Global Warming ended in 1998? Earth is cooling?

[Neoteny]

3. No - there is not a consensus in the scientific community on what is causing global warming. Opinions among climatologist include, but not limited to, (in no particular order):

a. Greenhouse effect
b. Higher energy outputs from the sun
c. The natural pattern of global temperature change

You come across as a very intelligent individual, Harijan, but this bothers me. Either you don't understand what scientific consensus means, or you've been mislead. I am rather confident it is the latter, as it has happened to me in the past. Let me give some perspectives of the scientific consensus.

From Science, 2004:

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

Additionally, the majority of all the prestigious scientific communities and organizations (NAS, etc) have issued supporting statements on the issue. This is not to be taken lightly. I know it's wiki, but here's a list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

Sure there is dissent, it wouldn't be science if there wasn't. But the number of contrarians is dwarfed by the number of supporters. That is scientific consensus. Also, I believe that there is usually mention of suppression at this point... I offer this to preempt that...

http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... hange.html

In conclusion, please consider these as evidence for a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. You by no means have to agree with it, and this, of course, does not mean the consensus view is right, but you are putting yourself in an unpleasant place when you say there isn't. Also, I suggest you read The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney (if you can use Crighton, I can use Mooney). He provides an excellent recap of current trends in scientific opinion during his contrast of Republican science abuses.

[Nobunaga]

... Global Warming (its discussion) is too mired in politics for me to believe anybody. Look at the Global Warming "front man", one of the most divisive political figures in the US who raves against fools who disagree with him, all the while flying about in Gulf Streams and making a fortune off his nickel mine (cited by the EPA more than once). A hypocrite making money off the subject, and nothing more.

... The two sides of the issue tend to line up with America's two major political parties. This too, IMHO, is Al Gore's doing. Folks will refute the theory simply because they hate the man, or believe it because they love him.

... Personally, I hate Al Gore because he's a money grabbing hypocrite, but as for Global Warming, I'm open to listening to anybody (but him).

...

[Neoteny]

... Global Warming (its discussion) is too mired in politics for me to believe anybody. Look at the Global Warming "front man", one of the most divisive political figures in the US who raves against fools who disagree with him, all the while flying about in Gulf Streams and making a fortune off his nickel mine (cited by the EPA more than once). A hypocrite making money off the subject, and nothing more.

... The two sides of the issue tend to line up with America's two major political parties. This too, IMHO, is Al Gore's doing. Folks will refute the theory simply because they hate the man, or believe it because they love him.

... Personally, I hate Al Gore because he's a money grabbing hypocrite, but as for Global Warming, I'm open to listening to anybody (but him).

...

Unfortunately, American politics ruins a lot of things... your best bet is the climatologists. Gore wasn't trained to understand this stuff, though I can't blame him for trying to popularize it. I think it's for a good cause in the long run, but perhaps his personality and methods aren't suited for that kind of thing...

[reminisco]

... Global Warming (its discussion) is too mired in politics for me to believe anybody. Look at the Global Warming "front man", one of the most divisive political figures in the US who raves against fools who disagree with him, all the while flying about in Gulf Streams and making a fortune off his nickel mine (cited by the EPA more than once). A hypocrite making money off the subject, and nothing more.

dude, you're better than that. that kind of ad hominem bullshit is better suited to douche bags like Bill O'Reilly.

don't shoot the messenger, consider the message.

[Snorri1234]

... Global Warming (its discussion) is too mired in politics for me to believe anybody. Look at the Global Warming "front man", one of the most divisive political figures in the US who raves against fools who disagree with him, all the while flying about in Gulf Streams and making a fortune off his nickel mine (cited by the EPA more than once). A hypocrite making money off the subject, and nothing more.

dude, you're better than that. that kind of ad hominem bullshit is better suited to douche bags like Bill O'Reilly.

don't shoot the messenger, consider the message.

Better yet, don't just look at american politics. You might as well not believe in evolution because it's a political issue in the US.

[bellaraphon]

bullshit its cooling. have you seen the pictures of the ross ice sheet, the size of greater sydney, breaking off antartica. Images from february 22nd show no sign of damage and just 1 month later-it snaps off.

[tzor]

First of all where I am on Long Island, New York, United States of America, it has been a very mild winter; we have had more rain this year and very little snow. I think there was only one real time we had to plough the driveway and the walkway, but a couple of times where it snowed just enough to have to “scrape” the walkway. A few snow storms melted away the next day.

Slightly upstate, however, there was plenty of snow. There was also plenty of snow in the state to the north of the Long Island Sound, Connecticut.

All of this really doesn’t answer whether or not globally we are getting hotter or colder. It also doesn’t answer the question of what is causing these changes and whether or not man’s influence even has an impact, never mind a significant one. That question is important; if we don’t then pretending we do can have more harm than good since that is time we’re not spending trying to adjust to things we can’t control.

My biggest problem is that we are killing ourselves in the name of CO2, so there better be far more proof than Al Gore’s cooking of the data in his inconvenient lie. (Especially where the so called relation between temperature and CO2 is that CO2 lags by several hundred years, so if it is a cause / effect relationship it’s backwards from Gore’s argument.) Currently we are now madly rushing to create tons of nuclear reactor waste. Currently, in a climate where people panic over the idea that people might still have old mercury thermometers, we want to replace every light bulb with a potential source of mercury contamination; requiring special processes to recycle without causing massive harm to the environment and if broken could turn a home into a disaster clean up site in an instant.

I am a Secular Franciscan (so naturally the environment is important to me). I have been driving a hybrid car since 2002! (The 2002 model Prius was the first year that had cruise control which does increase the MPG when used properly; I get on average 45 MPG!) I think there is a lot we can do to help the environment. But when Global Warming advocates start promoting things that will cause us long term environmental harm I strongly object.

[LYR]

I had a report due in school about global warming; the carbon dioxide, for now, is actually cooling the earth, since it reflects sunlight off of it, but in the long run (I cannot really remember how) it is actually going to warm the earth.

[norsemsn1066]

You relaize this is just being pushed by the media to sell advertising/papers, eh?? In the '70's and '80's it was global cooling they were worried about in the media. It was largly considered by a few scientists back then that the sun was putting out some fraction of a % less energy and they were worried about a new Ice Age. It was so widespread that there is a comic of Superman helping Scientists study the Sun to see if it was true or not.

Don't get me wrong tho. We really have to stop consuming resorces at the rate we are and clean up the mess we've made on this here planet but, please, don't take the ECO-Freaks as seriously as they take themselves.

There is an article in a Discover magazine from last year (2007) about a scientist in Norway who is saying this as well (Climate is actually cooling) You'll not hear about that on your CNN/Local news for sure.

We all need to take a step back and to breath deep before we all run around like 'Headless Chickens'. IMHO

[Harijan]

In conclusion, please consider these as evidence for a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. You by no means have to agree with it, and this, of course, does not mean the consensus view is right, but you are putting yourself in an unpleasant place when you say there isn't. Also, I suggest you read The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney (if you can use Crighton, I can use Mooney). He provides an excellent recap of current trends in scientific opinion during his contrast of Republican science abuses.

First off, I want to point out that your quotes are concerning climate change, while the portion of my argument that you quoted concerns global warming. As previously discussed these are two separate and distinct issues.

I did not directly address the issue of anthroprogenic climate change (nice term BTW) in my argument, but it is a valid inference in my argument, if humans increase greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases cause global warming, and global warming increases the rate of climate change, then humans, do in fact, contribute to climate change.

I am not arguing against the reality of anthroprogenic climate change either on the global, continental, regional, or micro level. Humans (and all large organisms for that matter) drastically modify any environment in which they live period. However, when it comes to global warming, I have not seen convincing evidence as to what change global warming will bring to individual ecosystems, or even the global ecosystem.

Until we do understand what impact global warming may or may not have, we need to focus on the environmental problems we do understand, and that we can solve.
For example, Coastal marine ecosystems around the world are on the verge of collapse due to over fishing. Demand for ocean seafood is at an all-time high, and growing. Seafood caught in the wild demands a premium price as opposed to seafood raised in hatcheries.

Next time you buy seafood (if you have to eat it at all) get farm raised instead of wild. It really does taste the same, and you will be doing your part.
If we just shifting the fishing industry to a farming system instead of a hunting system (a step that was taken 4,000 years ago for every other food-source known to man) we would essentially solve the problem of disappearing marine ecosystems.

Add to this that more than 1/3 of the atmosphere’s oxygen comes from coastal ecosystems and you also decreased the impact of greenhouse gases.
Lastly better ecosystems means more fixed carbon which means less CO2 in the atmosphere. (admittedly these last two benefits would probably not have a measurable impact on greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, every little bit helps).

Your rebuttal is valid Neo, and I apologize for my sloppy language. In response, I would change the section you quoted to:

3. No - there is not a consensus in the scientific community on to what degree humans are causing global warming, and to what degree other factors are causing global warming. Opinions among climatologist include, but not limited to, (in no particular order):

a. Greenhouse effect
b. Higher energy outputs from the sun
c. The natural pattern of global temperature change

[Dekloren]

Duh.

C02 is plant food.

[Neoteny]

In conclusion, please consider these as evidence for a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. You by no means have to agree with it, and this, of course, does not mean the consensus view is right, but you are putting yourself in an unpleasant place when you say there isn't. Also, I suggest you read The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney (if you can use Crighton, I can use Mooney). He provides an excellent recap of current trends in scientific opinion during his contrast of Republican science abuses.

First off, I want to point out that your quotes are concerning climate change, while the portion of my argument that you quoted concerns global warming. As previously discussed these are two separate and distinct issues.

I did not directly address the issue of anthroprogenic climate change (nice term BTW) in my argument, but it is a valid inference in my argument, if humans increase greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases cause global warming, and global warming increases the rate of climate change, then humans, do in fact, contribute to climate change.

I am not arguing against the reality of anthroprogenic climate change either on the global, continental, regional, or micro level. Humans (and all large organisms for that matter) drastically modify any environment in which they live period. However, when it comes to global warming, I have not seen convincing evidence as to what change global warming will bring to individual ecosystems, or even the global ecosystem.

Until we do understand what impact global warming may or may not have, we need to focus on the environmental problems we do understand, and that we can solve.
For example, Coastal marine ecosystems around the world are on the verge of collapse due to over fishing. Demand for ocean seafood is at an all-time high, and growing. Seafood caught in the wild demands a premium price as opposed to seafood raised in hatcheries.

Next time you buy seafood (if you have to eat it at all) get farm raised instead of wild. It really does taste the same, and you will be doing your part.
If we just shifting the fishing industry to a farming system instead of a hunting system (a step that was taken 4,000 years ago for every other food-source known to man) we would essentially solve the problem of disappearing marine ecosystems.

Add to this that more than 1/3 of the atmosphere’s oxygen comes from coastal ecosystems and you also decreased the impact of greenhouse gases.
Lastly better ecosystems means more fixed carbon which means less CO2 in the atmosphere. (admittedly these last two benefits would probably not have a measurable impact on greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, every little bit helps).

Your rebuttal is valid Neo, and I apologize for my sloppy language. In response, I would change the section you quoted to:

3. No - there is not a consensus in the scientific community on to what degree humans are causing global warming, and to what degree other factors are causing global warming. Opinions among climatologist include, but not limited to, (in no particular order):

a. Greenhouse effect
b. Higher energy outputs from the sun
c. The natural pattern of global temperature change

I agree that we need to focus on these other issues as well. Who wouldn't? But I find your choice of words a bit slippery, even still. Are there other proposed mechanisms for anthropogenic climate change that I'm unaware of? I'm under the impression that the scientific consensus is that global warming is the cause of anthropogenic climate change. And if you won't argue that, what are you arguing? Additionally, climate change is not generally referred to in terms of general ecology. Sure there have been major biogenic atmospheric shifts, but to look at the possibility of a major shift that we could (possibly) stop, and say, "well, it might not be so bad," is irresponsible, because it might. We cannot just do nothing because we don't know.

[reminisco]

more importantly, Al-Qaeda CONTROLS THE WEATHER!

[Harijan]

I'm under the impression that the scientific consensus is that global warming is the cause of anthropogenic climate change.

This is where the global warming/climate change connection breaks down. There is a causal relationship between global warming and climate change, and there is a causal relationship between increased greenhouse gases and global warming.

But the correlation between between global warming and increased greenhouse gases is weak, and the correlation between global warming and climate change is weak (if climate change can even be objectively measured).

The logical conclusion of these cirmcumstances is that there are other things affecting global warming besides increased greenhouse gases. Similarly, there are other significant factors affecting climate change other than global warming. The scientific community has a poor understanding of what these other factors are.

Lastly, we do not know what global warming really means when it comes to climate change. We do not know if it will cause drastic ecosystem collapses, or if global warming will cause the complete extinction of all large mammals, and the really scary thing to me is that scientific speculation encompasses the entire range of possibilities from no impact to global mass extinction.

If we are going to throw money at the problem (which we should) throw it at understanding the problem, then solve the problem. Understanding the problem may actually help us find a much cheaper and easier solution that stopping the use of fossil fuels and forcing everyone be vegetarians.

Climate change is not generally referred to in terms of general ecology.

There is a very obvious and valid reason why climate change is not referred to in terms of general ecology, no scientists worth her weight will even pretend to answer the question. Will the Mohave Dessert become a subtropical paradise, or an arid wasteland? Will the frozen tundra remain frozen, or become prime agricultural land?
This is exactly my point. No one knows what global warming really means in relationship to climate change. Every climatologist has their own model, and none of them agree.

Sure there have been major biogenic atmospheric shifts, but to look at the possibility of a major shift that we could (possibly) stop, and say, "well, it might not be so bad," is irresponsible, because it might. We cannot just do nothing because we don't know.

I would argue that doing nothing, when we know next to nothing is exactly what we should do. Trying to solve the problem now is essentially hoping to get lucky on a problem that may not even be that serious. We do not even know that a "major biogenic atmospheric shift" is in the cards much less what kind of a shift will occur. We must understand the problem before we try and solve the problem.

[Neoteny]

I'm under the impression that the scientific consensus is that global warming is the cause of anthropogenic climate change.

This is where the global warming/climate change connection breaks down. There is a causal relationship between global warming and climate change, and there is a causal relationship between increased greenhouse gases and global warming.

But the correlation between between global warming and increased greenhouse gases is weak, and the correlation between global warming and climate change is weak (if climate change can even be objectively measured).

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

Most climate scientists disagree with you. You have the right to your opinion.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/scienc ... ledge.html

Climate change is not generally referred to in terms of general ecology.

There is a very obvious and valid reason why climate change is not referred to in terms of general ecology, no scientists worth her weight will even pretend to answer the question. Will the Mohave Dessert become a subtropical paradise, or an arid wasteland? Will the frozen tundra remain frozen, or become prime agricultural land?
This is exactly my point. No one knows what global warming really means in relationship to climate change. Every climatologist has their own model, and none of them agree.

This was mainly a response to your possibilities for the climate change. There might, of course, be benefits (two of my professors recently gave seminars on the pros and cons of global warming. Both still see the overall effects as bad), but current consensus is that the bad will outweigh the good.

Sure there have been major biogenic atmospheric shifts, but to look at the possibility of a major shift that we could (possibly) stop, and say, "well, it might not be so bad," is irresponsible, because it might. We cannot just do nothing because we don't know.

I would argue that doing nothing, when we know next to nothing is exactly what we should do. Trying to solve the problem now is essentially hoping to get lucky on a problem that may not even be that serious. We do not even know that a "major biogenic atmospheric shift" is in the cards much less what kind of a shift will occur. We must understand the problem before we try and solve the problem.

Most climatologists have come to the conclusion that we understand the problem. There are very few climatologists who object. We have all heard the protests of those who disagree, but they have not been taken seriously. Can you give me a reason as to why this might be?

The logical conclusion of these cirmcumstances is that there are other things affecting global warming besides increased greenhouse gases. Similarly, there are other significant factors affecting climate change other than global warming. The scientific community has a poor understanding of what these other factors are.

Lastly, we do not know what global warming really means when it comes to climate change. We do not know if it will cause drastic ecosystem collapses, or if global warming will cause the complete extinction of all large mammals, and the really scary thing to me is that scientific speculation encompasses the entire range of possibilities from no impact to global mass extinction.

If we are going to throw money at the problem (which we should) throw it at understanding the problem, then solve the problem. Understanding the problem may actually help us find a much cheaper and easier solution that stopping the use of fossil fuels and forcing everyone be vegetarians.

Hey, I like red meat as much as the next guy, but, again, we have a pretty good idea of what the problem is, and have ideas on what should be done to fix it. The ideas may or may not be economically, socially, or otherwise sound, but they are out there, and we are working toward better ones, and yes, we should work toward more efficient methods of reducing our footprint. Here's a question for you. Suppose we throw money at better understanding the problem. What might that illuminate for us? Anthropogenic climate change has been a topic of investigation for decades, and, to the best of our knowledge, we have found the problem. We can study climate until we're blue in the face, but the main issue with climatology is that there is no way to test a prediction. We just have to go with the best possible data. To say, "let's hold off until we have a better idea of what's going on," is to reduce the amount of time we have to act on the data that we already have, and to throw a wrench into finding and implementing a possible solution. We aren't talking about trying to do something as complex as fixing an ecosystem, we are talking about reducing the output of airborne waste. It's as simple as that. If we are going to throw money at something, it needs to be at finding an efficient, effective way to alleviate the problem as we see it. Not to keep reanalyzing the data over and over again, and then coming to the exact some conclusions.

I apologize for my curtness in attitude. It's getting a bit late, but I didn't want to put this off (though maybe I should have... :] ) Forgive me.

[Harijan]

On this path we are going to get bogged down in the details of the argument, but I guess we can go there if you want. Lets set some ground rules before we go:

1. We both need step away from the myth of “scientific consensus”. You cannot put 10 climatologist in a room and ask them one question about global warming that will not lead to days of debate, much less 100 or 1,000 scientists of any discipline. This is what makes good scientists, people who refuse to accept truth as a closed issue.

If you want to get in the “consensus” fight, here is a website listing 19,000 BS, MS, and PHds who work in climatology or other sciences, who petitioned the U.S. government not to act on global climate change because the data is not conclusive, or is contrary to popular global warming understanding. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

If you want to get into the UN council of climate change vote that Gore loves to talk about, better do some research on the vote that was taken first, it was little more than a political farce. Only 10% of the council actually voted (the bare minimum to pass such a resolution), and many of those who were present had no scientific training, but were only political appointees (a few were even interns) from a handful of UN nations.

We are better off ignoring “popular opinion” on this matter and just look at the facts.

2. Given point one: we need to cite our sources, you have been doing an excellent job on this point, I have not. I will start.

3. We need to throw out both of our notions of what we think is right, and simply rely on whatever facts we can find to support our argument. It is too easy in a debate setting to make logical leaps and assumptions that are not supported. I am sure we will keep each other honest on this point.

4. We need to lay out the clearly our primary arguments for debate:

a. Harijan – The scientific authorities of the world do not have a sufficient understanding of the relationship between greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change or the magnitude of these relationships to offer any credible solutions or determine what the results of any proposed solutions or non-action might be.

Given that there is a finite amount of funding for environmental maintenance worldwide, and that there are well understood and urgent environmental problems facing the world, the first step for the scientific community is to adequately understand said relationships and the magnitude of those relationships before money is diverted from current environmental treatments to correcting global warming.

5. Any rules you want to add?

Now on to the good stuff:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

True – no debate here. But the devil is in the details, it is not enough to know that we are changing the composition of the earth’s atmosphere, if we want to prove the degree to which global warming is affecting climate change we need to know how much CO2 is coming from humans, and how much is coming from all other sources, and what the overall increase is exactly. I have some data on this point, but I would like to give you a chance to add clarity to your argument first.

* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

Again, “atmospheric buildup” is an ambiguous term. How much have CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere since 1906?
Is there a correlation between increased levels of CO2 and the warming trend that you discuss infra?
We need specifics here.

* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

True – but is this warming trend unusual? Ice core data suggest that it neither unusual nor extreme. The earth is still far below the 3,000 year average global temperature as we are recovering from a minor ice age. Also note that on this graph our current warming trend is no where near the fastest warming trends on record.

(Source: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value. (Robinson, Robinson and Soon, 2007.)

There was a significant global cooling trend from 1940 to 1980 when fossil fuel consumption increased over 200%.

(Source: Annual mean surface temperatures in the contiguous United States between 1880 and 2006 (10). The slope of the least-squares trend line for this 127-year record is 0.5 ºC per century. (Robinson, Robinson and Soon, 2007.)

* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

This is simply not true. Carbon dioxide has a very short residence time in the atmosphere, CO2 has a 7 to 10-year half-time of in the atmosphere with a range for whole time of 2 to 25 years and a mean half-time of 7.5 years. C02 remains in the atmosphere on average for 15 years. 99% of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for somewhere between 2-25 years. (69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.) On another interesting note here. higher atmospheric temperatures decrease the atmospheric life of CO2, so the warmer it gets, the shorter time CO2 stays in the atmosphere.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

See above, by how much, and is this a significant factor? Is there a stronger correlation between greenhouse gasses and global warming, or solar activity and global warming? If you look at the first graph I presented you can infer that there is poor correlation between fossil fuel consumption and temperature increases. However, the following graph shows a very strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, and a very poor correlation between fossil fuel consumption and global temperature.


(Source: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sun spot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and de cay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate. (Robinson, Robinson and Soon, 2007.)

Your turn.

[Nobunaga]

... The "Global Warming Boom" is a phenomena supported by the US government as a path to regulation. The more they can regulate the more they can control, and take.

... Carbon Credits and so-called carbon footprints serves as a case in point. The idea of taxing companies based on their "carbon footprints" is a brilliant scheme meant to convert one of the most abundant substances on the planet (CO2) into cash. Now, this money will supposedly be used to plant trees and the like, but hell, there are more trees already in the US than there have been in 6 decades, and, money tends to be "diverted" when entrusted to the US government (look at Social Security). Will we all be taxed for our personal carbon footprints? (for exhaling). You can bet your arse that would indeed happen if they (gov't) thought they could get away with it.

... Heard on the news yesterday that the director of the EPA shelved all data relating to the hazards of CO2 to the climate, shelved it as "inconclusive". Funny how that didn't make the prime time news.

... It's 90% a scam, but sadly, like the IRS, we just can't escape it.

[Harijan]

... Carbon Credits and so-called carbon footprints serves as a case in point. The idea of taxing companies based on their "carbon footprints" is a brilliant scheme meant to convert one of the most abundant substances on the planet (CO2) into cash.

Take a minute and realize that no one in the US government is pushing for carbon tax. The major thrust of the Kyoto Protocol is primarily an international carbon tax, and the US was never really interested in joining. Its only a conspiracy theory if the government is actually doing it, and in the US, we are not.

Now, this money will supposedly be used to plant trees and the like, but hell, there are more trees already in the US than there have been in 6 decades, and, money tends to be "diverted" when entrusted to the US government (look at Social Security).

It is true that there are more trees today than there have been in decades, and there is also pretty solid evidence that elevated CO2 levels are like HGH for plants. But 6 decades ago there was next to no regulation on the timber industry. If the government had not done something about clear cutting 50 years ago, we would have no forest left in the United States, so before you go bagging on this kind of thing, understand that one of your arguments (more trees) was caused by what you are complaining about (government intervention).

Will we all be taxed for our personal carbon footprints? (for exhaling). You can bet your arse that would indeed happen if they (gov't) thought they could get away with it.

Cut the rhetoric, most people here are too smart to get tricked into the bullshit you spewed in this last quote. The carbon footprint tax model is a fantastic alternative to the current IRS tax model. The problem is that there is too much complexity in measuring the carbon footprint right now. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of Americans would prefer to be taxed on their net consumption (carbon footprint taxation) rather than their gross production (income taxation).

A net consumption tax system would spur savings and incentives Americans to consume less, and buy products that are 0 or low resource products. Now if you want argue about net consumption taxation as opposed to gross production taxation, start another thread and I will gladly hand your ass to you over there.

This thread is still a pretty interesting and educated debate about global warming and climate change, participate at the level everyone else is participating, or STFU.

... Heard on the news yesterday that the director of the EPA shelved all data relating to the hazards of CO2 to the climate, shelved it as "inconclusive". Funny how that didn't make the prime time news.

This is the only glimmer of quality in your post, now give us a link and some data associated with your comment and I will think about taking you seriously.

[khazalid]

im pretty puzzled that people have been citing Bjørn Lomborg. he is a traitor and a perfect statistician.

this site is maintained by a fellow academic and biologist, Kåre Fog

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/error_catalogue.htm

[Nobunaga]

... Carbon Credits and so-called carbon footprints serves as a case in point. The idea of taxing companies based on their "carbon footprints" is a brilliant scheme meant to convert one of the most abundant substances on the planet (CO2) into cash.

Take a minute and realize that no one in the US government is pushing for carbon tax. The major thrust of the Kyoto Protocol is primarily an international carbon tax, and the US was never really interested in joining. Its only a conspiracy theory if the government is actually doing it, and in the US, we are not.

Now, this money will supposedly be used to plant trees and the like, but hell, there are more trees already in the US than there have been in 6 decades, and, money tends to be "diverted" when entrusted to the US government (look at Social Security).

It is true that there are more trees today than there have been in decades, and there is also pretty solid evidence that elevated CO2 levels are like HGH for plants. But 6 decades ago there was next to no regulation on the timber industry. If the government had not done something about clear cutting 50 years ago, we would have no forest left in the United States, so before you go bagging on this kind of thing, understand that one of your arguments (more trees) was caused by what you are complaining about (government intervention).

Will we all be taxed for our personal carbon footprints? (for exhaling). You can bet your arse that would indeed happen if they (gov't) thought they could get away with it.

Cut the rhetoric, most people here are too smart to get tricked into the bullshit you spewed in this last quote. The carbon footprint tax model is a fantastic alternative to the current IRS tax model. The problem is that there is too much complexity in measuring the carbon footprint right now. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of Americans would prefer to be taxed on their net consumption (carbon footprint taxation) rather than their gross production (income taxation).

A net consumption tax system would spur savings and incentives Americans to consume less, and buy products that are 0 or low resource products. Now if you want argue about net consumption taxation as opposed to gross production taxation, start another thread and I will gladly hand your ass to you over there.

This thread is still a pretty interesting and educated debate about global warming and climate change, participate at the level everyone else is participating, or STFU.

... Heard on the news yesterday that the director of the EPA shelved all data relating to the hazards of CO2 to the climate, shelved it as "inconclusive". Funny how that didn't make the prime time news.

This is the only glimmer of quality in your post, now give us a link and some data associated with your comment and I will think about taking you seriously.

... You're brainwashed, and dodged the point with generalities. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, in the House of Representatives is pushing hard for the tax, nothing whatsoever to do with the Kyoto Protocols.

... And you're too lazy to look for yourself? Google this: +EPA +shelves +carbon and you'll see plenty.

... And this, too has become a right vs left fight. It's ridiculous.

... You're a sheep, dipsh*t. Wake up.

... As for science, Adolph Hitler's scientists PROVED the inferiority of Jews and Blacks. You want to stand behind those findings? I'm sure there was a consensus.

...

[Harijan]

... You're brainwashed, and dodged the point with generalities. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, in the House of Representatives is pushing hard for the tax, nothing whatsoever to do with the Kyoto Protocols.

Searched the whole select committee website. Could not even find a mention of carbon tax. It is just not there you fucking lying twat. You want to try and start this shit up with the insults, that my game. So before you go scampering off to go suck some nice fat republican cock in hopes that you can find something that does not make you look like an even bigger tard-mongering crack whore, You had better make sure your sources are accurate before you start spouting off.

Not only does the select committee on energy and bullshit have no real power or voting right, or bill passing authority (it is essentially a committee that Pelosi created so she would have more favors to dole out to junior reps) Even if it did have real power, they have not even mentioned a carbon tax in any of their political rhetoric.

Now turn off the AM talk radio and go google "how to think for yourself" subsearch "a guide for right-wing nuts who get their ass handed to them in online debates"

... And you're too lazy to look for yourself? Google this: +EPA +shelves +carbon and you'll see plenty.

If your reading comprehension were something more than that of a blind midget ferret you would realize that this source completely agrees with my argument.

... And this, too has become a right vs left fight. It's ridiculous.
... You're a sheep, dipsh*t. Wake up.

So, oh great and powerful nut-sucking cock hound, Neo is the leftist, and what is this former-green-party-member-current-democrat represent. Am I representing the right? Great, you lose again fucktard. Party affiliation only means something to people who cannot argue, and cannot distinguish issues from individuals.

... As for science, Adolph Hitler's scientists PROVED the inferiority of Jews and Blacks. You want to stand behind those findings? I'm sure there was a consensus.

So I guess that means we should throw out all science as evil and of the devil. Oh, but wait, christians have killed millions more than hitler ever dreamed of, and justified it all to be in the name of God. Where does that put religion?

Now go lick your wounds bitch, and leave the typing to the adults.



...[/quote]

[Neoteny]

I really enjoyed that. Will reply with a real contribution later...

[DaGip]

The truth!!
<mod edit>

[Dekloren]

... Carbon Credits and so-called carbon footprints serves as a case in point. The idea of taxing companies based on their "carbon footprints" is a brilliant scheme meant to convert one of the most abundant substances on the planet (CO2) into cash.

Take a minute and realize that no one in the US government is pushing for carbon tax. The major thrust of the Kyoto Protocol is primarily an international carbon tax, and the US was never really interested in joining. Its only a conspiracy theory if the government is actually doing it, and in the US, we are not.

LOLOLOLOL

MORON.

Harijan thinks plant food is causing global warming.
He is s-m-r-t and definately thinks for himself.

[muy_thaiguy]

LOLOLOLOL

MORON.

Most...Ironic...Post...Yet!