Warming is melting (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-09-06-permafrost-warming_x.htm?POE=TECISVA) stuff which is causing the release of more global warming gasses. The methane in frozen bogs (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2402405) in siberia and CO2 from frozen, now thawing, soils.

We won't realise until ten years later anyway, in which case it'll be far too late.

Even if we're going to hit it in twenty years time, it's probably too late to stop ourselves hitting it.

Even if scientists told us we were going to hit it in forty years time, not enough people would believe the scientists to make the changes we need.

I certainly believe that global warming is taking place and that it's primarily human-generated (versus some natural warming/cooling cycle).

I also find this CO2/methane trapped in ice/permafrost concern unconvincing. Of course there is CO2 and methane in the permafrost, and it would escape if heated. I don't believe that the magnitude of these sources is a cause for alarm.

* Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, but it degrades in the atmosphere in 10 years. Any increase in methane would have a relatively short-term impact.
(btw, did you know that a major source of methane escape into the atmosphere is bovine flatulence? :) )

* I am skeptical that the amount of CO2 in permafrost comes remotely close to what humans put out stacks and tailpipes.

On a lighter note, global warming has attracted the attention of some far-thinking politicians. Canada is spending billions increasing our presence in the Canadian Arctic. The fabled, mythical northwest passage (travel between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans via northern Canada) may become a reality with global warming melting the ice that currently blocks travel by water. Canada is establishing its rights to territorial waters in the Arctic against claims from the United States that these are international waters (or ice... Lol). There is even a diplomatic dispute with Denmark about ownership of a forlorn piece of rock the size of a football field, that just happens to lie smack in the middle of a potential Northwest Passage.

Yeah, I was thinking it might be worthwhile to buy real estate in Alaska. :p

Yeah, I was thinking it might be worthwhile to buy real estate in Alaska. :p

Don't laugh.

In the 40s and 50s the big joke was real estate in Florida.

Look at it now.

Explain to me how CO2 is going to be a real problem when it is heavier than air.

All in all, even if there is more CO2 released, all it is going to do is make your grass grow faster and greener.

If you don't believe me, go buy some dry ice and put it in some water, you can see how CO2 gas behaves in air.

You would need total displacement, such as on Venus, for any warming to occur from it. And we have plants on our planet which turns CO2 into O2 and carbon(cellulose and sugars) anyways. Which Venus never had. Which is our model for CO2 greenhouse warming anyway.

Unless you got another real viable model, I will continue to be a skeptic.

Explain to me how CO2 is going to be a real problem when it is heavier than air.

All in all, even if there is more CO2 released, all it is going to do is make your grass grow faster and greener.

If you don't believe me, go buy some dry ice and put it in some water, you can see how CO2 gas behaves in air.

You would need total displacement, such as on Venus, for any warming to occur from it. And we have plants on our planet which turns CO2 into O2 and carbon(cellulose and sugars) anyways. Which Venus never had. Which is our model for CO2 greenhouse warming anyway.

Unless you got another real viable model, I will continue to be a skeptic.

I would think it does not really matter at which height in the atmosphere CO2 can be found for it to have a greenhouse effect.
Not to mention that the 'clouds' created from dry ice is almost pure so it is bound to 'rain' down. If it is only a few percents it will be sort of dissolved into the air and it can be carried up into higher altitudes where it can do more damage to our climate. I mean, it is not like there is no CO2 at 10 or 20km height today, just perhaps a lesser concentration than at sea level. If concentrations at sea level increase inevitably they will rise at higher levels as well.


Eri

Unless you got another real viable model, I will continue to be a skeptic.

We have a historical model for natural climate change in the past. Changes in carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, as recorded in ice cores, do match our historical data for the heating and cooling of the planet. Go look up it if you want to debate it.

We have a historical model for natural climate change in the past. Changes in carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, as recorded in ice cores, do match our historical data for the heating and cooling of the planet. Go look up it if you want to debate it.

Right, but the models predict both an ice age and global warming...

I agree that releasing energy in the form of heat of a smoke stack or car exhaust or nuclear plants or from forrest fires or other forms increase hurricane activity and eventually melt glaciers. After all, energy is neither created nor destroyed but simply changes form( E=MC^2).

Ideas about recycling carbon and energy are good long term energy strategies. Wind is a form of energy that can be harnassed.

I do not see the world using less energy unless there are few people...

It IS the historical data for it.

Because our model is Venus.



How do you get past the fact that CO2 sinks to the ground when in air?

How do you get past the fact that CO2 sinks to the ground when in air?

Yeah. Rain is impossible isn't it?

It IS the historical data for it.

Because our model is Venus.

The planet Venus is most assuredly not the model for earth's global warming calculations. It gets trotted out by media as an easily understood example of extreme greenhouse gas effects. But no reputable scientist will draw parallels to that planet and earth because both the amount of radiation it catches from the sun and the makeup of the atmosphere are completely different just to name a few.


How do you get past the fact that CO2 sinks to the ground when in air?

And aeroplanes and rockets are clearly a figment of our imagination, being heavier than air too. Or maybe the fact that there is oxygen in our atmosphere, seeing that that too is heavier than the nitrogen that makes up 70 percent of our air?
There is no 1.5 km thick layer of pure oxygen surrounding our planet, instead the gasses that make up our atmosphere mix up quite a bit by the wind turbulence. At lower altitudes you will find a higher concentration of the heavier gasses, but you can find them quite high too (same as you can find some of the lighter gasses at sea level that are more common if you go up a 100km in the air)

1- Carbon dioxide does not need to be at 20km altitude to have a greenhouse effect. Sea level will do nicely already.

2- While it will gradually drift down towards the surface, CO2 concentrations we are talking about can easily 'dissolve' into the air and be carried up to great altitudes by the same convection effects that forms clouds at 10 km. From there it can be easily caught by those very strong (over a hundred km per hour) winds that modern intercontinental jets use to conserve fuel. If you realise that volcanic ash can easily stay for years that hight in the atmosphere you have to agree that CO2, which is only a little heavier than N2 and O2 has no problem of staying in those altitudes as well. Sure, at lower altitudes the concentration will be higher, but if you increase the concentration 1pct at sea level you will have to expect that the concentration at 10Km will also increase with 1pct, or close to that. Simply because more of the gas will be whipped up and stays there for years or decades before slipping down again.

By all means, be sceptic, but scientifically there is very little doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and will affect earth's climate. The real unanswerd question in the models is not the greenhouse gasses, but the effect of water vapor. It is a powerful greenhouse gas in itself, but it will also lead to more clouds which have a cooling effect high in the atmosphere by deflecting radiation (all those white surfaces and everything).
If you want to challenge the article, or rather the writers of it, you should point out that in favour of sensationalism it chose to ignore the explanation of the scientist that the newly calculated amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere was only about 1pct of the annual human production. And that is after the amount was multiplied by 5 as per the new measurements the scientists reported.


Eri

If you don't believe me, go buy some dry ice and put it in some water, you can see how CO2 gas behaves in air.



Because the fog that you are seeing is a mix of water (in almost solide form) and CO2. Don't forget that the dry ice is around -70C when you put it in the water. And why this mix of water and CO2 didn't fly may be because cold air want do go down while the hot air want to go up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice#Dry_ice

Eridalafar

We have a historical model for natural climate change in the past. Changes in carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, as recorded in ice cores, do match our historical data for the heating and cooling of the planet. Go look up it if you want to debate it.

Unfortunately there has been exactly Zero models that have correctly predicted global temperature changes to date. Every one of them has had to be tweaked with new data points to get the actual result. Even the scientist doing the modeling will admit that there is a lot more going on than we know and there are variables we simply don't understand yet.

Incidently, historic models also show that CO2 typically FOLLOWS temperature increases. So while there are correlations between elevated CO2 and higher temperatures it's unclear if it's a cause or effect. Especially since there have been historical periods where CO2 levels were above current day levels yet global temperatures were lower than today.

According to their atomic weights, CO2 is heavier than Water Vapor (the most effective green house gas), Oxygen, Nitrogen (the most common gas in the atmosphere) and just about all atmospheric gasses. In a sealed environment CO2 would indeed sink the bottom. That said, the globe isn't really a sealed environment, Wind currents, convection and the rotation of the earth and moon all serve to stir things up. Then again, even with todays elevated atmospheric CO2 it's still a minor trace gas comprising of 0.038% of the atmosphere. (78% is nitrogen, 21% oxygen, all the rest crammed into that last 1%)

Unfortunately there has been exactly Zero models that have correctly predicted global temperature changes to date. Every one of them has had to be tweaked with new data points to get the actual result. Even the scientist doing the modeling will admit that there is a lot more going on than we know and there are variables we simply don't understand yet.


We know that weather modelling is a complex chaotic system that needs understanding of many geological, atmospheric, and biological activies. We can't expect to see a perfect model in our lifetime. If we wait for a perfect model we will miss anything we need to see. The risk that we ignore global warming and suffer the consequences is far greater than the risk of acting precipitously on bad models.

The risk that we ignore global warming and suffer the consequences is far greater than the risk of acting precipitously on bad models.

Pure Fatalism and Fear. Pure FUD.

How do you know that any climate changes now are NOT natural?

Why do you think that if we mere mortals can change climate one way, that we could not change it back the other way? Your FEAR is about some future impending doom deal, I would suppose that our ability to change(for the 'better') climate would be superior in that future.

Here is how you sound.
"We have no reliable scientific models to speak of, yet we believe that we are causing harm, have no proof that we are causing anything, yet we must stop doing what we are doing, JUST IN CASE we might be causing harm. We really have no real science to back up our claim, but you must believe us, because if you don't then, we are quite sure, the whole world is going to go to Hell."

You sound more like a theologian than a scientist.

Honestly, plants and trees and algae chew through CO2 like nobodies business, and spit out Oxygen as waste. If you all you are asking me is to plant trees, I will plant dozens of them for you.

It extends beyond that. There is solar variability as well. Some solar scientist believe there is a strong correlation between solar cycles and global temperature, for example.

I'm all for common sense when it comes to increasing CO2. Let's not continue to increase the amounts we are pouring out until more is known, by all means. However, I'm not willing to sign on to any half baked carbon trading plan like Kyoto when it would cost western economies big time while doing little to nothing to slow things. Best case situation Kyoto would slow warming (not reduce, but slow) by 6/10's of one degree C over decades based on computer models (Which have never been correct in the first place.) Especially since it would leave major populations and emerging economies like China(expected to surpass the US in CO2 emissions in the next 20 years) and India without such constraint making it even harder for countries like the US to compete on the global stage. This is exactly why Clinton Pocket Vetoed Kyoto.

Personally, I think there are plenty of reasons to reduce the use of CO2 emmitting fuels above and beyond possible man made global warming. Political issues, limited resources, real polution (I refuse to call an essential trace gas required for life on the planet to be called polution) are all valid and real reasons to leave behind current fossile fuels as much as possible.

What gets me is that if that stuff goes through, and the global climate changes naturally, these kooks will point to and say,,,"See, aren't you glad you did that?"





Just like those last year who pointed at Katrina.

"See, look how bad the storm was, or how many tropical storms we had, that has to be proof that we are changing the weather. It just has to be."

You guys remember what I did? I tabbed out all the tropical storms and hurricanes(and their classes), all the way back to when we started keeping records, and posted the table here. What the data showed, and shows, is that these storms work on a 40 year cycle, with a 20 year sub cycle.

It just needed to be graphed out, and anyone could see the pattern. And most of the really heavy storms, recorded, happened decades ago(40 and 60 years ago or so, actually).

Like Teaenea said, I don't have a real problem with cutting down on CO2 emissions, anymore than I really give a rat's ass about CFCs. But stop trying to blow smoke up my ass. It only has room for it's own greenhouse gasses.

In a sealed environment CO2 would indeed sink the bottom.

Nope. Molecular diffusion would disperse CO2 essentially equally throughout a sealed container. A mixture of gases will not separate into layers of various density gases if they are left for a long time in a still container.

For the really technical folks, here is some information about diffusion in gases.

Quote

Rates of diffusion in gases increase with the temperature (T) approximately as T3/2 and are inversely proportional to the pressure. The interdiffusion coefficients of gas mixtures are almost independent of the composition.

Kinetic theory shows that the self-diffusion coefficient of a pure gas is inversely proportional to both the square root of the molecular weight and the square of the molecular diameter. Interdiffusion coefficients for pairs of gases can be estimated by taking averages of the molecular weights and collision diameters. Kinetic-theory predictions are accurate to about 5% at pressures up to 10 atm (1 megapascal). Theories which take into account the forces between molecules are more accurate, especially for dense gases.

Unquote

Thicket's summary of diffusion: It's not a question of whether different gases will mix (they will), it's only a question of how fast they will mix.

The mass of a carbon dioxide molecule is very, very small, so gravity has very little effect on it. The kinetic energy of a carbon dioxide molecule (all those spinning electrons) is very large in comparison which makes diffusion dominate.

So you are saying that CO2 is universally distributed(with Nitrogen and Oxygen) throughout the atmosphere?

If true, I will need to reassess.

What explains global warming for you, Fyyr?

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml)


Just like those last year who pointed at Katrina.

"See, look how bad the storm was, or how many tropical storms we had, that has to be proof that we are changing the weather. It just has to be."
Perhaps we shouldn't dismiss human activities effects on ocean temperatures and hurricane activity.
Human Activities Found To Affect Ocean Temperatures In Hurricane Formation Regions (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060912104432.htm)

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml)

Perhaps we shouldn't dismiss human activities effects on ocean temperatures and hurricane activity.
Human Activities Found To Affect Ocean Temperatures In Hurricane Formation Regions (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060912104432.htm)

Yes, people tend to think that an average raise of say, 1 degree celsius, is of no concern. After all who cares if it is 24 or 25 degrees.
But of course in many places that 1 degree rise can have huge consequences. Like the amount of sea ice and the sheer volume of water that expands when it heats up by 1 degree. And the chance of having hurricanes is directly related to the surface temperature of the tropical waters. A 1 degree temperature rise there can significally extend the hurricanse season.

In the Netherlands the approximate 1.5 degree average temperature rise means that summers tend to become a -lot- hotter and drier, and during hot summers pests and diseases may migrate this far north that until very recently only were found in southern europe. Things like that have not happened before even during very hot summers a decade ago.

All of these are examples of where a small increase in average temperature can have a far larger impact on climate and ecosystems than we are likely to realise. And because we have difficulty understanding the extend of the effects these changes in temperature have we should be wise to err on the side of caution rather than ignoring possible problems until half the country burns down around us or disappears in a dustbowl.


Eri

So you are saying that CO2 is universally distributed(with Nitrogen and Oxygen) throughout the atmosphere?

If true, I will need to reassess.

Not universally, but CO2 is found at high altitudes and dispersion will ensure that increased concentrations at sea level mean increased concentration at stratospheric height too.


Eri

What explains global warming for you, Fyyr?

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml)



Yet there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that say differently.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2005GL025539.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2005GL025539.shtml
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Not to mention that there is doubt as to temperature accuracies prior to 400 years ago:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html



Perhaps we shouldn't dismiss human activities effects on ocean temperatures and hurricane activity.
Human Activities Found To Affect Ocean Temperatures In Hurricane Formation Regions (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060912104432.htm)
Nor should we be so quick to blame human activities given the complexities of the sytems involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season
One of the reasons why the slower than average hurricane season is a trend in decreasing Ocean surface temperatures.

Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
According to P. Foukal, C. Frohlich, H. Spruit, and T.M.L. Wigley, that is.

They mix different terms of light throughout this article. 'Brightness' implies visible light spectrum.


In this image from an active solar period in March 2001, colors are shifted to highlight the contrast between sunspots (black and dark red) and the faculae that surround them (bright yellow).
I was taught that sunspots were actually cold regions on the surface of the sun. They are attacking the problem, so it seems, that sunspots are hotter than other parts. NM, I read about the faculae.

During the peak of the 11-year solar cycle, the expansion of faculae outweighs the darkening from increased sunspot activity.
It would be funny if the hurricane and tropical storms data that I collated was not based on a 20 and 40 year cycle, but a 22 and 44 year cycle(which I previously just could not see, or just took as normal error). I could probably dig back through the database and pull that table out, if properly motivated.

The result is a net increase in solar brightness. Click here or on the image to enlarge.
Show me.

“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley.
From a computer model. I am still thinking infrared here, folks, everytime he mentions brightness, does he mean visible light, cosmic radiation, ultraviolet radiation, whatever. But infrared, that is not even mentioned in the entire article.

Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100 years.
Models show that it was colder before 100 years ago?

Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Many recent opinions.

Natural internal variability of Earth’s climate system may also have played a role.
Probable.

However, the discussion is complicated by a third possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
I want infrared data. Not visible light speculation.

The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
I want to see their numbers.

Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun’s surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface, while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
Excellent paragraph, clears some stuff up.

The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978
When we started measuring this stuff. We did not do it before whathisface hypothesized CFC distribution and ozone depletion thing.

and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle).
Interesting.

Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study,
Since the mid 70s is when we actually started to take comprehensive readings and such. According to the 4 guys listed up at the top.

and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.
I want infrared data.

To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the activity.
Is this a known?

The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period, according to the authors.
Harmonics? I dunno. Cyclical Sun Earth harmonics like that Washington bouncing bridge. Or El Nino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino

Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
Infrared data please?

“There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae,” says Wigley.
There is no plausible cause known yet, perhaps.

Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
Is he saying that ultraviolet radiation models are poorly developed. I wonder what the Ozone Hole People have to say about that.

One of those links you provided Taeana did exactly say that sunspot activity was too weak to explain global warming and the dominant factors were man-made. Are you going to take them at their word?

"These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."

until half the country burns down around us or disappears in a dustbowl.

Or perhaps, opens up trillions of acres of newly arable land for agriculture.

This thread reminds me of tobacco companies insisting smoking doesn't cause lung cancer...or railroads insisting diesel exhaust doesn't cause lung cancer.

Or perhaps, opens up trillions of acres of newly arable land for agriculture.

But do we want to risk the former on the chance that it might turn out to be the later (against expectations I might add)?

Diminishing the emission of greenhouse gasses has no irrevocable long term effect. Doing nothing more likely than not will have effects that we can not predict and certainly can not undo. Even if you and I will not personally pay the price of our neglect there are billions of people who will. That alone should make us think if short term economic gain is really worth that kind of risk.


Eri

Economic gain?

Economic gain is to be had doing what you propose.

What happened when the Earth Firsters(not even a group I necessarily oppose) cut down logging(for ecological reasons)? The price of lumber went up, duh. And new more expensive products were developed(say Trek decking for example). It put lumberjacks out of jobs, and increased the price of lumber, increased profits for lumber companies.

What happened when cheap Freon became illegal? The Refrigeration and HVAC Industry reaped 10 fold more profits with new and expensive products and services.

Hell, it set up a whole cottage industry for scientists and researchers, which was not there before.

On and on down the line. Environmental companies, those who cater to environmental wants and desire, make HUGE profits in comparison to the businesses that they replaced.

And in the end it was the consumer, me, who has had to pay the increased prices for these goods and services. It is NOT economic gain now that I am against, I don't have any of that ****. It is because I have no interest in being in that business, that I object. And I will have to pay increased prices for the things that I want to buy, and the services I want performed.

You are selling me something, and I don't want to buy it. Not until you actually convince me that I need it, which you have not done. Be honest about your motives, I like trees just for tree sake, and I DON'T need you to feed me lies about some stupid red herring spotted owl to sell me.

Short term economic gain? You are seeing this whole thing through the marketing rose colored classes that that whole industry has sold you. It is backwards. There is not gain now, it is CHEAPER now; less gain now. Don't tell me the sky is falling, with no proof, to sell me your Green umbrella.

Environmentalism is the ULTIMATE in new consumerism, because it is backed by LAW. You are forced by governments to buy the new products and services. Hell, even governments are forced to buy the new expensive products and services.

Imagine how if Henry Ford were able to convince the US Government that every person should be forced by law to buy a Model T. That would have been great for him. It would have been easy too, with our present day mind set. "Mr. President, look at all the horse pollution in the streets, you need to pass a law outlawing horses, and replacing them with my new(more expensive) automobile." "Convincing argument, Mr. Ford, I will get right on it."

Who the hell is paying Dr Foukal, Dr Frohlich, Dr Spruit, and Dr Wigley's salaries? I am, that is who. You are, that is who. People like this make money doing what they are doing from us. Follow the money. 40 years ago, these 4 guys would not have had a job, they do today. It IS economic gain that they want, THEIR economic gain.

So you are saying that CO2 is universally distributed(with Nitrogen and Oxygen) throughout the atmosphere?

If true, I will need to reassess.

Pretty much yes. There are always some differences for specific reasons.

The earth's atmosphere usually is considered to have 4 layers -- Troposphere, Stratosphere, Mesosphere and Ionosphere.

The Troposphere contains about 90% of the Earth's atmosphere and 99% of the water vapor. CO2, Nitrogen and Oxygen are universally distributed in the Troposphere. Any maldistribution is due to local circumstances.

Examples are:

* CO2 content will be higher where you have industrial plumes, vehicle exhausts, volcanic gases etc. The CO2 will soon mix with surrounding air.
* CO2 will be slightly lower where plant photosynthesis consumes CO2 and produces oxygen.
* Caves and mines that are isolated from the bulk of the atmosphere can have higher levels of CO2. It can come from gas pockets (e.g. in coal) and groundwater percolating through decaying vegetable matter.

There are minor air composition changes once you reach the Stratosphere. For example, solar radiation breaks down O2 which subsequently forms O3 (ozone). Ozone is very effective in blocking ultraviolet radiation.

Once you reach the Ionosphere, the gas composition is less predictable. Solar radiation has a great impact, and free gas ions formed by the radiation won't recombine quickly because there are few molecules to combine with.

So what you are saying is, if I fart here in California, you WILL smell it, it's just a matter of time.

/pull my finger.

Fasten your seatbelts, the ride might get bumpy.

Earth's temperature is dangerously high, Nasa scientists warn

Hilary Osborne
Tuesday September 26, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

sifakas lemur
The sifakas lemur is threatened by climate change. Photograph: Summer Arrigo-Nelson/Earthwatch

Earth's temperature could be reaching its highest level in a million years, American scientists said yesterday.

Researchers at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said a further one degree celsius rise in the global temperature could be critical to the planet, and there was already a threat of extreme weather resulting from El Niño.

The scientists said that in the 30 years to the end of 2005, temperatures increased at the rate of 0.2 degrees per decade, a rate they described as "remarkably rapid".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1881465,00.html

http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

It's a very interesting read too.

OK. Senator James Inhofe is a dangerous idiot. He tries to make the proponents of global warming seem like looney scientists, alarmist reporters, and politically funded lobbyists. From where I am, where everyone in my country from business to government to insurers to householders and everyone else all think that global warming exists, his arguments are pretty insulting.

Senator James Inhofe provided no evidence at all that the earth was in a natural cycle other than we've seen something like this before, maybe. That's not good enough. If he wants to prove to me or anyone else that man-made global warming is not occuring then he has to provide more than a convenient assumption that nothing is out of the ordinary today.

What explains global warming for you, Fyyr?

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml)

And this week:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=42&lang=en

solar activity has increased strongly during the 20th century. They also find that the Sun has been particularly active in the past few decades.

OK. Senator James Inhofe is a dangerous idiot. He tries to make the proponents of global warming seem like looney scientists, alarmist reporters, and politically funded lobbyists. From where I am, where everyone in my country from business to government to insurers to householders and everyone else all think that global warming exists, his arguments are pretty insulting.

Senator James Inhofe provided no evidence at all that the earth was in a natural cycle other than we've seen something like this before, maybe. That's not good enough. If he wants to prove to me or anyone else that man-made global warming is not occuring then he has to provide more than a convenient assumption that nothing is out of the ordinary today.

Your solution is backwards from logic and the scientific process.

Your side has effectively failed to show that there is a causal relationship, yet you demand the the opposite side show proof that that Man is NOT responsible for global warming.

By that alone, you all are looney kooks.

One more degree and we're done for

'One degree and we're done for'

"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."

So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2 °C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.

Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).

More here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125713.300-one-degree-and-were-done-for.html)

OK. Senator James Inhofe is a dangerous idiot. He tries to make the proponents of global warming seem like looney scientists, alarmist reporters, and politically funded lobbyists. From where I am, where everyone in my country from business to government to insurers to householders and everyone else all think that global warming exists, his arguments are pretty insulting.

Senator James Inhofe provided no evidence at all that the earth was in a natural cycle other than we've seen something like this before, maybe. That's not good enough. If he wants to prove to me or anyone else that man-made global warming is not occuring then he has to provide more than a convenient assumption that nothing is out of the ordinary today.

The global warming alarmists and their friends in the media have attempted to smear scientists who dare question the premise of man-made catastrophic global warming, and as a result some scientists have seen their reputations and research funding dry up.

I guess the smears don't stop at scientists.

Global warming is a scam? (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548)

Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

This is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us

As is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Geez, even GBW's appointed people say
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [6]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change may be anthropogenic in nature.

I don't find much validity in what non-climatologists have to say about global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate (Anthropogenic global warming, AGW) and about what policies might be implemented to try to avoid possible undesirable effects that may occur in the future.

The current scientific opinion on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend. Mainstream political-scientific organizations worldwide (American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) agree with the general point that the Earth is warming, and that something should be done about it. However, from a practical scientific standpoint, there are also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with certain points involved in the discussion.

I don't find much validity in what non-climatologists have to say about global warming.

You mean like almost all the so called experts in Al Gore's movie?

I also find that 50 year number interesting since from the 50's to the 70s we were in a cooling trend.

Surely in 17,000 there must be some climatologists.

The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

Your side has effectively failed to show that there is a causal relationship, yet you demand the the opposite side show proof that that Man is NOT responsible for global warming.

By that alone, you all are looney kooks.

I don't need to prove that global warming absolutely exists. I only need to show that the risk is too great to ignore. Those who deny global warming exists have to justify that the risk is minimal and can be ignored. The burden of scientific proof should be the same in either case.

And 'your' side has proved nothing. It assumes everyting. A lot is made of the fact that models showing man-made climate change are unreliable. If you look at the science more closely though, you can see that there isn't any better model in place that explains climate change naturally. Climate change science is not challenging old proven theories, it is challenging assumptions made with little or no actual science to back them up. For the climate debate to be resolved, there needs to good model that can consistently explain most of our observed climate. Until then, we can only manage the risks shown by the models as best we can.

Global warming is a scam? (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548)


Some may even consider it a conspiracy.

\\/smirk

I don't need to prove that global warming absolutely exists. I only need to show that the risk is too great to ignore.

Yes, to change laws all you need to do is change opinions.
Absolutely.

But if you want it to be SCIENCE, you kinda uh, uh, have to prove it.

First Direct Evidence That Human Activity Is Linked To Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061016105739.htm)

reveal that stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, are responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf.

They didn't prove anything as far as I can see. From this, it looks like they went with the assumtion of human induced climate change being a fact, then applied it to their conclusion.

You'll have to dig a little deeper than a science news report. Try accessing the study they're talking about.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive&issn=1520-0442&volume=19

Hmmm... maybe it's the November Journal of Climate.

Antarctic Ice Shelf Retreats Happened Before (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050224115901.htm)

A study of George VI Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is the first to show that this currently 'healthy' ice shelf experienced an extensive retreat about 9500 years ago, more than anything seen in recent years. The retreat coincided with a shift in ocean currents that occurred after a long period of warmth. Whilst rising air temperatures are believed to be the primary cause of recent dramatic disintegration of ice shelves like Larsen B, the new study suggests that the ocean may play a more significant role in destroying them than previously thought.


The way I see it is this British Antarctic Survey and the Universities are being funded by supporters of the official "Global warming" bit. More than likely they have been given the conclusion to support as has been the case in many instances. I'd like to see if the Non-human caused Global warming scientists are geting the same funding. ( See over 17,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm) declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.)

Science and Innovation Minister, Lord Sainsbury, today announced a £20million investment in the revolutionary Halley VI Research Station in British Antarctica. (Comes from DTI's Large Facilities Capital Fund)


Not sure which Lord Sainsbury here but they both (3rd being dead) apparantly bump elbows with the Rothschild's and the richest people around.

John Sainsbury: In 1993 he joined with Lord Rothschild to set up the Butrint Foundation to record and conserve the archaeological site of Butrint in Albania.


or

David Sainsbury: Andrew Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy, joining former recipients including Bill Gates, Ted Turner and George Soros. The award recognizes his long history of charity, starting at age 27 when he established the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, which awards grants in a range of fields, including mental health and African aid.

Me being the conspiracy nut that I am, see's a red flag here.

Climatology 101:

Global warming is unarguable. It is happening, and the scientific data for this is indisputable. It is happening all over the earth, in every continent, and every nation, and all the oceans.

You might think I'm joking, but I'm deadly serious. It's even worse than what most experts will tell you. It's not only happening on Earth:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

it's happening on Mars:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-2.html

and it's happening on Jupiter:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

My question is how did Big Oil and all the evil corporations already get gas guzzling SUV's, old freon-12 refrigerants, and polluting coal plants up there already?

There are some crazy, fringe extremist people that call themselves scientists that have a silly theory. It probably is nothing, but they say that maybe, just maybe, this is a real shot-in-the-dark, but maybe..

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/13db967.jpg

A little thing called The Sun might be causing it.

Climatology 101: The Sun warms the Earth.

I agree completely. I'm in agreement with Global warming as in the sun is responsible. As are likely 10,000/17,000 of those scientists.

there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate

The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming


I'm not going to buy into the "Man causing Global warming" scenario that is being sold.

The way I see it is this British Antarctic Survey and the Universities are being funded by supporters of the official "Global warming" bit. More than likely they have been given the conclusion to support as has been the case in many instances.

The British Antarctic survey is the same loony environmental group that brought you the whole ozone hole conspiracy, which you probably feel was a scam to make us buy more expensive deodorant. The British Antarctic Survey is being funded by supporters of the official "Global warming" bit, i.e. the British Government. UK academia, business, government, insurance, etc all accept that man-made global warming exists and work accordingly. Lord Sainsbury is a typical example, not only being in government but coming from that bastion of eco-friendly products, a massive supermarket chain.

Here it is again. I keep finding exactly this sort of statement in the articles people link about sunspots. I found it again in Gunny's link.

The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases.

Scientists who believe that sunspots can affect our temperatures still seem be convinced of man-made global warming. Since you seem to trust that scientific source, will you now accept that we should control our greenhouse gases?

Antarctic Ice Shelf Retreats Happened Before (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050224115901.htm)

You do realize, don't you, that the last period of glaciation ended oh roughly 10,000 years ago? Of course the Antarctic glaciers were retreating heavily 9500 years ago.



The way I see it is this British Antarctic Survey and the Universities are being funded by supporters of the official "Global warming" bit. More than likely they have been given the conclusion to support as has been the case in many instances. I'd like to see if the Non-human caused Global warming scientists are geting the same funding. ( See over 17,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm) declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.)

How many of these scientists are climatologists? A Social Psychologist is a scientist...but I rather doubt he or she would be qualified to testify in court as an expert in the field ;)

Climatology 101:

Global warming is unarguable. It is happening, and the scientific data for this is indisputable. It is happening all over the earth, in every continent, and every nation, and all the oceans.

You might think I'm joking, but I'm deadly serious. It's even worse than what most experts will tell you. It's not only happening on Earth:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

it's happening on Mars:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-2.html

and it's happening on Jupiter:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

My question is how did Big Oil and all the evil corporations already get gas guzzling SUV's, old freon-12 refrigerants, and polluting coal plants up there already?

There are some crazy, fringe extremist people that call themselves scientists that have a silly theory. It probably is nothing, but they say that maybe, just maybe, this is a real shot-in-the-dark, but maybe..

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/13db967.jpg

A little thing called The Sun might be causing it.

Climatology 101: The Sun warms the Earth.

It isn't just that the earth is getting warmer, its the rapidity in which its heating, which so far as science can tell, is unprecedented.

The current most accepted science also indicates that sun spots and solar flare periods do not appreciably alter the Earth's climate.

The current most accepted science also indicates that sun spots and solar flare periods do not appreciably alter the Earth's climate.

It's not the most accepted theory to solar scientist. That report only suggest that illumination isn't the source. Solar scientists aren't suggesting brightness is the cause. This is the report you are refering to. (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-09-13T184947Z_01_L13932091_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-SUN.xml) This isn't about solar flares or sunspots. Merely suggesting that brightness isn't the cause. Something Solar scientists aren't suggesting as the cause.

Recent studies have been suggesting that the earth tends to go through cooling when more cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. IT causes a global increase in cloud cover (http://spacecenter.dk/xpdf/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf). Durring times of increased solar activity solar winds actually limit the earths exposure to cosmic rays, thus having an impact on warming. The amount has been reliably measured on meteorites based on the dates they hit the earth.

There have been many studies over the years that indicate changes in Solar activity have major impact on cloud covering. Cloud covering has a huge impact on warming.

It's not the most accepted theory to solar scientist. That report only suggest that illumination isn't the source. Solar scientists aren't suggesting brightness is the cause. This is the report you are refering to. (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-09-13T184947Z_01_L13932091_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-SUN.xml) This isn't about solar flares or sunspots. Merely suggesting that brightness isn't the cause. Something Solar scientists aren't suggesting as the cause.

They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.

Read the article...let alone the study.



Recent studies have been suggesting that the earth tends to go through cooling when more cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. IT causes a global increase in cloud cover (http://spacecenter.dk/xpdf/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf). Durring times of increased solar activity solar winds actually limit the earths exposure to cosmic rays, thus having an impact on warming. The amount has been reliably measured on meteorites based on the dates they hit the earth.

Even the scientists who performed the studies do not think that would be the sole cause of global warming. They suggest it plays a role...but that we play a more significant role.

Here it is again. I keep finding exactly this sort of statement in the articles people link about sunspots. I found it again in Gunny's link.


Scientists who believe that sunspots can affect our temperatures still seem be convinced of man-made global warming. Since you seem to trust that scientific source, will you now accept that we should control our greenhouse gases?

They have to put that in there if they don't want to go counter to the mob mentality currently plaguing most scientific institutions on global warming. Most scientists show great reluctance to publish anything that counters prevailing theories at the time, so at the very least, they'll put in a disclaimer to ward them from cries of rocking the boat, or being a maverick (though a few relish such roles within science)

If I can disgress a moment, I have studied the history of science, mainly in early Modern periods, such as during Louis XIV's (the Sun King) reign up through Pasteur. It's all French because my senior research thesis sponsor back in college specialized in early Modern French history.

The point to that side note is that in every case, the prevailing "scientific community", whenever new discoveries or re-workings of old theories happened, was always dead set against it, and was subsquently proven to be wrong. Now, the scientific majority being dead set against retooling of all its theories isn't necessarily a bad thing, because for every Pasteur, there are 99 crackpots that are way off base in their scientific conjectures, so there should be some barrier to entry for new theories that upheave everything that has gone on before.

I would simply caution in anyone getting their mind set in stone that our CO2 production has any significant global impact on the earth's atmosphere. If you study volcanic plume outputs in any given explosion, they offload orders of magnitude higher greehouse gases than anything we produce.

I will concede the point that we should take care not to pollute our air, water, soils, nor should we strip mine, clear cut, or do anything exceptionally damaging to the environment.

However, claiming that if we don't sign on to some highly restrictive contract that drives the cost of doing business up to unsustainable levels, that we will destroy the planet.. that is just more fearmongering, which I believe most people of a liberal persuasion are dead set against.

Anything that isn't cost prohibitive, we should do. But as with everything else, there is a "soft cap" (to use an EQ term), where the effort to take out the next 1% of emissions costs double or triple the current cost, and is simply not worth it in man hours or money. There has to be a balance between protecting us from extreme polluters, and being free enough in this country to continue to encourage businesses to move here, rather than China, Mexico, or some other country. We will not be number one forever, and the cold, hard fact is that when the laws become strangling, companies shut down and move to a more open country.

Ask anyone who has seen the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, whether they'd rather be breathing 1% cleaner air, or have their old factory jobs, with cheap health care benefits, life insurance, and steady work, and see what they say.

Again, I'm not against clean air, water, soils, etc and the first 80%* cleanup is cheap for the money. But squeaking out the last 20%*, there comes a breakpoint, where it's just not worth it, and people that try to force it past that point, are either naive or heartless, depending on whether or not they realize what the indirect results of stricter environmental laws will be.

*Percentages for illustrative purposes only. Do not attempt to use as real science quotes. Catastrophic egg on face may result.

The point to that side note is that in every case, the prevailing "scientific community", whenever new discoveries or re-workings of old theories happened, was always dead set against it, and was subsquently proven to be wrong.

Can I remind you that climate change is the new science and the old science says we can't pollute enough to change the global climate. To argue otherwise is pure sophistry. If you consider prevailing scientific wisdom to accept global warming then get your government to act on it.

Again, I'm not against clean air, water, soils, etc and the first 80%* cleanup is cheap for the money. But squeaking out the last 20%*, there comes a breakpoint, where it's just not worth it, and people that try to force it past that point, are either naive or heartless, depending on whether or not they realize what the indirect results of stricter environmental laws will be.


At the moment we're doing no cleanup. We're not taking any prudent or economically viable steps and the US President refuses to accept that man-made global warming even exists. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

I would simply caution in anyone getting their mind set in stone that our CO2 production has any significant global impact on the earth's atmosphere. If you study volcanic plume outputs in any given explosion, they offload orders of magnitude higher greehouse gases than anything we produce.

That's just bogus science. People who study volcanic plume outbursts know that volcanoes put ash and dust into the atmosphere that in fact produces a cooling effect. A global cooling has been clearly recorded after major volcanic eruptions in the past.