planet and Newton's third law of
physics (for every action there is an equal but opposit reaction), so if the globe is getting warmer what is getting colder? If ice starts to melt wont that lead to more cloud cover, more rain and cooler tempratures over time? I have not seen any response to this question in the limited reading I have done on the subject.

I can create a chart showing the average temprature dropping. All I have to do is start measuring tempratures in my backyard in August and end in December. Given the age of the earth, the length of time and places where we have been collecting data - how can you be so certain?

I'm the same way.

You're pretty casual with the whole extinction thing, aren't you? There isn't an organism that can adapt to everything. How can you be certain that polar bears will adapt and how can you advocate that kind of wait and see approach when the natural existence of an entire species might possibly be in the balance?

I think that objective science has already told us that the globe is warming because of industrial and fossil fuel greenhouse gases. And actually, you're wrong about what kind of solutions i would accept and reject. I don't care much for the long term welfare of industries who can't exist without doing unreasonable and possibly irreversible damage to the world. Besides, how can you possibly justify putting industry ahead of averting a planet scale catastrophe?


There isn't a response because it's a trivial concept for most anyone learned in the hard sciences and so they probably assume(unfortunately) that everyone already knows about it. In any case, here's an explanation: the earth is constantly being fed energy by the sun and it is constantly relinquishing some of that energy back into space. The idea with global warming, as i'm sure you're aware, is that the buildup of greenhouse gases is causing the earth to retain more of that energy and relinquish less. So to answer your question, everything other than the earth is getting colder. Energy that would have previously been reflected back into space is being reflected into space no longer and is hanging around, heating up ur planit. More open water won't necessarily lead to more cloud cover and more cloud cover won't necessarily lead to cooler temperatures.

I'm not a global warming expert, so i just defer to the thousands of scientists for whom the evidence passes muster. I'm fairly certain that the evidence supporting global warming is a lot more compelling than any evidence that polar bears will adapt to their new environmental problems.

Yes. Adapt or die.

I look at it in terms of what is more important the quality of life for people or the quality of life of for example polar bears. We know that when we try to manipulate nature we suffer unintended consequences. I am not comfortable that we know enough about global warming or polar bears at this time to come up with a real plan. For example will using E85 have an impact on either, what about increased use of nuclear power, how do we know that current emision controls are not working and will restore "balance" over time, etc, etc.



The UN published a report stating that domesticated live stock is a major contributor to greenhouse gases causing global warming. Are you willing to give up beef and milk products? Should developing third world nations stop raising cattle as a needed source of protien? Who determines how much is too much?

In a way I agree. I think the true cost (including environmental costs) should be reflected in the goods we purchase. If those costs are truely reflected the market would ensure our environment is protected. When the government subsidizes certain industries, like oil, coal, etc. it has a tendency to hurt inovation in other areas.

At one point most of the planet was tropical, at another the planet had an ice age, and at another point we have conditions as they are now. some how the earth has an ability to regulate its temprature. There has to be more to the explanation you provided.


Is there a paticular source(s) or study that you used to help you make up your mind? If so what is it?

ace: you really should stop relying on the editorial page of investors business daily.
have you looked up the work of theo richel? you should.
have you asked yourself about the sources that you rely upon to undercut the legtimacy of claims that there is global warming, who these folk are, where their money comes from, etc.?

when the united nations says that livestock is a significant source of greenhouse gasses, what did you imagine that meant? do you really think that centralized agricultural production as it exists now, and as developed over the past century is the same as older forms of agricultural production simply because cows are present in each of them?

i dont understand your thinking in this thread at all.
i read what you posted about it, and i still dont understand it.
so maybe if you explain how you interact with sources on this question, it'll be easier.

Y'all are missin' the big picture, here.


Without polar bears...

How will this affect the next Coca-Cola ad campaign?

Huh? Didn't think of that, now didja?

Its curious that a casual attitude can be cast over the topic of a species' extinction. Given the fact that we have yet to discover anything remotely ressembling life outside our own biosphere, it would seem reasonable to expect it to receive a more serious attention.

The editorial page of IBD is like the comic pages were to me as a kid. It is the first thing I read. I don't always agree with what they write but I really like the cynical edgey humor used.

I did a Google search on his name and got a bunch of links in German, I don't speak German. Do you have a good link I can use to read his work?
Most of the stuff I have read has come from "big business". I realize it is PR. But on the other hand I have my own questions that I can't find answered. Also as a general rule if Al Gore says it is true, I am guilty of assuming that it is false. On this issue I am making an effort to have an open mind, but most of the material I have found mostly talks about how obvious global warming is and how the sceintific data is being manipulated by big business. They don't show the actual sceintific data, other than to say polar ice is melting and the average temprature is up a few degrees.

No.

A) I think Bush has flip-flopped. I don't know why.
B) I don't think polar bears are endangered.
C) I think polar bears are resourceful and will adapt to changing conditions.
D) I think the quality of life of people is more improtant than polar bears.
E) I have questions about global warming.
F) I think the global warming issue has been politicized to a greater degree than I think it should be.
G) I don't think we know enough about the problem to solve it.
Generally I interact with souces that support my point of view lovingly and with great enthusiasm ( I have actually framed material that supports my views). I interact with souces that challenge my point of view with caution and often with disdain (I got a Micheal Moore book as a gift once, I put it in the garbage without cracking the spine). But I do often read what you guys write and the links provided. Look at it this way, you may be my only source to see the light.:icare:

As I understand it something like 99% of all species have become extinct. Not that we should want to hasten the demise of Polar Bears or Humans for that matter but sometimes I think we believe we are so special that we can actually control the big cycles. Our contribution to global conditions is probably miniscule in the long term.

There seems to be no end to the extinction causing changes our planet has and will continue to go through. Years from now a visitor to our planet would probably not know that humans ever existed. It seems to be the natural order of things. Unless of course we can survive long enough to advance technology and populate the cosmos.

Here is a list of animals that once lived in the Untide States now extinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Its a long list, and not always the fault of people. Nature is harsh, animals adapt to changing conditions or they go extinct. I don't get your point. When a polar bear kills a baby seal would you say the bears attitude is casual? If a person kills a baby seal some think that is morally wrong, but then they eat veal at their save the baby seals luncheon. What would you call that?

I'll post the most factual and unbiased information I know of. For the sake of space, I'll just give the links on most.

Graphs of daily total column ozone and water vapor amounts from global sites.

Cooperative Atmospheric Data Integration Project (CO2)
Cooperative Atmospheric Data Integration Project (CH4)
Cooperative Atmospheric Data Integration Project (CO)
Major World Ecosystem Complexes Ranked by Carbon in Live Vegetation

RADIATIVE CLIMATE FORCING BY LONG-LIVED GREENHOUSE GASES:
THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
Daily plots - Solar and Thermal Radiation

Some of the links posted above cite the authors' contact information if you'd like to speak with them. Hope you find them helpful.

I'll try to find more.

We have to eat to survive, but there is not reason, aside from vanity, to club a baby seal. Its not morally wrong, just useless.
I am a strong proponent of natural selection, even to the point of not being surprised if we fall victim to it. The polar bear situation is not natural selection.

Yes, well, that's the problem. Adapt or die isn't really sound environmental policy.

Our manipulation of nature just might be what got the polar bears in this situation in the first place. The melting ice is probably an unintended consequence of our manipulations. It sounds like what you're saying is that we should avoid trying to dampen the unintended negative consequences of our actions because there might be unintended negative consequences, and unintended negative consequences must be avoided. What if our inaction has unintended negative consequences?

We can approximate how much carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere and we can try to discourage behaviors that release a lot of carbon dioxide into the air. It's not that difficult. A whole lot of good could be done just by enforcing stricter emission standards in our automobiles.

I further don't see how this is a quality of life issue. Certainly, being the big proponent of the tenacious free market that you are, you can't seriously be concerned about the economy being unable to rebound from restrictions on fuel emissions.

Third world nations aren't responsible for the vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions, developed nations are. And you're confused about the cattle industry if you think that the cattle raised in third world countries to satisfy protein needs is the same cattle that are a major contributor to global warming. The cattle most responsible for contributing to global warming is very likely the same cattle most responsible for contributing to the obesity epidemic in america, i.e. the cattle mass produced on land that used to be rainforest for various fast food establishments.


So are you saying that you support the taxation of goods as a means to regulate negative externalities? Is there any other way to ensure the price people pay for certain goods reflects the negative effects of that good on the world at large?

Yes, the earth's temperature does what it does. The idea when it comes to preventing global warming is that we should avoid inadvertently altering the climate because hey, things are all right now and nobody knows what will happen if a warm spell is induced.

This thread has a good discussion.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108935

Ace....if you are relly interested, an objective (IMO) source of information is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC is composed of hundreds of scientists from both developed and third world countries and conducts periodic assessments of climate change. All of their work is peer reviewed by hundreds of other scientists from around the world, including climate change skeptics.

THe last assessment conducted by the IPCC was in 2001. Among its conclusions:

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and land clearing has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up the surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.

You can review the scientific data, (Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis), the vulnerability of human and natural systems to climate change (Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability), and options for adapting to them, including economic impacts (Climate Change 2001: Mitigation)....or just read the Synthesis Report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm

You might find it informative.....if you have an open mind.

You might also want to read the UN report on the impact of livestock on greenhouse gases (only one section of the report; it addresses impacts on land degradation, water pollution and the loss of biodiversity as well - all serious issues worthy of more than comments about cow flatulence - as described by an earlier IDB editorial) if you want to cite its conclusions. (I recall you said in another discussion that you hadnt read it)

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/libr...d/A0701E00.htm

I will review the sources provided and check-in afterward.

Thanks

Well...I'm not so sure about that. I mean, it may not be fun, or even a very attractive policy, but it is, after all, nature's policy. Millions of species have come and gone with little or no help from man. It may suck, but there it is.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the extinction of a species due to preventable effects of mankind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/...global_warming

There you have it. "The illusion of vigorous debate".

The scientific verdict is in. Global warming is real, and human activity is at least contributing to it.

ExxonMobil has a nefarious business agenda for suppressing that information. What's Al Gore's negarious agenda for promoting it? Anyone? Anyone?

Will you say the same thing when we can't eat fish anymore?

Losing polar bears probably doesn't seem like a problem so one who isn't bothered by animal extinction, but even for you it should represent a dangerous prescedent. *If* the warming trend, whether caused by man or not, can actually damage entire ecosystems and kill off entire species, then we should consider it a threat and try to do something about it. Instead of assisting it or causing it be pumping millions of tons of waste into the air and sea, maybe we can try to repair the problem.

Its jan. 4 and it is 60 degress in Jersey, my wifes tulips have started to sprout, if you people wont think about saving the Polar bears then please, please think of the tulips.
One day will come when Tulips also will be gone and eveyone will be sorry, you'll see.
Im sending a letter to all big oil ceo's to please stop selling their product to save my wife's tulips.

Did you know about Global Dimming ? It is that thing wich masks Global Warming. Here is a documentary
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Global+Dimming
It's January 4 and no snow yet

I looked at several sources. Here is what I found.

There is a consencus that in the last 150 years there has been in increase in average global temprature of about .5 degrees centegrate, 2005 being either the warmest or in the top two with 1998.

Carbon dioxide has had about a 40% to 50% increase since the industrial age. The 2005 measurement was 375 ppm, the 1960 measurement was 313 ppm. The pre-industrial range has been between 180 ppm and 300 ppm.

Methane gas has had about a 150% increase since the industrial age. Methane occurs from the fermantation of organic matter. Currently it measures about 1800 ppb, compared to about 1,000 ppb pre-industrial age.

Without greehouse gases the earth would be on average 30 degree centegrate colder. However, no one has shown a quantitative link between carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases with temprature sensitivity due to other variables affecting the earths temprature.

There appears to be a legitimate debate on projected temprature increases (the assumptions used) and methods to control the increase in greenhouse gases.

For the naturalists - There was the Permian Triassic extinction event that wiped out about 70% of all land animals about 251 million years ago. One theory is that a release of massive amounts of methane gas from the oceans was the cause of about a 5 degree centegrate increase in the earths temprature. Methane gas by some is considered to have a much larger relative impact on global warming than other greenhouse gases. Whatever the cause, the earth's temprature went back into balance.

What the hell !

That law applies to forces (eg pushing against a boat) not temperature. Go read a book on thermodynamics.

Here's a thought experiment for you. I take an ordinary block of dry wood and put it in a pile. I put some petrol on the wood. I light the petrol. It gets warm.

Are you seriously telling me that somebody somewhere is getting cold because of this? Conventional theory would say that the heat has been released due to a chemical reaction... are you saying that my fire got hot because it's suddenly cooled down in China?

In terms of whether you understand it... stuff happens regardless. Do understand how nuclear forces and charged particles interact with your DNA? Maybe not. But I'd think that you know enough to stay away from strong radiation sources yes?

So yeah.. read the views, then make a decision. But stuff happens whether you understand it or not.

As consensus builds within the scientific community, there seems little doubt that a shift in Earth Climate is occuring. That said, we can debate the cause until Hell freezes over (pun intended), but there will likely not be conclusive evidence for such a complicated proccess for decades. Instead we might want to focus on adapting to the inevitable, and preparing for possible impact from the change....rather than arguing over its cause.
Regardless of what Mankind does as far as prevention/reversal, we will not change the future result of this climate event, and would serve our species well to get past the silly, pointless finger pointing in favor of what we do best....evaluating and adapting to our environment.

I found this most recent synopsis very powerful, and the team of scientists involved exceptionally qualified for the study:

"Executive Summary

Overview
The best estimate of global surface temperature change is a 0.6°C increase since the late 19th century with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4 to 0.8°C. The increase in temperature of 0.15°C compared to that assessed in the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) is partly due to the additional data for the last five years, together with improved methods of analysis and the fact that the SAR decided not to update the value in the First Assessment Report, despite slight additional warming. It is likely that there have been real differences between the rate of warming in the troposphere and the surface over the last twenty years, which are not fully understood. New palaeoclimate analyses for the last 1,000 years over the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the magnitude of 20th century warming is likely to have been the largest of any century during this period. In addition, the 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium. New analyses indicate that the global ocean has warmed significantly since the late 1940s: more than half of the increase in heat content has occurred in the upper 300 m, mainly since the late 1950s. The warming is superimposed on strong global decadal variability. Night minimum temperatures are continuing to increase, lengthening the freeze-free season in many mid- and high latitude regions. There has been a reduction in the frequency of extreme low temperatures, without an equivalent increase in the frequency of extreme high temperatures. Over the last twenty-five years, it is likely that atmospheric water vapour has increased over the Northern Hemisphere in many regions. There has been quite a widespread reduction in daily and other sub-monthly time-scales of temperature variability during the 20th century. New evidence shows a decline in Arctic sea-ice extent, particularly in spring and summer. Consistent with this finding are analyses showing a near 40% decrease in the average thickness of summer Arctic sea ice over approximately the last thirty years, though uncertainties are difficult to estimate and the influence of multi-decadal variability cannot yet be assessed. Widespread increases are likely to have occurred in the proportion of total precipitation derived from heavy and extreme precipitation events over land in the mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. "

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm

ace:
True, the increased percentage of methane gas is much higher than carbon dioxide. And it's warming capacity per particle is higher. But the answer to why Carbon Dioxide matters more is in your own post.
CO2 accounts for 375 ppm
Methane accounts for 1800 ppb

CO2 is a significant part of our atmosphere while methane remains a trace gas.

Methane gas is also a product of industrial and agricultural pollution. It's increase is not entirely a product of 'natural' cycle.
Our over-use of fertilizers, landfills and natural gas extraction contribute to the methane rise.

Also, the average global temperature rise of 0.5C is a global average. The poles actually are warmed approx 1.5 to 2C while the equator sees virtually no temperature rise at all. This is important because of the delicate balance we are seeing tipped for our polar ice.

Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be uninhabitable. They are a good thing. But then, too much of a good thing can kill you. Oxygen is a caustic gas. It is just in a small enough quantity that it helps us thrive. Nitrogen makes up 78% of our atmosphere. At 90% a spark would set this entire planet on fire.

The planet will spring back from all the gasses we pump into it's atmosphere. The question is, will it happen while humans still have a future?

The important question is one of policy. If we reduce CO2 by x% and reduce methane by x%, no one knows what would happen or what the most efficient balance is between the two numbers. Other factors include re-forrestation and other natural occurances that control greenhouse gases. Also, given current conditions in the world and developing nations wanting to industrialize and improve agriculture, how do you strike a balance between what we currently have and what other nations want? For example if a developing nation wants to destroy a rain forrest to raise cattle should they be allowed to. Should coal be banned for use in creating electricity, should we use nuclear?

So you can create energy, rather than transfer or convert energy? If you can or know how it is done, wouldn't that solve our problems?

When i took physics temprature was related to kinetic energy. The law of forces governed kinetic energy. I admit, it was about 25 years ago. Perhaps there have been some new developments, if so I am interested in knowing more.

I doubt that no one knows what will happen. I suspect that we can make an educated guess and then procede from there....it's better than doing nothing. Yes, we absolutely need to reforest across the globe. Yes, we absolutely need to control our emmissions. Those are two staples of the green party, and two of the most simple and important strategies in the movement to slow global climate change.
What about state issued bonds to create a fund that homeowners could borrow from to install solar panels? The loan is repaid by simply selling excess power back to the grid. It would be a hell of a smart investment. Let the system pay for itself. While coal and gas are good investments on a basic level, there are consequences to burning it. My asthma can be attributed to vehicle emissions (that comes from my specialist, who is at the head of his field).

ace: it may well be that the american model of centralized, monocrop oriented, resource-heavy, subsidy-enabled, corn obsessed agriculture is not the one to be used in development contexts.
it is already one of the central problems encountered by developing countries in that the americans dump the overproduction generated by this system as part of american development arrangements.
it may also be that the efficiencies generated by that system are outweighed by the impacts of it.
other models of agricultural production exist--they are out there, they are more sustainable socially, economically and environmentally.
i do not think that the present american prodution model the best possible, not even for americans--on the effects of this system, there are a host of books you can read. i'd be happy to recommend some, if you like, as would other folk here, i am sure.

and i think it is the defense of that model--that is of the corporate infrastructures which are linked to it--that explains the present sad state of affairs regarding information about issues like global warming. if you cannot win a debate, you can disable it. if you disable it, then the existing system can continue.

Is your statement suggesting that we have enough knowledge to control the earth's temprature by manipulating CO2 levels?

CO2 is about .0375 percent of our atmosphere. If every human started walking to work and never drove again and we stopped using transportation fuels all together according to this chart we would reduce CO2 by about 20%. If CO2 dropped in the same ratio the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would be .03% or 300 ppm. This is still at the highest pre-industrial range for CO2. If we took such a step you think we can predict what the impact will be? I don't. In the past few weeks I have not found a source for any scientific study stating we can make such a pridiction with any certainty. However, there are some who suggest other factors may be contributing to the higher tempratures. I think we should make informed decisions about energy uses that are causing CO2 levels to increase.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._by_Sector.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._by_Sector.png

My statement means that a vast majority of scientists are of the opinion that CO2 levels are too high and man is having a measurable effect on the Earth's warming...therefore we could change our behavior so that the Earth remains in this part of the warming trend for longer, effectively slowing global climate change to make life more stable, at least in a climatological repsect. We should ultimately work to 1) preserve ourselves and therefore 2) preserve the world around us. We live in a symbiotic relationship with the world around us, so it would be in our best interest to protect all parts of that relationship.

Polar bears may not seem important (unless you work at a zoo, in which case they are the lifblood of the industry), but it's possible that they are holding several parts of their ecosystem together and a change in that ecosystem could effect us eventually. Say, for example, that polar bears keep seals in check. Without polar bears, seals become the dominant species and eat too much of their food, lets say small fish. Seals start starving because they eat up all their food, a food that fisherman also look for to provide food for people, and seals starve and fishermen lose their jobs and there are less fish on the market total, raising the price of fish. How much are you willing to pay for tuna? How long before Northern Cod is no longer available? How long before that changes the amount of kelp? This might seem a simple problem, but it's implications could be far reaching.

change what behavior? And if we changed will it have an impact?

I saw a PBS documentary on Niagra Falls this weekend. To perserv its beauty and to generate power only about 25% of the natural water flow actually goes over the falls. How do we know that this is not a major contributor to global warming in the nortern hemishere. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. This major manipulation of water may be doing more harm than anyone has considered.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa.../image270f.gif

Very true about the water vapor.

Vapor is in a vicious feedback cycle. As the earth warmed during the Industrial Revolution, more water was released as vapor. This vapor is a greenhouse gas which fed into the earth temperature rise all the more.

Vapor creates more vapor etc...

Fact of the matter is. Our global temperature is rising, a lot. It is changing things before our eyes. Make no mistake, the change will not be beneficial to humans whatsoever. We are adapted to the world as it is.

CO2 is recognized as the keystone of human induced global warming. It is the biggest GH contributor that we actually have control over the emmission of. Look at your own graph. Among the biggest contributors are power plants, automotive, and agricultural.
These can all be fixed with available technology. We have grandfathered power stations that don't have to even attempt to be clean because they were built pre Clean Air Act. Others that find an economical balance between federal fines and better CO2 scrubbers, damn the environmental impact.

Too many people wasting gas on inefficient behemoths.

Farmers who spread too much fertilizer, allowing greenhouse components to release into the atmosphere.

Something is happening. There are things we can do. We aren't doing them.

If we stop auto and power emissions, then we'd have a huge effect. If we were to change over to solar for homes and electric for cars, for example, we'd reduce CO2 by over 35%. That's HUGE.

Here is more food for thought, thanks to another PBS documentary.

The moon's orbit around the earth is increasing. The earth's rotation is slowing. What impact does that have on global warming? No one knows. but there is no doubt the moon affect tides and water currents, and may have an impact on volcanic and seismic activity.

I will stop driving and using CO2 producing transportation right after you and all the folks in California (most cars and trucks in the nation). You guys can lead the way, raise your taxes, plow up the roads and asphalt, and let's see what happens.

Did you take into account that California has the most stringent emissions standards in the US? Also, we were the first state to allow hybrids (for hybrid drivers: can use highway carpool lane, exempt from smog, free parking in San Jose or LA). Also, We are leading the nation in solar power. Also, we were the only state to allow electric cars. Also, we lead the nation in biodeisel.

It's kinda hard to blame California when we are leading the nation in hybrids, alternatives, and generally being the uber-liberals that we want to be. If we left the US, I'd bet we'd be one of the more environmentally sound countries in the world.

That's been happening since the day earth and later the moon were formed.
Planetary orbits decay at a pretty regular rate.
It's been happening the same through earths history. It's effect on climate is minimal. Not something felt in a time period of hundreds, thousands or even millions of years.

I'm pretty sure he was joking....at least I hope he was. If the Orbits of solar system bodies were changing enough to be felt over centuries....we would not be discussing Climate change, as it would be the least of our worries.