Global Warming explained - "inconvenient" or otherwise!

[SkepticLance]

KLB said :

 

You could start by providing links to references for your last post before my complaint.

 

Can you be more specific?

As I see it, I made some general statements which, as I said, are part of the latest IPCC report, and I made some statments relating to biology, which can be verified with some quite basic (1st year university) biology textbooks. If you can tell me what it is you doubt, I will try to find a suitable reference.

[SkepticLance]

For a start - a reference to sequestering carbon in soil.

 

http://soilcrop.tamu.edu/research/pedology/carbon.htm

[1veedo]

1) I don't accept that we should base our judgements on a third of the results. With an issue is as important as global warming, it is vital that all the evidence is submitted. When you go to court, a sound judgement requires that all the evidence is made available, and you swear to tell the whole truth and not just the bit that supports your argument.

Ok Icemelt find a report that fits the criteria specified that contradicts the general scientific understanding of this issue and has not been shown to be incorrect itself in peer-review. Then, and only then, will you have a case.

 

There is no need to analyze every random climate model in the first place. The goal of the IPCC is to summarize what the scientific community thinks about global warming, and in doing so they have chosen to do a little bit of population statistics regarding these studies. If you know anything at all about statistics, know this: you only need a small sample of the demographic being studied in order to discover an accurate trend.

 

There is not some sort of a conspiracy to hide the truth, I can assure you of that.

 

Besides this, these studies are unimportant to the issue at hand that global warming is primarily caused by human activities. So even if you were correct and the IPCC is purposefully leaving out information, it would be a red herring and nothing more.

but I think I might be more easily convinced if it weren't for the significant number of leading scientists and university professors who have serious doubts, and/or actually disagree with many of the conclusions.

This is simply not true. The statements of the IPCC have been endorsed by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK). ( http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 ). On top of this, as I posted above and you ignored, many other institutions have came to the same conclusions, including a number of universities (most notable is Columbia University).

 

I am sure that there are some people who disagree with global warming. There are still people who disagree with evolution. But the vast majority of scientists do in fact agree with global warming -- it's called a scientific consensus.

One problem is that there is too much "worst case" propaganda mixed in with the results giving rise to sometimes ridiculous predictions.

This is a straw man. Climate science in and of itself does not say that the world is going to end. Scientists do agree that global warming is a bad thing, but nobody is saying that society is going to come to a screeching halt anytime soon. This is what the media and politics do -- you're confusing reputable scientific research with media hype.

There are just too many unjustifiable assumptions being made and, quite honestly, anyone can make a computer model to fit their predictions.

Source? Eg what assumptions, specifically, are being made, and provide a proper scientific reference for this assertion.

This is a basic principle used in computer aided manufacture, you just reverse engineer the product to get the computer to learn and then recreate it. So with climate models you just start with the prediction and work backwards to present day climate, finishing up with your climate model. It’s all made to look very much cleverer than it actually is, and is of course completely false and to many of us very unconvincing. Hence the IPCC comment “climate model predictions are at best, inconclusive”.

This is just a misunderstanding of what climate science is. Again, and I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, there is absolutely no conspiracy within the scientific community to hide the truth. This is just not how science works. What we find is that individual scientists from around the planet are all finding the exact same results.

 

Global warming is not just based on computer simulations. Computer simulations happen to be a very successful aspect of climate science because of their accuracy at making predictions (they are not inconclusive, but are in fact extremely accurate), but there are many other reasons to accept global warming besides the accuracy of computer simulations alone.

 

What scientists have done is discover how different factors in the climate influence each other, and they have done a very good job at it (even if they did implement AI algorithms to understand the relationship between different aspects of the climate). Climate science is one of the most well-supported and well-understood branches of science and is better able to make predictions then any other theory with just about the only exception being the physical science.

 

 

Please answer the question: What is it that you would consider proof of global warming? Please answer directly; do not weezle or tip-toe around this question. If you do not want to answer it, just say so.

2) I remain unconvinced that, as you put it, "The current climate trend is opposite to what is expected to be happening" and I believe we are misguided when making long term predictions based on very short term fluctuations.

 

Here’s just a little example of what I mean.

 

The IPCC report states:

 

"Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm p.a. from 1961-2003. From 1993-2003 the rate was faster, about 3.1 mm p.a. For 1993-2003, the sum of the estimated contributions from climate change (including contributions from losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica) is consistent with the observed sea level rise"

 

OK, let’s take this as fact, since somebody has presumably verified the measurements. But what should we conclude from this ?

 

The Global Warming Brigade would have us believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a temperature increase, which in turn is melting the ice and causing the oceans to expand, thereby causing a pattern of sea level rise in excess of what we would normally anticipate. On the face of it this sounds pretty reasonable and very convincing, but there is a quantum leap buried in the above which is totally unjustified.

 

Let’s step back, take a deep breath and put it all into proper perspective. Where is the justification for saying that the sea level is rising faster than we would normally expect ? This is totally untrue and has resulted in us reaching the wrong conclusion.

 

It's very unlikely that all the ice on Earth would melt, but nevertheless the total potential contribution to sea levels from ice would be to the order of 80m, if it all melted. From the evidence provided above, at the current rate of melting this would take the next 80/0.0031=28,600 years, assuming the process remained uninterrupted.

 

However the process will of course be interrupted by a return to the next glacial period. Based on previous cycles, this will quite probably occur within the next 2,000 years, which at the current melting rate would be sufficient time for the sea level to rise by only 6m. By a strange coincidence, this is precisely the level achieved at the end of the previous interglacial cycle 125,000 YBP without any anthropogenic or greenhouse encouragement.

 

So, with this wider perspective, it seems that the current rise in sea level is bang on target to achieve exactly the same pattern as our previous transition from an interglacial to a glacial period 125,000 years ago. We must therefore conclude that anthropogenic CO2 has had no effect at all on the current rate of rise in sea level !

This is full of many assumptions that are really not true. The biggest of which is the assertion that the next glacial period will begin in 2000 years when, in reality, the quickest it could occur is in 13,000 years. I cannot give you an exact number because, frankly, I don't know what part of the cycle we are in. But big glacial periods have historically come every 100k years with 25k and 40k year subintervals. The last glacial period ended 12k years ago.

 

I think you might be interested to know that temperatures have in fact been decreasing for roughly 8k years. Right now glaciers should be growing, not shrinking, as indicated by both the 5 million+ year trend and historic Holocene temperatures, and this is of course opposite what is occurring. Right now temperatures should be drooping, not increasing, as indicated again by both the 5 million+ year trend and historic Holocene temperatures, and this is again opposite what is occurring.

[KLB]

Also to KLB.

 

For your information, my degree is in chemistry and microbiology. However, I have second year university courses in biology and in ecology. When I discuss matters relating to biology, it is from sound knowledge, and not something speculative.

This doesn't mean I need to take your word for what you say at face value anymore than we should take anyone else's word. This thread is getting terribly sloppy about not providing references and supporting documentation.

 

I'll start by providing more references on permafrost, which will help people understand this better since most will never see it first hand (still seeing it first hand provides a better understanding). This is a good deal of reading, but it is really important to understand as much as possible about permafrost zones if one is to understand their potential impact on global warming. I tried to focus on primary research and sources instead of news articles by non-scientists.

 

Of the research reports this is one of the most comprehensive I've found on permafrost:

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC3600/members/projects/group3/MeltingPermafrost5-2.htm

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/methane/index.php

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/permafrost.shtml

 

The following reports are from the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute (I attended UAF as an undergraduate student and lived in Fairbanks for five years):

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1791.html

Flammable ice in the permafrost (ever put a lit match to ice and have the ice ignite?):

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1320.html (1997)

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF5/504.html (1981)

 

I could keep adding articles but that would just overload all of us and this is a good start. What is important to take from all of this is that the sheer quantity of organic material locked up in the permafrost is vastly beyond what any of us can comprehend and the methane and CO2 that would get released would very likely totally overwhelm the sequestering ability of new vegetation for quite some time and by the time vegetation could begin to reverse greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere the damage will have been done. What I also learned from all the reading I did is that the tundra and permafrost are some of the most important carbon sequestering mechanisms our planet has as very little organic material has a chance to decay before being frozen and sequestered. If the arctic and sub-arctic regions warm up and the permafrost begins to melt we will lose an important carbon trapping mechanism.

[KLB]

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article about nature not being as good of a carbon sink as was previously believed. See: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p01s02-wogi.html

 

I'll work on tracking down the original research reports (although they might not be posted on the Internet).

[ParanoiA]

A few things I noticed scanning through this thread...

 

9 folks appear to in the GW believer category

3 appear not to be (wasn't sure about waitforufo)

 

If I've done my math right, that's 75% consensus on GW in terms of scientists in this thread.

 

This is just a forum, but, that's not an impressive consensus to me. (I wonder what the consensus was on the 2000K bug)

 

Anyway, Bascule and others has made the point that most GW deniers are being paid to do so or don't know what they're talking about and etc.. But Jackson and Icemelt seem to have their stuff together on the subject and have done their homework.

 

After reading everyone's opinion I'm still confused as to what to believe. If I just read KLB's posts, I'd be convinced. If I just read Icemelt's posts, I'd be convinced there's nothing to worry about. But after reading all posts, the jury is still out...

 

This is why people like me get frustrated at people like Bascule who insist we're "deniers" and that the evidence is overwhelming and there is no legitimate skepticism. That we should "listen to the experts". Well, the experts still don't agree and we laymen have no way to distinguish which of you is the "right" expert.

 

And please don't reply with pleas to read this and read that. These are the same kinds of articles and editorials that are disputed by experts. I could read every nature magazine on the rack, then Icemelt could blow them away with how they left out 'this' and left out 'that' and distorted facts and so forth - the kinds of things a layman cannot discern for himself.

[KLB]

But after reading all posts, the jury is still out...

While I can understand why the lay person may still have doubts in their mind, the over whelming preponderance of scientists do believe that global warming is a real issue and that man is a significant factor in global warming. If there is still any debate, it may be to just what degree global warming is affected by man's activities.

 

Heck even George Bush himself who is no environmentalist and was a strong opponent of global warming in the beginning has come around on this issue within the last year or so. If George Bush has been convinced, then the evidence supporting global warming was pretty damn convincing.

 

This is why people like me get frustrated at people like Bascule who insist we're "deniers" and that the evidence is overwhelming and there is no legitimate skepticism.

There is a difference between being skeptical and sticking one's head in the sand. I'm not sure just how bad things are going to get with global warming. I do believe, however, people are sticking their heads in the sand when they refuse to acknowledge that global warming is real, that man's activities play a significant roll in exasperating GW and believe that nature can neutralize man's impact. At the very least people should acknowledge that it would be prudent to work to reduce our impact as the consequences of inaction could be so dire and the costs of action is relatively low and has other great benefits (e.g. greater energy independence and less air pollution).

 

That we should "listen to the experts". Well, the experts still don't agree and we laymen have no way to distinguish which of you is the "right" expert.

This is as false a claim as those who claim that there is great debate over evolution. This is a nonsense claim. The evidence is overwhelming and there is overwhelming consensus among the vast majority of scientists that global warming is a real issue and that man plays a significant roll. If there is any debate over this issue, it might just be how great man's roll is and just how bad the consequences are. Even at that there is agreement that the consequences of inaction will not be good.

 

 

 

And please don't reply with pleas to read this and read that. These are the same kinds of articles and editorials that are disputed by experts.

This is sticking one's head into the sand and shows a lack of willingness to seriously consider this issue. While I would agree that editorials are written by journalists not scientists (and thus may not contribute much to this discussion), when references are made to top tier scientific research institutions (e.g. the University of Alaska Geophysical Institute), there is quite a bit of credibility to said report.

 

I could read every nature magazine on the rack, then Icemelt could blow them away with how they left out 'this' and left out 'that' and distorted facts and so forth - the kinds of things a layman cannot discern for himself.

Hence I felt compelled to skip the journalists when it came to the permafrost issue and search out reports by the researchers who are actually doing the most research on this issue.

 

BTW, the permafrost resources I referenced were less about global warming and more about helping people understand permafrost better so that they could see how it fits into the bigger picture. I have learned over the years that people really don't grasp what permafrost is if they haven't had to live with it. Trust me, you do not know what frost heaves are until you experience a road built up across permafrost after spring breakup.

 

--- Extraneous--

To add some levity to this debate, while searching for George Bush's statements on this issue, I came across this little piece of footage (Will Ferrell as Bush): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDrq0LNrh-A

Man, Will Ferrell has George's speech patterns down almost perfectly.

[ParanoiA]

There is a difference between being skeptical and sticking one's head in the sand. I'm not sure just how bad things are going to get with global warming. I do believe, however, people are sticking their heads in the sand when they refuse to acknowledge that global warming is real, that man's activities play a significant roll in exasperating GW and believe that nature can neutralize man's impact. At the very least people should acknowledge that it would be prudent to work to reduce our impact as the consequences of inaction could be so dire and the costs of action is relatively low and has other great benefits (e.g. greater energy independence and less air pollution).

 

And this is where I'm at. I believe in GW but I'm not convinced. And it doesn't matter too much since we need to ditch oil and there's a long list of practical reasons not to pollute and waste. There's at the very least enough consensus to warrant pursuing a solution.

 

This is as false a claim as those who claim that there is great debate over evolution. This is a nonsense claim. The evidence is overwhelming and there is overwhelming consensus among the vast majority of scientists that global warming is a real issue and that man plays a significant roll.

 

But there's not. This isn't a handfull of Flat Earth jokers, there's a significant chunk of GW deniers. Sure, we can just nod our heads and be the sheeple you want us to be and default to the majority. But that's not critical thinking. Oftentimes the majority is wrong. In fact, I always get suspicious when the majority of people believe a certain way. Makes me want to check out the other way.

 

This is sticking one's head into the sand and shows a lack of willingness to seriously consider this issue. While I would agree that editorials are written by journalists not scientists (and thus may not contribute much to this discussion), when references are made to top tier scientific research institutions (e.g. the University of Alaska Geophysical Institute), there is quite a bit of credibility to said report.

 

Not true. I didn't read this thread because my head is in the sand. I read this thread because I get more out of reading a debate. Numbers, logic, disputes, all there. Very informative.

[KLB]

And this is where I'm at. I believe in GW but I'm not convinced. And it doesn't matter too much since we need to ditch oil and there's a long list of practical reasons not to pollute and waste. There's at the very least enough consensus to warrant pursuing a solution.

YES!!! While I may be a little more convinced then you, I agree with you fully on this statement. It is the point that I am trying to get across here and elsewhere. There are so many reasons why we shouldn't pollute and waste. Global warming is only one reason.

 

 

 

But there's not. This isn't a handfull of Flat Earth jokers, there's a significant chunk of GW deniers.

Maybe we should separate this into two groups, the GW deniers and those that aren't 100% convinced but recognize the merits in taking action to save energy and reduce our carbon footprint (since they go hand in hand).

 

In fact, I always get suspicious when the majority of people believe a certain way. Makes me want to check out the other way.

The thing is, global warming is not a new pop fad issue. People were expressing concerns about this a generation ago, heck, in his movie, Al Gore even says he first learned about it in college. The whole global warming issue has had to "swim upstream" against a river of doubters and naysayers for maybe forty years. This issue has really been through a crucible in regards to scientists trying to disprove it. This isn't one of those fad issues that suddenly popped up over night because Al Gore released a movie on it. Just like the Internet, Al Gore did not invent global warming.

 

 

 

I read this thread because I get more out of reading a debate. Numbers, logic, disputes, all there. Very informative.

But we are also seeing people play loose and fast in this thread as is common in any heated topic. In this case it is necessary to really hold posts to a higher standard and require higher standards in the sources we reference.

[jackson33]

KLB; no one is saying the planet is not currently warming, nor that the planet cooled earlier. (50's to 70's). no one is saying the planet hasn't warmed or cooled to even larger degrees over the past, whatever range you would like to discuss. NO ONE, even Al Gore, or any scientist.

 

what is argued are the cause for this very minor fluctuation, which for some reason needs a reason other than a normal trending cycle. mankind has for some reason been charged for the eventual, almost inevitable destruction of the planets environmental system. the charges claim, we by the use of fossil fuels and requirements for an enjoyable visit to the planet have caused this false accusation. man cannot control the environment, or pretend it can. forget the arrogance alone in thinking the thoughts we could or even alter any future, natural weather and climatic changes that will happen.

 

to much is being made of the entire issue, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with GW, GC or any issue concerning the welfare of planet earth. those with the means to understand just what is going on are well aware of this, but promote the notion for personal reasons, social structuring, financing a project, gain some credibility or is just justification to raise taxes.

 

Bush, is concerned with dependency of oil from unfriendly nations. as i predicted at the time, his ethanol stance would draw fire from the very people he tried to appease, as they bring on the fight. those folks want the end of capitalism, freedoms for thought and control of the masses, are not concerned about the welfare of any one and will fight anything that continues what they cannot take part in....a thriving economical structure, based on capitalism, free markets and the supply/demand principles. i might add global participation is likewise opposed as this arrogance and fear of loss in importance will decline as the WORLDS economy thrives to even more than the unprecedented levels.

 

Bull hockey, if Gore learned of GW, as he expresses it today, it came from the same classroom he learned he was to invent the Internet. if anything he was taught what i was and that was; we were into some trend for an Ice Age, the planet could not support 3 billion people and food production would never support the mass. we were taught many never to be things on both sides the spectrum, which few if any ever or will ever happen and in fact have taken reverse course.

 

since you seem to require a source for every word, all this post, is my personal opinion based on everything i have lived and read over many years. i have no way to give the sources.........

[1veedo]

This isn't a handfull of Flat Earth jokers, there's a significant chunk of GW deniers

Yes, there are a significant number of people who do not accept global warming. However, we have a gap of credibility. The scientific community has taken a very, very strong stance on global warming. And let me emphasize that we are talking about a huge consensus here.

 

Naomi Oreskes found after examining 928 papers published between 1993 and 2003 absolutely no articles whatsoever published in any science journal that contradicted the scientific consensus on global warming: NONE. According to Oreskes, scientific research against global warming must then be "vanishingly small."

 

Scientists agree with global warming by the same magnitude that they agree with relativity or evolution. Even Science editor-in-cheif Donald Kennedy noticed, "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science." (Kennedy, Donald. (2001). An unfortunate U-turn on carbon. Science, 291, 2515.) There is no debate about the validity of the statement, "Humans have caused the majority of global warming." There are debates within climate change in much the same way there are debates within evolution, but these debates are not about the validity of the tenets of the model -- they're debates about specifics. The only debates about global warming, much like evolution, occur outside of science.

 

Every major scientific institution on the face of the planet agrees with the scientific consensus of global warming. It is taught in our colleges, and has been for quite some time. Global warming is in fact one of the most well-supported theories in science, shy only of the physical sciences and evolution.

 

But the magnitude of agreement in the scientific community should not be what sways you to accept global warming. The evidence itself is massive -- climate models are extremely accurate about making predictions. People always say, "well they've never projected in the future and been verified," but in reality there have been a couple climate simulations that have gone twenty+years of being correct. One example is the original NASA simulation back in 1988 which, still today, is "right on the money." (actual quote from NASA -- Hansen, James. Michal Chrichton's "Scientific Method.") If the very fact that climate models are extremely successful is not enough to hint at how well scientists are doing, then I don't know what is. You should probably go invent a new form of evidence because if the mountains of empirical evidence aren't convincing, then you are either denying the facts, or committing intellectual dishonesty.

 

It's alright to be skeptical. Being skeptical just means that when presented a claim, you ask for the evidence. You do this when you don't know anything about global warming. But once this plethora of evidence becomes apparent, you turn from skeptic to denier (Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things).

 

Btw the Skeptic Society, Skeptic Magazine, "Skeptic" column for Scientific American, and Michael Shermer himself (the worlds leading skeptic and investigator of urban legends and claims of the paranormal) accept global warming. The term "global warming denier," a spin-off of "evolution denier," was actually made popular by him, a so-called "skeptic." And if that isn't enough, you're actually talking to a skeptic right now. (ex: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000 ) At this point I am not skeptical of global warming, I am skeptical of the claims of global warming deniers. The evidence is abundantly clear -- the burden of proof lies on the global warming deniers.

[ParanoiA]

The thing is, global warming is not a new pop fad issue. People were expressing concerns about this a generation ago, heck, in his movie, Al Gore even says he first learned about it in college. The whole global warming issue has had to "swim upstream" against a river of doubters and naysayers for maybe forty years. This issue has really been through a crucible in regards to scientists trying to disprove it. This isn't one of those fad issues that suddenly popped up over night because Al Gore released a movie on it. Just like the Internet, Al Gore did not invent global warming.

 

Good point...noted.

 

what is argued are the cause for this very minor fluctuation, which for some reason needs a reason other than a normal trending cycle. mankind has for some reason been charged for the eventual, almost inevitable destruction of the planets environmental system. the charges claim, we by the use of fossil fuels and requirements for an enjoyable visit to the planet have caused this false accusation. man cannot control the environment, or pretend it can. forget the arrogance alone in thinking the thoughts we could or even alter any future, natural weather and climatic changes that will happen.

 

But that's underestimating humans isn't it? What about half of the world's arsenol of nuclear weapons detonated at once? Wouldn't that alter the climate? I'm not sure it's arrogant at all to think we can effect climatic changes. But your .0023 figure sure makes me wonder how much we do.

[jackson33]

P; go to your choice of source, for contents of the atmosphere. there are three that concern us and a couple which are pure buffers from the suns energy. our primary concern, is the Troposphere which is 15 miles deep on average and well document in content. this 77% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, of which no one disputes, questions or is concerned with. of the remaining one percent about .04 to .05 is CO2 and trace amounts make up the rest. now keep in mind man is given credit, for 5% of any figure of any element in that one percent. when you see a 7% increase of something, its not the total, but that which man is thought to add. by any standards a 7% increase in any trace is still a trace. by the way ozone, is in the second layer or stratosphere, is scatter and something we need.

 

i have mentioned ST. Helen's, which is rarely mentioned, but this eruption sent a good deal of debris into the atmosphere, covering the ground for a thousand miles down wind with feet to inches of ash. for a hundred miles in all direction all life ceased, died and has decayed, which is near pure CO2 going into the atmosphere for years after. i have and others have suggested with other events, could have caused this little blimp in weather conditions, however the fact is this really major 30 minute event, with all the time and destruction doesn't show up on any chart.

[1veedo]

But your .0023 figure sure makes me wonder how much we do.

Well the .0023 figure is incorrect as I pointed out in post 13 (it is factually incorrect so there should be absolutely no debate here).

P; go to your choice of source' date=' for contents of the atmosphere. there are three that concern us and a couple which are pure buffers from the suns energy. our primary concern, is the Troposphere which is 15 miles deep on average and well document in content. this 77% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, of which no one disputes, questions or is concerned with. of the remaining one percent about .04 to .05 is CO2 and trace amounts make up the rest. now keep in mind man is given credit, for 5% of any figure of any element in that one percent. when you see a 7% increase of something, its not the total, but that which man is thought to add. by any standards a 7% increase in any trace is still a trace. by the way ozone, is in the second layer or stratosphere, is scatter and something we need.[/quote']Please read post #13.

This is factually not true. Right around 99% of the total increase of CO2 in the atmosphere sense 1750 has been caused by human activities. It's an increase of at least 79ppm from 300ppm (I'm not sure how high the running average for 1750 was' date=' but the natural variation of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 300 and 180ppm) which is a total percentage of 20.844 to 52.507 (and I would wager it's closer to 50% because CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been decreasing for roughly 8 thousand years).

 

But regardless of the actual percentage of CO2 that we've contributed, human activities are actually causing over 90% of the total increase in temperature. Humans are also responsible for 100% of the total increase in CO2 above the 650,000 year natural range for CO2. (Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis)[/quote']It is true that per total volume of the atmosphere, humans have contributed very little, but humans have significantly altered CO2 levels. Although CO2 makes up very little of the atmosphere, it is a very important factor in the climate.

i have mentioned ST. Helen's, which is rarely mentioned, but this eruption sent a good deal of debris into the atmosphere, covering the ground for a thousand miles down wind with feet to inches of ash. for a hundred miles in all direction all life ceased, died and has decayed, which is near pure CO2 going into the atmosphere for years after. i have and others have suggested with other events, could have caused this little blimp in weather conditions, however the fact is this really major 30 minute event, with all the time and destruction doesn't show up on any chart.

No, it was not CO2 that caused all of this destruction. The pollution "blanket" was made up of what's known as particulates. Particulates are just little particles that block out the sun. Volcanoes emit very little CO2 compared to human activities so it's no wonder that CO2 readings didn't spike. You have actually defeated one of your thesis because the very fact that CO2 graphs didn't spike is evidence that volcanoes put out very little CO2.

[Icemelt]

1vedoo – Please take time to read the detail carefully since it took me along time to prepare specially for you !

 

There were too many points to cover in one posting, so in this post I will just contest your refusal to agree that, as I put it “I think I might be more easily convinced if it weren't for the significant number of leading scientists and university professors who have serious doubts, and/or actually disagree with many of the conclusions”

 

Your retort was “This is simply not true. The statements of the IPCC have been endorsed by - - - - - - including a number of universities (most notable is Columbia University)”

 

Unfortunately you are wrong, and your claim that I cannot substantiate my statement is also wrong. Here is my evidence, which is just a sample of the significant number of leading scientists and university professors who have already gone public with their serious doubts concerning the interpretation of global warming research results, causes and / or conclusions. Few would disagree that it would be irresponsible to discard their views and just sweep this under the carpet.

 

The list is growing and is beginning to look like a list of “Who’s Who” of the world’s scientists.

 

Prof Ian Clark (Dept of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa) has been teaching in the fields of paleoclimatology and geochemistry for the past two decades. His research focuses on Arctic hydrology and paleoclimatology using a variety of geochemical and isotopic methods to characterize past warm periods. “You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past”

 

Prof Tim Ball (Dept of Climatology University of Winnipeg) claims many IPCC researchers focus their studies on the impacts of climate change. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change. They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies. This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts. The situation is exacerbated since among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios. Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts. We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. It is a relatively small community and there is no consensus. If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core record shows exactly the opposite, so the fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong”

 

Prof Richard Lindzen (Dept of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science MIT) is an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology. He believes that the climate models used by the IPCC do not properly account for the physics of cloud formation, and that as a result they exaggerate the warming effect of CO2. “People have decided you have to convince other people that, since no scientist disagrees, you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science that’s pure propaganda”

 

Prof Bob Carter (Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University Australia) gives a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention. Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.

 

Prof Nir Shaviv (Institute of Physics University of Jerusalem) is an Israeli associate professor of physics, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is most well-known for his solar and cosmic rays hypothesis of climate change. In 2002, Shaviv hypothesised that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. “There is no direct evidence which links 20th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases”

 

Prof Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Director International Arctic Research Centre of the University of Alaska Fairbanks since its establishment in 1998). As Director of the Geophysical Institute (1986-1999) he concentrated his effort on establishing the institute as a key research center in the Arctic and his work has earned national and international recognition.

 

Dr Matthew Khandeka (PhD in meteorology, Masters degree in statistics, Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards) He has won several post-doctoral fellowships, including one with the National Research Council, was a top climate scientist with Environment Canada for 25 years, as well as with the UN. Khandekar, who has never had any affiliation with energy companies, has worked at the highest levels on climate research for 48 years and has published more than 100 highly regarded scientific papers. He was barred from the UN’s 11th “Conference of Parties” and not allowed to register “because he holds a heretical view in what Corbella rightly calls the religion of global warming”. Khandekar says scientific evidence seems to indicate that "solar variability" is one of the main causes of global warming. He also says he has studied extreme weather events of the past 150 years worldwide "and I don't see any increase in extreme weather events." What has happened, he said, is the 24-hour cable news cycle has increased our perception that there are more extreme weather events. "One hundred years ago they were happening all the time but we didn't get to know about them," he said.

 

Prof Tim Patterson (Dept of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University , Ottawa)

Tim Patterson said he "couldn't be bothered" to attend the event referred to above if scientists like Dr. Madhav Khandekar were barred.

 

Prof Patrick Michaels (Dept pf Environmental Science University of Virginia) “Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming in the twentieth century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers”

 

Henrik Svensmark (Director Centre Sun-Climate Research Danish Space Research Institute) For more than decade, Henrik Svensmark Danish National Space Center has been pursuing an explanation why Earth cools and warms. His findings, published October Proceedings Royal Society Mathematical, physical sciences engineering journal Royal Society London, don't point us. The sun and stars could explain most if not all warming century, he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. He was castigated by the chairman of the IPCC for disagreeing with other scientists !

 

Prof John Christy (Dept of Atmospheric Science University of Alabama & Lead Author IPCC) “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true”

 

Prof Paul Reiter (IPCC & Pasteur Institute Paris Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases)

“The global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but it’s not science, it’s propaganda”

 

Prof Philip Stott (Dept of Biogeography University of London)

“The IPCC like any UN body is political, the final conclusions are politically driven”

 

Prof Wibjorn Karlen (Dept of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Stockholm University)

“There is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change”

 

Prof Frederick Singes (Former Director of US National Weather Service)

 

Prof Tad Murty (Dept of Earth Sciences, Flinders University Adelaide, currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences University of Ottawa)

 

Prof Fred Michel (Dept of Earth Sciences Carleton University Ottawa)

 

Prof Ross McKitrick (Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph)

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

 

Dr. Andreas Prokoph (Adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa)

 

Patric Moore (Counder of Greenpeace)

 

Dr Piers Corbyn (Climate Weather Forecaster Weather Action)

 

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC (Professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences,

Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont)

 

Prof G. Cornelis van Kooten (Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria )

 

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS (Climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization & research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter , U.K.)

 

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson (Emeritus Professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies Princeton N.J.) “Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

 

Dr. Chris de Freitas (Climate scientist, associate Professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.)

 

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

 

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard (Senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas , past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey)

 

Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Earth System Science Center University of Alabama, Huntsville)

 

Dr. Al Pekarek (Associate Professor of geology, Dept Earth and Atmospheric Sciences St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.)

 

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology) (Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa)

 

Prof Christopher Essex (Dept Applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario)

 

Prof Gordon E. Swaters (Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta )

 

Nigel Calder (Former editor of New Scientist)

 

Prof Edward Wegman (President of the IASC (1997-1999) Center for Computational Statistics George Mason University USA )

 

Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and known for his views that most global warming is caused by solar variation)

 

Dr. Fred Goldberg (Secretary for IPCC Conference Stockholm September 2006) He is a Swedish materials, energy and technology expert with worldwide careers in consulting, publishing, technical lecturing and Arctic studies. In January, 2007, he debated the topic “Climate Change: Human-Caused or Natural?” at the California Institute of Technology. Goldberg holds a Masters in Science and a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering from KTH.

 

Dr. L. Graham Smith (Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario)

 

Dr. Petr Chylek (Adjunct Professor Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University , Halifax)

 

Dr. Keith D. Hage (Climate consultant and Professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta)

 

Dr. David E. Wojick P.Eng. (Energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va. , and Sioux Lookout, Ont.)

 

Rob Scagel, M.Sc. (Forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey , B.C. )

 

Dr. Douglas Leahey (Meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary)

 

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. (Agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.)

 

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology , Oregon State University; Oregon

State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

 

Prof Ian Plimer Dept of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritusPprofessor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia )

 

Prof R.M. Carter (Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University , Townsville , Australia)

 

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes (Former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute)

 

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen (Geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand )

 

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner (Emeritus Professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University)

 

Dr. Gary D. Sharp (Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas , Calif. )

 

Dr. Marcel Leroux (Professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon , France former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS)

 

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski (Physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw , Poland)

 

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (Reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull , U.K. ; editor, Energy & Environment )

 

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations)

 

Dr. Asmunn Moene (Former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway)

 

Prof August H. Auer (Former Professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming ; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand)

Dr. Vincent Gray (Expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington , N.Z. )

 

Dr. Howard Hayden (Emeritus Professor of physics, University of Connecticut )

 

Dr Benny Peiser (Professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University , U.K. )

 

Dr. Jack Barrett (Chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.)

 

Dr. William J.R. Alexander (Professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria , South Africa . Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000)

 

Dr. S. Fred Singer (Professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia ; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service)

 

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem (Emeritus Professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society )

 

Prof Robert H. Essenhigh (E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University )

 

Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston , Mass.)

 

Douglas Hoyt (Senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland)

 

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze (Independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria , Germany )

 

Dr. Boris Winterhalter (Senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki , Finland)

 

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser (Physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif. ; atmospheric consultant)

 

Dr. Art Robinson (Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.)

 

Dr. Arthur Rorsch (Emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health)

 

Dr. Alister McFarquhar (Downing College , Cambridge , U.K. ; international economist )

 

Dr. Richard S. Courtney (Climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.)

 

Dr Roy Spencer PhD (Weather Satellite Team NASA) dreamed up the spoof site -- sort of the Onion meets the Weather Channel -- because he thinks people are overreacting to the threat of climate change. Witness the headlines: "Pristine Alaskan Glacier Turns Into Tropical Wasteland." "More Polar Bears Suffering Heat Exhaustion." And "Dolphins Discovered Fleeing Warming Tropical Waters." Global warming warnings intended to give you the shivers.

[KLB]

Icemelt's post #65 against CO2 and global warming reminds me of an "Intelligent Design" defense where the names of lots of scientists are brought forth to support ID. If there are 100,000 scientists (made up, but realistic number) studying GW and related issues and 95% agree (another made up number) that GW is caused by man there would still be 5,000 scientists that one could reference when trying to argue against GW and man being the primary cause available to be referenced and quoted.

 

People think that there is more debate on the issue of global warming than there really is, this is a similar problem that exists with evolution and "intelligent design." Much of the cause of this false belief of debate on this issue is caused by the media's belief that fair and balance means that one must always give equal air time to opposing views on an issue without regard to how much debate there is on an issue or how credible the two sides are. A really interesting paper that looks at this exact issue is: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

 

Here's an interesting article about a lobbying group offering scientists $10,000 for producing reports that cast doubt on global warming: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

 

Exxon Mobil funnel $16 million to groups and individuals to "manufacturer" reports critical of global warming (Union of Concerned Scientists): http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

 

Coal powered electric cooperative paid $100,000 environmental professor for being GW skeptic: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2242565

 

The very long history of studying greenhouse gases and global warming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808.html

Highlights from above article:

1) Irish scientist John Tyndall establishes CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the 19th century.

 

2) British engineer Guy Callendar had compiled empirical evidence of CO2 released by fossil fuels was having a measurable affect on the earth's climates by the 1930's

 

3) Charles David Keeling implements a systematic monitoring program at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. By the 1960's he demonstrated conclusively that atmospheric carbon dioxide was steadily rising (President Bush awarded Keeling the National Medal of Science in 2002 for this work).

 

4) In a 1965 message to Congress President Lyndon Johnson stated: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

 

5) In 1966 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, headed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald concluded that increased carbon dioxide might also lead to "inadvertent weather modification." Gordon MacDonald, later served on President Richard Nixon's Council on Environmental Quality.

 

The above article is a good history lesson since so many think that global warming is a new issue.

 

==Notes==

With all the mountains of discussion, articles, blogs and babble about global warming and climate change, I'm finding an extremely high noise ratio when trying to dig up reports that look at the history of this issue. Getting past the talking heads is really hard.

 

== More sideline humor ==

Cartoon: Al Gore and Bender from Futurama pimping Al Gore's movie (really quite funny especially if you are a Futurama fan): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24

[natureboy]

many, including myself, feel the hysteria promoted by the Al Gore types are motivated for other reasons. especially when you bring in the United Nations and the promotion of an agenda. Gore, just a has been political figure has found new life along with many others that have lost influence in many other fields. additionally documents like Kyoto are filled with a simple political agenda.

 

So, you think that James Lovelock, a scientists, is motivated by other means? Have you even read his work?

[natureboy]

Natureboy said :

 

James Lovelock has said that we don't even have more than 30 years before the effects of global warming will destroy our way of life. It doesn't seem like long, but just think about our delicate our society is.

 

You need to be a bit careful quoting Lovelock in this subject. He has made some extreme statements without any data to back them up. The truth is that the data does not support the '30 years to disaster' idea.

 

No, you need to be careful. Do you even know who James LoveLock is? The man has spent his entire life studying the earth. He has made a model based on the Earth. It is a framework called Gaia theory. How can you say he has no data to back it up when he invented an entire new field of study that backs up his claims?

 

When someone who is highly intelligent and who has pretty much dedicated their lives to studying the Earth and is altruistically motivated says that we're in trouble, only a fool wouldn't at least listen and consider. Are you saying that he has spent all of these years developing his theories and doing his research only to not be even listened too? To have come up with bogus information?

 

Not only did Mr. Lovelock develop this theory, but he felt so strongly about his finding that he has traveled around the world to spread his message, saying the things that people like your self don't want to here.

 

What I like about Mr. Lovelock is that he is beyond the bickering about whether global warming is an imminent threat, which almost everyone in the science community believes. Why do you think international community is already planning for the future of global warming, looking at such things as the effects on GDP, etc. They are not stupid. They know that they are going to live to see the horrid effects of global warming, in a world where only the rich will be able to afford to move and live comfortably. In ten years, your entire conversation will be different.

 

Mr. Lovelock has come up with plans which, although radical, show that he is thinking about solutions, which much of our world isn't doing.

 

People like you won't believe it until it hits your front door. What you need to realize is that global warming is already effecting our worlds animals and plants. Watch the discovery channel specials on this. It is only a matter of time before it trickles up the food chain and changes the way we live. We haven't seen the anything yet.

[natureboy]

Icemelt's post #65 against CO2 and global warming reminds me of an "Intelligent Design" defense where the names of lots of scientists are brought forth to support ID. If there are 100,000 scientists (made up, but realistic number) studying GW and related issues and 95% agree (another made up number) that GW is caused by man there would still be 5,000 scientists that one could reference when trying to argue against GW and man being the primary cause available to be referenced and quoted.

 

People think that there is more debate on the issue of global warming than there really is, this is a similar problem that exists with evolution and "intelligent design." Much of the cause of this false belief of debate on this issue is caused by the media's belief that fair and balance means that one must always give equal air time to opposing views on an issue without regard to how much debate there is on an issue or how credible the two sides are. A really interesting paper that looks at this exact issue is: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

 

Here's an interesting article about a lobbying group offering scientists $10,000 for producing reports that cast doubt on global warming: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

 

Exxon Mobil funnel $16 million to groups and individuals to "manufacturer" reports critical of global warming (Union of Concerned Scientists): http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

 

Coal powered electric cooperative paid $100,000 environmental professor for being GW skeptic: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2242565

 

The very long history of studying greenhouse gases and global warming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808.html

Highlights from above article:

1) Irish scientist John Tyndall establishes CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the 19th century.

 

2) British engineer Guy Callendar had compiled empirical evidence of CO2 released by fossil fuels was having a measurable affect on the earth's climates by the 1930's

 

3) Charles David Keeling implements a systematic monitoring program at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. By the 1960's he demonstrated conclusively that atmospheric carbon dioxide was steadily rising (President Bush awarded Keeling the National Medal of Science in 2002 for this work).

 

4) In a 1965 message to Congress President Lyndon Johnson stated: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

 

5) In 1966 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, headed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald concluded that increased carbon dioxide might also lead to "inadvertent weather modification." Gordon MacDonald, later served on President Richard Nixon's Council on Environmental Quality.

 

The above article is a good history lesson since so many think that global warming is a new issue.

 

==Notes==

With all the mountains of discussion, articles, blogs and babble about global warming and climate change, I'm finding an extremely high noise ratio when trying to dig up reports that look at the history of this issue. Getting past the talking heads is really hard.

 

== More sideline humor ==

Cartoon: Al Gore and Bender from Futurama pimping Al Gore's movie (really quite funny especially if you are a Futurama fan): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24

Thanks for your post

[Paralith]

I have just a few comments in relation to the permafrost issue between KLB and SkepticLance. I think I agree more with KLB in that yes, plants will eventually take over permafrosted areas, but it will take a very long time - even with rising temperatures.

 

Warmer temperatures do help plant growth - it frees up water from ice or snow, and especially in woody plants it decreases the likelihood of air bubbles forming in xylem vessels, which usually takes that vessel out of commission, permanently. But temperature alone isn't enough. The biggest factor with plants is sunlight, especially intensity of sunlight. Higher latitudes, due to the curvature of the earth, simply don't get the same intensity of sunlight as do areas on the equator.

 

There's also the issue of nutrients. This is a highly limiting factor in plant growth. It might be warm, there might be plenty of water, there may even be sunlight - but without enough nutrients to build off of, especially nitrogen, plant growth rate won't increase much at all. And in colder nothern regions where there are few microbial and other agents there to decompose whatever plant matter there is in the ground, those nutrients will be trapped and unavailable to growing plants - at least in any extremely significant quantity. Of course, as temperatures increase, conditions will probably become more favorable for decomposers, but it will still take time for them to disperse into those areas and to free up those nutrients. Nitrogen fixation especially is a very high energy process.

 

Factors like these are also why I'm extremely skeptical of greening earth types of theories - yes, plants need carbon to grow. But they also need sufficient sunlight, sufficient nutrients, sufficient water, etc. A substantial increase in just one of the elements of the equation doesn't mean the rest are ready to follow.

 

Just thought I'd add my two cents.

[jackson33]

So, you think that James Lovelock, a scientists, is motivated by other means? Have you even read his work?

 

there may be many in science or meteorology, that have good intentions in stating their opinions, either direction. my personal opposition, correct or not has a motive which prefers, a non-intervention of life as it exist today. if i try and relay a point, its that nothing is going on to cause this excitement. if CO2, levels go up to say 2% of the total atmospheres or the temperature go up 5 degrees and the oceans rise two foot a year, the probability will be its natures reaction to the overall conditions, which mankind is a very small part.

i do sincerely believe we will begin a cooling trend and this may be in progress this very day. regardless it will happen, not because i predict it, but because the general cycles with in cycles happen. they have a thousand times in these current fluctuations. to me its like saying, we should all buy big cars, drive extra miles and remove the filters from factories, so we can stay warm.

even if we did, not much would happen, except may some death related problems. the usual elderly, sick and poor...

[KLB]

my personal opposition, correct or not has a motive which prefers, a non-intervention of life as it exist today.

So in other words you aren't willing to make adjustments in your life for the sake of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. and are looking for the thinest threads of "evidence" to support your desire not to change.

 

In my opinion, self interest and the innate desire to have/consume more is one of the greatest factors in causing people to go to great lengths to "disprove" the overwhelming evidence supporting global warming and man's contribution to it. To admit that global warming is a real problem and that man is a significant factor in GW would be to admit that one needs to make changes in one's life.

 

For many, it is far more desirable to deny GW and cling to whatever skeptical evidence, regardless of how thin that skeptical evidence is, while discounting the overwhelming evidence supporting GW than it is to admit one is part of the problem. This mentality my friends is the surest way to go down the path of bad science. This is true with intelligent design and it is true with climate change.

[jackson33]

KLB; i have made many changes in my life, for the benefit of my descendants.

to deny what my ancestors did for my life, as an American, would be as wrong to them as not doing for mine. my stance is based on these principles, and as the world becomes an economic success for all humanity, most the of my ancestor or my problems will cease to be. what GW and the advocates request is to turn back the clock, stop being productive, drive one vehicle, take out competition, produce what i say is good, don't smoke, don't create, don't do this and that because, I DON'T LIKE IT.

 

base your argument on dependency, creating efficiency, more wealth for the people of the planet and allowing progress then I'll lead the way. but, don't base it on some non-existed need to be in a party, a tree hugger or some ideology which promotes doing away, all my ancestors gave me or what i intend to leave mine.

[jackson33]

Iveedo; i did read post 13, thought about a reply, but thought you were kidding. the very chart below you post shows the counts of CO2, back a million years has not significantly changed.

 

then mans contributions on an insignificant amount, which it is, is just as insignificant.

 

as to St. Helen's; CO2 is produced from effects on oxygen produced by heat.

all that ash, you blanket, produce unmeasurable amounts of CO2 particles, from oxygen which did not fall with the ash. additionally all that dead matter for those hundred miles is all direction began the decay process, which by the way the process is natures No. 1 method of creating CO2, sending CO2 into the air. the actual blow off the top of a mountain, meant little.

[jackson33]

 

But that's underestimating humans isn't it? What about half of the world's arsenol of nuclear weapons detonated at once? Wouldn't that alter the climate? I'm not sure it's arrogant at all to think we can effect climatic changes. But your .0023 figure sure makes me wonder how much we do.

 

remember that .0023, is the total of mankind's efforts in the air at any one point also natures .046...methane and CO2, degrade over time if not used or processed by plant life. they are not natural elements.

 

a very large % of the worlds 1935-45 total arsenal, was used or exploded during WWII. although not what is now available the explosive poundage power was very large. there are estimates on the end results of your thought and the aftermath, but all life would not cease (tho greatly reduced) under any scenario. the problems for life are primarily in the aftermath and disruptions caused in every aspect of todays life.

 

However, were talking about natural daily lives of the human species on the planet and its effect on the climates and weather patterns. under these conditions, even with increased populations, my contention is the natural actions with-in nature take of of the equalization of effects. the major changes in conditions occurred 240 million years ago, 800 MYA and several times in theory before. however since about 55-65MYA, the planet has been stable to a degree to allow what we have today, all by this natural reaction between the oxygen and CO2 breathing life, which generates those weather and climate conditions.

 

like it or not, arrogance or not, we are simply part of the total. there is no indication our existence has changed anything or that any thing we do will alter any outcome. if anything and a real problem in my mind is an over reaction. if every human went out today, planted a thousand trees and much of our minor CO2 production was stopped, at some point in the future the effects will be adjusted to by nature. these may not be in the interest of man.

 

there is no promise of CO2, to plant life. as humans we have a 22% supply, going no where. plant life in total poundage, at least three four times all animal life and thousands of times mankind's, has a .04 to .05 %, which is degraded if not used, to draw on...the worriers are concerned about the wrong thing if a worry is required.....IMO.