What?? You mean we don't know all there is to know about climate change? I thought this was settled.. I thought the models were certain?

Nobody said the models were certian. EVER. The near-certainty is merely that we are having an effect on the climate.

S Texan,

This is how science happens. It challenges old findings with the new. Knowledge is gained. Peer review takes place. Welcome to the world of intellectual curiosity and the scientific method.

Mr. Rogers,

Science is never completely settled on anything. Ideas are developed and tested. New findings are put into the mix. Data are gathered over time. Sometimes the data continue to support hypotheses, over and over and over, and you have a scientific theory like Evolution. Science evolves as we learn.

S Texan,

Don't pull out the checkbook to pay off those credit cards just yet. This may not be good news:

"We are not sure if it will make them go faster or slower"... comparing it to "trying to figure out how a car will drive but forgetting to add the tires. The performance will be very different if you are driving on the rims."

We'll know eventually. But ice sheets 'with tires' might move a lot faster than ice sheets 'with rims'. And (as I said above) that might not be good news at all.

Kudos to the scientists who used spent months in Antarctica, in harsh conditions, to improve our understanding of ice sheet dynamics.

All the article says is that it'll affect the current results of the climate models either for better or worse. As to the impact of global warming all you have to do is look at the signifcant loss of ice coverage in the artic circle, but for that you'd have to open your eyes!

a. ARGOS buoys during the last 8.5+years have measured a trend of NEGATIVE 0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year.. see http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

b. Antarctic ice levels highest on record (32+years) during 2007. see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

c. Greenland - The second largest ice mass in the World, has increased 10% in volume during the last 60+years. see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf.

What may come out of all this, perhaps not my but others' lifetimes, may be that the Earth's wobble, it's eliptical orbit about the sun, underlying oceanic factors (in areas such as A), .....

The billions of years Earth has been in existence, and it's well known that heating and cooling of our planet has been going on for those billions of years.

It's not to say that humans have had NO impact on warming or lack thereof, but to say it's insignificant compared to what's going to naturally occur; enough volcanic activity, solar flares, or meteors/asteroids, deep sea quakes.... these can all, independently much less combined, do more damage than CO2 being belched into the atmosphere for trees, plants, and grasses to use for O2.

Some would think so much is already known that most else is fine tuning more or less; I'd propose that so little is really known, and so much spun towards financial gain, that we're still in the rough cuts at best.

Um... you need to find a better document for your c point. The one you chose says that the ice is deeper than thought near the edges because the land is depressed by a couple hundred meters, and that the ice sheets are moving faster than expected.

And your b looks solid, but you missed what happened in the North. here, take a look at the same site:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/2007-MINIMUM-AUTOPSY/

And your a, well what can I say.

this is a cooling of 0.35 x 1022 J compared to 0.81 x 1022 J warming
for 1993 to 2003

700 m depth annual
warming from 1961 to 2003 of 0.38 x 1022 J. Thus the estimate of cooling in the
present study is not out of line with past results.

In other words, yes, it cooled a bit recently, but over the long haul, it's been warming. You should really read this stuff before posting it.

AC- nice try. It would help if you actually read your own links. I just browsed quickly through one of your links and within seconds found this:

The number of days that the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area has been under the 7 million square km threshold has increased by more than 50% over the past few decades.

Cherry picking data is a fun and easy way to make your point, and I guess it makes you feel better about yourself. Does it amount to anything meaningful? No, it just shows how desperately you want to make your point.

OK

What if this climate change is all a hoax and we create a better world for no reason at all?

Would you deniers agree with this?

AC Robertson:

a. ARGOS buoys during the last 8.5+years have measured a trend of NEGATIVE 0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year.. see http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

In addition to the problems others have pointed out, that article gives that trend from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years, not 8.5+).

Belfrey,

The latest data from ARGOS has reflected a continuing NEGATIVE trend.

Dennis-816242,

The previous data was from data taken from ships water intake and thermometers being dragged behind ships. This was not only inaccurate, with limited data points, but did not take measurements at water depths. I also stated ARGOS data not the previous KNOWN inaccurate data.

Mark C-3103152,

The data reflects the ice TOTAL VOLUME not the depth of the ice at any one place. Reading comprehension is a needed plus...

You might want to read the following, AC:

NASA: Correcting Ocean Cooling

Belfrey - AC Robertson isn't interested in reading anything, unless he or she can turn it into something that sounds like it fits the denier agenda. He has been posting these misleading and cherry-picked tidbits on her regularly for years. Such obsession is not open to rational discourse.

This was corrected with the recalibration during 2008 which was the data I referenced. Some people actually keep up-to-date on the latest information.

For a more in-depth explanation of this 'squishy' ice article. see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12619342

"The survey data reveals that this add-on ice makes up 24% of the ice sheet base around Dome A, a 4.2km-high plateau of ice that represents the greatest elevation on the continent.

And in some other places, this refreeze phenomenon accounts for slightly more than half of the total ice thickness.

That means in these locations, ice is being created faster on the bottom of the sheet than it is being accumulated through snow deposition on the top."

NASA/NOAA has also corrected their temperature records when they found their NOAA-16 satallite instriment data was degrading. see http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/noaa-caught-in-temperature-fraud-satellitegate-will-deliver-a-new-blow-to-the-agw-scam/

Or the ground station data sets that have deleated numerious Russia collection points. see http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38981695/25915396-Surface-Temp-Deception

jock59801,

Keep believing that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035... Ha! Ha!

Where is the 'high altitude' hot spot, caused by the additional CO2 from man???

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) — New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm

Cherry picking is when the AGW people use:

1. A island on the tip of a river delta to prove, the sea levels are rising. River deltas SINK naturally, just like New Orleans. But IGNORE Hollands sea level data covering hundreds of years...

2. Point at Arctic ice coverage. But IGNORE the TWO LARGEST Ice masses in the World.

3. Point at the melting ice on a Antarctic peninsula, but IGNORE the INCREASING TOTAL ice volume and DROPPING temperature averages.

4. Use 1980 as a starting point for their Northern Hemisphere temperature averages. IGNORING the Mt St Helen volcanic eruption in 1980, that lowered the temperature averages.

5. Pointing at World temperature data averages. Niglecting to mention that their data stations are in 'Urbin Heat Islands' and that they have stopped collecting data from numerous Russia weather stations...

6. Using temperature data from a satellite (NOAA-16) that has degrading temperature sensors.

Wow, you're on quite a "Gish Gallop" there!

This was corrected with the recalibration during 2008 which was the data I referenced. Some people actually keep up-to-date on the latest information.

Very good, then hopefully you've also seen Lyman et al. 2010 ("Robust warming of the global upper ocean").

complicating rising-sea scenarios

I was waiting for this one.

It's quite simple folks. If the heat is there, it will melt the ice, and the sea will rise. Islands will shrink. Old maps, old aerial photos exist for comparision.

Al Gore won the Nobel for showing NYC underwater in 2006. The degree with which NYC is underwater today (5% of a century later) is indicative of how much the Earth has warmed since then.

Fieldguy:

This is how science happens. It challenges old findings with the new. Knowledge is gained. Peer review takes place. Welcome to the world of intellectual curiosity and the scientific method.

The problem isn't that their challenging old findings. It's that they're challenging old assumptions. This is the problem with AGW. It's fundamentally based on a ton of unwarranted assumptions, many of which have been seriously challenged or disproven:
Natural background CO2 levels varied with season, but were consistent across a span of years. [DISPROVEN]
The ability of the environment to absorb CO2 is carefully balanced with the natural emissions of CO2, thus man's emissions are excess and must build up over time. [DISPROVEN]
CO2 significantly magnifies it's Greenhouse effect by a complex process that increases the effectiveness of water vapor.[UNWARRANTED]
Satellites are giving accurate data and thus don't need to be checked for errors. [DISPROVEN]
Man is evil.[BIBLICAL... but for their intents and purposes UNWARRANTED]

C. Smith:

Natural background CO2 levels varied with season, but were consistent across a span of years. [DISPROVEN]

No, that's not really an assumption that climate researchers make. They know that CO2 has varied widely in the past.

The ability of the environment to absorb CO2 is carefully balanced with the natural emissions of CO2, thus man's emissions are excess and must build up over time. [DISPROVEN]

Again not true, in fact climate researchers know that a large amount of the CO2 we are emitting is being absorbed by the global system. Not all of it, though.

CO2 significantly magnifies it's Greenhouse effect by a complex process that increases the effectiveness of water vapor.[UNWARRANTED]

I'm sorry, can you clarify this? The water vapor feedback isn't something that "increases the effectiveness of water vapor", but rather it means that any temperature increase (by CO2 or otherwise) is expected to increase the amount of atmospheric water vapor, due to increased evaporation and higher saturated vapor pressure. This magnifies the effect of other forcings.

Satellites are giving accurate data and thus don't need to be checked for errors. [DISPROVEN]

Again, not an assumption made by climate researchers, who do indeed check the satellite data for errors (and attempt to correct for them).

Man is evil.[BIBLICAL... but for their intents and purposes UNWARRANTED]

Need I say it? Not an assumption generally made by climate researchers.

Global warming is causing even the mortgages to go under water... scary stuff!!!

Hmmmm Gloab Warming = Financial Sector Meltdown

Not sure they are really connected, but both are pretty messed up and will have impacts we cannot predict.

The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know.

Socrates

Well then, here also is a profound quote that fits the topic:

Bill: "The only true knowledge consists in knowing that you know nothing"

Ted: "That's us, dude!"

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, 1989

But not Mil.Gov's full intention to tithe-tax you for it! Watch Kerry-Lieberman's American Power Act now in hearings. They have buried a stealth tithe-tax on energy in the bill. You see, it's not about 'green technology', 'electric cars' or 'buildings that are living beings', in fact, Kerry explicitly scrubbed any use of funds for environmental remediation or reforestation! It's about Naked Power.

Instead your cradle-to-cremation National Carbon Tithe-Tax will be pipelined directly into the US Treasury, then used for offset tax credits to Wall Street for the Trillion Dollar Chicago Energy Exchange. Capital gains taxes the Feds recoup from this will go towards Mil.Gov benefits and retirement programs, and 'to provide rebates to eligible families', coming from an Administration that just cut $2,500M in heating assistance to fixed income elderly.

What's not to like?

Keeping your head in the sand isn't going to make this problem go away.

Matt I guess you were to smart to read the article.

Hey Guys we have a Nobel in Physics speaking here!!!

Leatherneck- so what's your point, is being smart a bad thing? Does actually understanding a problem scare you? I guess so, if you feel you have to capitalize rocket scientist.

He doesn't know Jack!

I know that Mobile was paying $20,000 to anyone who got a Denial paper published in a journal.

How else do you see money in climate study?

Yeah, the Koch Bros. money, right? Oh, they're right wing energy company barons. Never mind.

Yes, science by democracy... it's worked so well in the past right?

Of course we eventually learned the world wasn't flat and that the earth revolves around the sun.. but hey....

when are you clowns going to learn that science doesnt apply to things that havent happened yet. Science is about observing. They're guessing just like the other fortune tellers.

They are not guessing; they are projecting. If you turn the thermostat up in the house, you don't know FOR SURE that the house will get warmer. Nobody can predict the future. But does that mean that you are "just guessing" that it will get warmer?

bs detector: "Data gathering" is about observing. "Science" is about making predictions based on those data and examining how well your predictions hold up to new observations.

JJD-561872: science does vote on itself. it's called "peer review". If it's not peer reviewed then it's "junk science". This was published in "Science" magazine - one of the most intensely peer reviewed journals out there. In essence - very trustworthy based on evaluations by field experts.

"when are you clowns going to learn that science doesnt apply to things that havent happened yet."

Hilarious. That would be news to 100% of the scientists on the planet, moron.

The IPCC does not rely on data from 'peer review' sources...

Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN IPCC, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

bs - You remind me of a guy who asked why I was in R&D because everything has already been invented.

It's amazing what a sarcastic comment can cause.

jock, I think you meant to say, 'When you walk into a warm room in a house, are you guessing that someone turned up the thermostat, or was it the sun shining through the living room window, or is it the first warm day of spring?'

IPCC, of course, puts it's hands over its eyes, and says, 'the thermostat did it!' Why? Because an Energy Tithe-Tax will create public welfare tax drone jobs! The same reason 'We have always been at war with EurAsia'. Mercs and Usurists.

" Since we know climate change has occurred even before we arrived on this planet, can somebody point to me a fossil of a dinosaur in an SUV?"

This argument is so illogical I am amazed that the deniers can keep using it with a straight face. Of course climate change has occurred many times in the past. The burning of fossil fuels is not the only thing that produces CO2, and CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate, as you would know if you actually understood the science.

This argument is so illogical I am amazed that the deniers can keep using it with a straight face. Of course climate change has occurred many times in the past. The burning of fossil fuels is not the only thing that produces CO2, and CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate, as you would know if you actually understood the science.

The truth is, as the article reminds us, we know LESS about climate and related changes than many pretend to know.

We are just now learning about the Sun and water vapor and their related affects on climate.... to say the "science is settled" is intellectually dishonest and a mockery of true science.

When people say "the science is settled" they are referring mostly to the basic premise that human production of greenhouse gasses is contributing to global warming. About 97% of climatologists agree with that statement. But when we try to predict the exact form this will take, it proves to be extremely difficult. We are getting better at it, but no, we will never have it all figured out.

So if we don't know whether the temperature will rise 3 degrees or 6 degrees, does that mean we should assume it will be zero?

The truth is that the "global cooling" theory did not have broad scientific support at the time (but it got a lot more attention in the media). And both of the terms "global warming" and "climate change" have been around for decades, and both are still used by climate researchers. And of course, climate researchers know that climate change has happened without human input in the past - but the natural forcings that can cause it are not currently behaving in a way that can explain the recent warming.

"Global cooling" came from popular media after a researcher noticed aerosols (part of air pollution) prevented some heat from getting through the atmosphere and said it should be studied to see if it could cause cooling. Studies quickly showed greenhouse gasses had an overwhelming influence.

Whether you believe humans are causing warming or not; you can't belive generating more CO2 is going to make the planet a better place.

@AncientGreek:

You wrote this:

"Global cooling" came from popular media after a researcher noticed aerosols (part of air pollution) prevented some heat from getting through the atmosphere and said it should be studied to see if it could cause cooling. Studies quickly showed greenhouse gasses had an overwhelming influence.

And this certainly has been an overwhelmingly popular and quite successful bit of nonsense that has led to such things as prohibiting the use of fluorocarbon propellants in asthma inhalers that are are approximately the size of one bite of a hot dog wiener, with the consequence that the newly mandated "green" albuterol inhalers now cost twice as much as the old ones that used fluorocarbon propellants; worked flawlessly; never required cleaning; and had a usable shelf-life of years . . .

Today the "green" inhalers clog and need to be cleaned essentially after every use, and the amount of so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions they prevent is less than the natural and organic "air pollution" produced by the flatulence of a dairy cow every day, and the new "green" inhalers contain enough alcohol to register on a breathalyzer test . . .

The old and reliable albuterol inhalers cost about $17, but the new easily clogged inhalers cost about $35, and while a reasonably fast-thinking adult who happens to be near a warm water faucet probably can unclog the new inhaler in sufficient time to avoid suffocating when having an asthma attack and having trouble breathing, this is considerably more difficult for anyone--especially a child--to do when an asthma attack occurs in other scenarios, which is one of the more patently inconvenient truths at the dawn of the early-21st century, really . . .

Really! :(

Jock:

So if we don't know whether the temperature will rise 3 degrees or 6 degrees, does that mean we should assume it will be zero?

The problem isn't a 3 to 6 degree range. The problem is a 6 to -5 degree range. When your margin of error is larger than your data like that, assuming 0 is just as safe as assuming anything else in your data range.

I get a kick out of the eco crowd launching into name calling as a response to questions regarding their flawed and fraudulent studies. This proves you have no real facts to support your baloney, just name calling. Mature.

From somone with a name like yours, that's precious.

Here's one:

How can you tell if a politician is lying?

His lips are moving!

All this sciency stuff makes my brain hurt. I think I will go read my bible and then insult people who are better thinkers than I am.

Don't bother... you do a pretty good job insulting people who think differently than you. If only the world was as smart and tolerant as you....

Science is about what you measure, not what you WANT to belive to make you feel good about yourself.

I do not worship Mother Nature. She is not my goddess.

But I still cant believe its not butter. ;)

Dennis

Remove mother from Mother nature. Do believe in Nature? Nature is the force that makes up our world and reveals the processes that we observe and experience. Science trys to make sense of it. Unfortunately science doesn't always get it right.

Agreed. Science does not always get it right. So they update, and make a better model, and they are closer to right than before. Then they get more data, and their model gets better. They study, they learn, and they all agree. When CO2 levels rose in the past, tempuratures rose as well. levels today are much higher than they were 10 years ago, and it's because Humans pump out more CO2 than all the volcanoes on the Earth, combined.

When 9/11 happened and all of the airplanes of the world were gounded, scientists found a new bit of data. The average global tempurature actually ROSE that day. Measurably. And as those planes repopulated the skies, the tempurature dropped. measuably. They now call it Global Dimming. Particulate pollution blocks sunlight, cooling the Earth. This is why we didn't notice the CO2 problem until late. Because until the EPA went into effect, Global Dimming was supressing the effect of the greenhouse gasses.

But I digress.

Dennis,

Interesting concept, but what about the CO2 from the burning JetA that was NOT being introduced into the atmosphere while all the COMMERCIAL airplanes were grounded for (somebody please insert the total time here, IIRC it was more that 1 week). Military jets were patrolling more heavily than usual during this period.

So which is it, CO2 increasing temps, or "global dimming" reducing temps?

So which is it, CO2 increasing temps, or "global dimming" reducing temps?

It's both. There are a number of forcings and feedbacks that affect climate, some of them in the positive direction, and some of them negative.

See: radiative forcing components

Military jets were patrolling more heavily than usual during this period.

Dude, you seriously underestimate the number and size of civilian airplanes in the air at any given moment.

And it's not my concept. Go look it up.

I flew for my job for many years, I know how many planes are in the air at any given time, there are so many that there was no place to put them after the groundings from 9/11.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here, that the shading effect from particulates from jet exhaust in the atmosphere reduces warming more than the CO2 from the jet exhaust increases it? By that logic, automobile exhaust will have the same effect, and so will coal fired power plants, factories belching thick smoke clouds, etc...

Yes. I am saying that what the scientists discovered was a measurable effect based JUST on the airplanes. It was there,and proven. It is, in fact, a counter AGAINST warming. Not enough to stop it, but it tends to slow it down. There are many factors that were in a sort of balance before we began pumping crap into the air.

Did you know that in Antarctic ice cores you can see the difference the EPA made in the color of the ice?

That might be a logical argument if the ice sheets breaking off were the only clue for global warming, which they most certainly are not. Fortunately, we have things called thermometers.

So true Jock

My thermometer says it's colder this winter then last.

Also says last years summer was colder then in 1971 and the winter of 1986 was warmer.

Go figure Climate Changes

indepdon,

You are confusing weather and climate.

Guy

Take a look at the Ice Core that the Russians got at the Vostock Station.

It traces co2 and temp for around 420,000 years. How is that for Climate?

Can you explain the spikes in co2???

Go to:

www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/globalclimate/atmospherecarbondioxide.htm

Congratulations on your UTTER INABILITY to read a simple article, half-wit.

What did I not comprehend??

Indepdon, he's probably talking about how that linked article shows that while CO2 has varied over the period covered by the ice cores, it has varied between about 180 and 300 ppm, following glacial and interglacial changes. Meanwhile, in the past century CO2 has risen to about 390 ppm, and is still rapidly increasing.

Climate researchers know that climate and CO2 have varied int he past. Paleoclimate data are very important to their understanding of global climate. They also know that we are rapidly increasing CO2, and that the natural factors which can affect climate have not been acting in such a way that they can explain the recent temperature increase.

Well, from those ice cores we know that co2 follows temperature by about 800 years, so if history repeats itself we should see a warming of temperatures about 800 years ago. That would roughly coincide with the medieval warm period of 900 to 1250 or so. Unless, of course, you choose to believe the IPCC and Mann's hockey stick that eliminated the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Of course ,this was the ultimate in peer reviewed climate science?

Ian, you're correct that in the ice cores, CO2 generally lags behind temperature changes. That's because CO2 is not thought by climate researchers to have been the primary driver of the glacial/interglacial changes - rather, it acted as a feedback that resulted from and magnified the changes. You see, climate researchers know that other factors besides CO2 can also affect climate, such as the Milankovitch cycles in orbital forcings.

The difference is that now humans are directly increasing atmospheric CO2, and those natural forcings on climate aren't currently acting in a way that can explain the recent temperature changes.

Batty, the whole thesis of AGW is that co2 rise corellates with temperature rise,-come on,you saw Gore's docudrama- except of course that while co2 has continued to rise, temperature rise since 1998 has become totally uncoupled,or as Phil jones would say,not stastically significant. You dont have to worry about "rapid climate change",because if anything its has been cooler. It has also been wetter, at least where I live, in Autralia. But because of all the rubbish science from the climate models and people like Tim Flannery, and the Greens, we have been building desalination plants instead of dams. Mind you all that may start to change when we can get rid of our loony government. The money involved in" greening the planet" is another complication. Those same desal plants have continued to operate at 100% capacity while melbourne and Brisbane were flooded because state governments would have to pay huge amounts of compensation to the operators if they were to be shut down. Crazy world ,but that is politics, not climate change.

"We CAN evolve as civilized humans who no longer use fear as motivation."

Well, what exactly WOULD motivate people to act? Logic certainly isn't doing any good.

Meme Mine,

We CAN evolve as civilized humans who no longer use fear as motivation.

I would suggest that the motivation for addressing AGW is not fear, but rather the ever increasing body of scientific data that support the AGW hypothesis.

The problem with fear mongering is, once it's caught it actually has a negative effect. It's exactly like calling "wolf" when there isn't one. Then when one actually shows up, no one believes you.

The IPCC has lied about so many things they have lost all credibility. Their "dog ate my homework" excuses and "honest" mistakes that always skew to the worst possible consequences and revelation that "The goal of climate change is wealth transfer" have rendered them a joke.

Because of this, even credible evidence isn't trusted anymore. They did it to themselves, too many zealots believe the ends justify the means. Your comment suggests you may fall into this camp. Don't, it always backfires.

You know what the funniest part is? Climate change, and the political implications you fear, are coming.

NO kidding we are between Ice Ages, do you know what that means? It means tomorrow, a year from now, to thousands of years in the Future. Are planet will again start to cool to the point that we will have a huge ICE sheet covering most of the World. Do you understand that climate change is a natural thing. Its going to happen with or with out us here. If man made Greenhouse gases might if at all stall this Ice Age from coming then I'm all for it.

By the way between Ice Ages, hmm wonder what happens when the planet comes out of an Ice age and goes back to one? O thats right it warms then cools again wow that was hard.

Climate changes do happen naturally of course, but it's not the case that we've been in a constant state of warming since the last glacial period. The temperature rose from about 17K to 11K years ago, and then we entered a relatively stable "high" interglacial period. Studies of past interglacial periods with similar characteristics, and the orbital variations that drive these cycles, indicate that the next glacial period isn't likely to happen for 20-50,000 years.

Belfrey: Please show me where or how warm the planet supposed to warm before its too much. I have never seen this answered. How hot is the planet supposed to get and what is not normal warming and at what point is it beyond NORMAL for the Planet? What is the the average temp of the planet supposed to be?
If you dont know and the scientist dont know, then I guess all this BS the sky is falling is nothing more than a Hoax.

Hi Leatherneck,

Belfrey: Please show me where or how warm the planet supposed to warm before its too much. I have never seen this answered. How hot is the planet supposed to get and what is not normal warming and at what point is it beyond NORMAL for the Planet? What is the the average temp of the planet supposed to be?
If you dont know and the scientist dont know, then I guess all this BS the sky is falling is nothing more than a Hoax.

It's not so much about trying to preserve an "optimum climate" as it is about not causing rapid change. For the past 10K in which all of our major civilizations and agricultural systems have developed, the climate has been relatively stable (at least compared to the glacial/interglacial changes). I think you'd agree that currently, any major global change is likely to be very disruptive to our economic and agricultural systems, with many secondary effects throughout our societies. Rather than bring it upon ourselves, I'd rather give us a few thousand more years to develop and prepare before we have to deal with major climate change (be it natural or human-caused).

For the past 10K in which all of our major civilizations and agricultural systems have developed, the climate has been relatively stable.

The planet is 4 billion years old.

Human species is only 400,000 years old.

Longest recorded temp can go all the way to just 1 million years.

past 10K is a blink of the eye in Earth terms. How do you know this is not normal? How do you know this is a problem? How do you know this is not just a 1, 2, 3 or more million year cycle. Answer we dont.

The planet is 4 billion years old.

Human species is only 400,000 years old.

Longest recorded temp can go all the way to just 1 million years.

past 10K is a blink of the eye in Earth terms. How do you know this is not normal? How do you know this is a problem? How do you know this is not just a 1, 2, 3 or more million year cycle. Answer we dont.

Yes, you're right that 10K is a relatively short time, and we know quite well that climate has been much warmer in the distant past (such as back in the Eocene). Again, it's not a matter of what is "normal" for the earth, but what is "normal" for us humans. We know it's not happening naturally because we can account for the natural causes of warming and cooling, and find that they have not been acting in a way that can explain the recent warming.

normal" for us humans, exactly my point we dontknow what the Normal is. All I do know is that we were made to adapt to are enviorment. HMM wonder why that is, o thats right it will always change. Parts of the Earth that uses to be lush green land is now sand. Areas that where once inhospitable to human life can now support it. Yet you say this is man made and we are destroying the world. LOL the world can destroy itself just fine with out us. Understand we are not in control and possibly never be. Yet we can adapt, unlike most animals.

normal" for us humans, exactly my point we dontknow what the Normal is.

We have a pretty good idea of what has been the range of "normal" for the 10,000 years in which our civilizations have developed. Whether you want to believe it or not, the evidence indicates that we have the capacity to change it well outside of that range. Yes, over thousands of years it's likely that climate would continue to vary on its own as it has in the past, and certainly our species is adaptable and probably will survive it - but it doesn't make much sense to force ourselves to adapt to rapid, drastic change of our own making.

" The Earth itself spews out more greenhouse gasses from volcanic eruptions then we ever could."

An absolute lie.

" The Earth itself spews out more greenhouse gasses from volcanic eruptions then we ever could."

An absolute lie.

Truth in part.. in that the Ocean is the largest producer of CO2. If what Dan was trying to say, is that nature creates more CO2 than people.. that is in fact true.

All human activity is responsible for less than 2%-3% of global CO2 output.

Yes, the natural carbon cycle is large. So? We are not talking about the natural carbon cycle. We are talking only about what we are CHANGING. That extra 2-3% every year adds up, which is why we are now at 30% over pre-inustrial levels.

And the ocean currently absorbs more CO2 that it give off, FOR NOW. Otherwise the problem would be even more obvious by now. But as CO2 and temperature keep rising, the ocean will eventually become a source.

. That extra 2-3% every year adds up, which is why we are now at 30% over pre-inustrial levels.

This argument drives me crazy... As if the planet somehow distinguishes between our output and that of a volcano or the ocean and rejects it.... no we are simply part of the cycle now...

Also you would be surprised.. many people have the perception that Humans, and America generate 40-50% of global CO2 output.

"As if the planet somehow distinguishes between our output and that of a volcano or the ocean and rejects it"

That's not what I am saying at all. Of course it all acts the same. But we are changing the AMOUNT. And yes, it DOES add up.

In my opinion, it is not the CO2 human output that is harmful, but other things we do to reduce the Earth's ability to recycle the CO2 into O2 such as deforestation ect.

Deforestation is calculated to be responsible for about 20% of the increase in CO2 levels. That is why it has been such a prominent issue in the recent international negotiations.

Deforestation is calculated to be responsible for about 20% of the increase in CO2 levels. That is why it has been such a prominent issue in the recent international negotiations.

This is easier to solve, planting trees.. than trying to get people to stop making things and driving automobiles.... Global populations are predicted to peak and rapidly Delcine in the coming decades... I think this problem will be solved without having to destroy western economies....

Nobody said we had to destroy western economies (except the denial industry). We do need to transition ALL economies to a more intelligent and efficient future, but we should be doing that anyway. Yes, there will be short-term costs, but not like what the deniers are claiming.

Good science challenges itself. New things are learned, findings and projections are modified. Welcome to the scientific method and the intellectual curiosity that go along with it.

The scientists are not wrong, again. New data are simply being put into the AGW climate model mix. This is how science works.

Yup. Like clockwork. Carbon Dioxide by the TON pumped into the air does nothing. Nothing at all. See? Just look! The Air is clear!

The actual science indicates that human activities are almost certainly causing global climate warming, and yet the comments on here are still full of hate and ignorance. Just watch

Actually, historical data shows that increased temperatures precede increased global carbon levels.

Yup. Like clockwork. Carbon Dioxide by the TON pumped into the air does nothing. Nothing at all. See? Just look! The Air is clear!

Try complaining to nature which dumps 97-98% of all CO2 into the atmosphere...

Look no one is saying pollute the Earth... I haven't met that person yet... we all agree we should take care of our planet... we just don't all agree with the extremist who have publicly advocated doing away with democracy so global authoritarianscan make the world right.... despite that all of human activity only generates 2-3% of all global CO2 output.

"Actually, historical data shows that increased temperatures precede increased global carbon levels."

The data show that there is a positive feedback mechanism. It doesn't matter whether you dtart it with a temoperature rise OR a CO2 rise. they both act positively on each other and keep the cycle going. THAT's THE PROBLEM.

" despite that all of human activity only generates 2-3% of all global CO2 output."

But virtually all of that CO2 is reabsorbed in a continuing cycle. The important thing is the NET prodcution of CO2. The RISE in CO2 levels is much more strongly dominated by human activity.

But virtually all of that CO2 is reabsorbed in a continuing cycle. The important thing is the NET prodcution of CO2. The RISE in CO2 levels is much more strongly dominated by human activity

Who is to say that human CO2 is not reabsorbed and simply becomes part of the cycle?

The data show that there is a positive feedback mechanism. It doesn't matter whether you dtart it with a temoperature rise OR a CO2 rise. they both act positively on each other and keep the cycle going. THAT's THE PROBLEM

I believe as history shows, the earth warms and cools itself on a massive global cycle we yet to comprehendand understand. We are after all trying to study this age old cycle from a very narrow perspective.

"Who is to say that human CO2 is not reabsorbed and simply becomes part of the cycle?"

It does, but it can't keep up. We can measure how much gets reabsorbed, and in fact at least half of what we add does just that. That's great, but we still have the other half to worry about.

"We are after all trying to study this age old cycle from a very narrow perspective."

We are trying ot study it with every amount of intelligence and ingenuity the human race has to offer. And still when the scientists tells the public what they have come up with, all they get back is: "Uh, I bet they didn't think of the sun."

It does, but it can't keep up. We can measure how much gets reabsorbed, and in fact at least half of what we add does just that. That's great, but we still have the other half to worry about.

The problem is, our measurements are not 100% precise, and their margin of error is enough to negate the entire exercise....

My point, is that to make certain projections, we must have a very clear understanding of how the global climate cycle works and in reality our understanding is still relatively poor.

Knowing that to be true, I loath the humanitarian costs the "assault on CO2" would have if many of the most vocal and powerful proponents of climate change had their way.

We know enough to warrant action. We really do. Now, if you have concerns about the fairness or efficacy of some of the proposed actions, great. Join the debate. But it makes no sense to deny the science exists just because you don't like some possible solutions.

We know enough to warrant action.

We really do. Now, if you have concerns about the fairness or efficacy of some of the proposed actions, great. Join the debate. But it makes no sense to deny the science exists just because you don't like some possible solutions

I will concede we know enough to continue to study it... and as I always say, humans should find ways to reduce their impact on Earth as much as "reasonably" possible. They should do so INTELLIGENTLY.. not by hype that profits some at expense of others.. Think GE and Fluorescent bulbs which are likely to be net worse for the environment than incandescents.... and certainly LEDs.

Try complaining to nature which dumps 97-98% of all CO2 into the atmosphere...

Your numbers are a bit old. It's down nearer 60-70% now.

Volcanic activity releases 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities.

You pump a lot of carbon dioxide into your underpants, and the next thing you know, you've got a $63 BILLION PER YEAR, TSA Homeland Gestapo molesting your nether bits.

That, my friends, is how Mil.Gov, and public welfare tax drone 'science' works. Identify, quantify, crisis-ify, tax-ify, drone-ify, retire on fat Mil.Gov pension-ify.

And if you deny that 'missing link', then who is the Denier now?

In our State, according to BLS, Mil.Gov has a $500M a month burn rate, with average Mil.Gov salaries of $65,000, in a State with average income of only $25,000. That's 250% premium over Average Joe, to be a welfare tax drone.

BLS further identifies there are 22,000,000 of them, the Mil.Gov welfare tax drones, who have bankrupted America to the tune of $14 TRILLION and another $1.5 TRILLION more every year, or -$650,000 per Mil.Gov drone.

There are only 20,000,000 engineers and scientists in America, fewer than the number of welfare tax drones, and many ARE welfare tax drones. Together, they generate at best $600,000 per employee in productivity.

Using IPCC logic, and direct observation of private loss of wealth and public increase in debt, America doesn't have to worry about global warming, we will be dead busted flat broke in the toilet by 2014, and that's fact.

Kerry-Lieberman's National Carbon Tithe-Tax, ladies and gentlemen. Raw Power.

You're so silly. How about two questions...

Question: What is Anthropogenic (Man-Induced) Global Warming?

Answer: It is the theory that man’s burning of fossil fuels since the mid-1800s released carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, which increased the Earth’s average global temperature and is causing a climate catastrophe. The climate catastrophes include melting of polar ice caps, which will cause a 20 ft. rise in sea level in 100 years (Al Gore). The UN IPCC estimate is 1 ft. 5 in. Al Gore claims some Pacific atolls would submerge. Both the IPCC and Al Gore say hurricanes and tornadoes are more frequent, the polar bear population is decreasing, and CO2 is a pollutant.

Question: Is there any evidence of man-induced global warming?

Answer: No. The 0.6 degree warming of Earth during the twentieth century was due to large increases in sunspots and solar irradiance. The Sun caused the warming. During this time period, astronomers observed the Sun warming Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto. The evidence: the shrinking of CO2 ice caps, moons changing from solid ice to liquid, frozen nitrogen turning to gas etc. Man’s activity on Earth did not warm the planets. During this time period CO2 bubbled out of the warming ocean (just as it bubbles out of a warming glass of carbonated beverage) and increased the amount of atmospheric CO2. The active Sun caused both an increase in temperature of 0.6 degree, and atmospheric CO2. There has only been a 3 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 due to man’s use of fossil fuels. Scientists have computed the global warming in the 20th century, due to increases in CO2, to be a miniscule 0.09 degree. This is too small to measure since it is much less than the natural temperature fluctuations due to the variation in clouds and water vapor. The increase in temperature due to increasing CO2 levels is very small since it varies logarithmically. Hence any temperature increase in the next 100 years due to mans activity will also be too small to detect.

Obama gave $2 billion to Brazil to help them develop their off shore reserves because Soros is invested in Petrobras.

Obama also said coal "must remain a substantial portion of our energy future", again because Soros is heavily invested.

If even a progressive president doesn't take this seriously, why should anyone else?

The big fear of the EPA regulating carbon is that everything we do involves carbon. That gives the EPA power to regulate every facet of our lives. Over half the population will put a stop to that quick.

Taxing carbon will never happen. We are overtaxed as it is and making energy more expenseiv will only kill the economy. Check out the last few days if you don't believe it.

If everyone who believes in man made climate change would buy solar panels and an electric car, that would solve the problem. Their purchases would increase the volume enough that it would be economical for the rest of the population.

I'll ask again, "Where is your 100 million rooftop initiative Obama?" "Where is your low interest solar conversion loan program Obama?" Guess he hasn't heard me yet! :<O

Personally my next car will be electric but "she who must be obeyed" has nixed the solar panels for now.

DAV, the idea that other planets in the solar system are warming is one of most persistent "skeptic" canards out there, but it's simply not true. Solar inputs have been steady or decreasing slightly in recent decades, and can't explain the recent warming trend on earth. See this link.

The actions of the IPCC have poisoned the well with respect to the credibility of anything they have said or written.

Belfrey,

The historical summary of solar radiation measurements and data base developments for the United States reveals shortcomings and limitations that must be considered when using data from the NSRDB. Although the NSRDB has benefited from improved data and improved models, the uncertainties attached to much of the data are still unacceptably high. This is also true of many of the international data bases.

see http://www.solardatawarehouse.com/Data.aspx

Before you place your faith in the data for a specific collection system, you MUST understand the limitations, first. Also, realize that many systems have been up-dated over the years and many times the data does not always fit...

The lastest from NOAA - They used the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature during the past 130 years and found a good correlation with the length of the solar cycle. While the temperature data do show the enhanced greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, it also shows a departure from this trend from 1940 to 1970. This occurs simultaneously with a decrease in solar activity as seen in the solar cycle length database. see http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

The lastest from NOAA - They used the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature during the past 130 years and found a good correlation with the length of the solar cycle. While the temperature data do show the enhanced greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, it also shows a departure from this trend from 1940 to 1970. This occurs simultaneously with a decrease in solar activity as seen in the solar cycle length database. see http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

Yes, and the temperature trend has strongly diverged from the solar cycle length since the mid-1970s. No one says that solar activity has no effect on climate, but that it can't explain the recent warming of the past 3 decades.

Its warming because we are still coming out of the last ICE AGE.. HELLO how do you get out of an ICE AGE THE PLANET HAS TO WARM. How hot it will warm has never been answered....

Hi Leatherneck,

Its warming because we are still coming out of the last ICE AGE.. HELLO how do you get out of an ICE AGE THE PLANET HAS TO WARM. How hot it will warm has never been answered....

No, that's not the case that we've been warming since the last glacial period. We've been in a relatively stable "interglacial" period for about 11K years. Here, a while back I "zoomed in" on the portion of the Vostok record that shows the time since we emerged from the last glacial period:

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj182/BelfreyE/Vostok30K.jpg

STATEMENT: Pollution is carbon dioxide.

OBSERVATION: You exhale carbon dioxide.

DEDUCTION: You are pollution.

Wake up, time to die!

The Vostok Record is based on the ASSUMPTION that the ice is monolithically laid down in sheets, like rings on a tree. This latest radar research shows that ice is CONTINUOUSLY REMOLDED and trapped gases CONTINUALLY MIX. It's absurd to think that million year old carbon dioxide can't diffuse in ice, or the ratio of C14:C12 and it's uptake remains a predictable function for tying preserved tree rings to geological strata, to glassified remixed ice shields.

It's like saying D.B. Cooper had to be Ted Bundy because they found some moldy money buried near where Bundy committed his crimes. Bad science!

In fact, carbon dioxide 'records' LAG climatic warming 'records', but if it's getting warmer, plants should produce more OXYGEN, not more carbon dioxide, and now you're all turned upside down on the IPCC theory of AGW, unless there are (were) periodic cycles of massive forest fires, as we know there are when climate warms, releasing enough carbon dioxide to make it to Antarctica snow, showing that climate warming 'creates' the conditions for more 'carbon dioxide' not the 'scientifically accepted' (sic) justification to tax your energy use.

Don't forget cow farts. Massive methane.

Maybe it would benefit the Nation to have an Energy Plan? You know, a LONG TERM Energy Plan? I think NOW would be good...

Jock

There are a lot of 'smart scientist' who disagree with the Global Warming or Climate Change,whichever you prefer.

Does that mean that the 'smart scientist' that agree with Global Warming or Climate Change are smarter,or more informed, or does it mean that scientist just flat out don't know what is happening??

There are very few career climatologists who deny any human effect at all.

Here are a few that think IPCC's AGW is a fraud, see http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

It features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

Or you can read the Petition Project and see the THOUSANDS of US Scientist that disagree. see http://www.petitionproject.org/

Not sure if we'd survive a climate change that brings palm trees back to what is now Alaska.

Palm trees back to Alaska......so there is going to be a large hurricane and/or tornado that will bring the necessary seeds for this IGNORANCE you blather on about eh??!

how old are said palm trees? Remember Alaska was not always where it is now. Neither was Antarctica. It may or may not have anything to do with climate but plate tectonics.

Gouranga,

The fossil palm prints are at least 45 million years old, laid down at a time when the land now called Alaska was far elsewhere in the world.

Lune

@bbraastad:

Yes!

And there are quite a few more fascinating aspects of the transitions of matter that occur when stuff changes from one state to another (liquid, solid, gas, and plasma) . . .

The pressure cooker that cooks stuff rapidly works in a similar way, where by increasing the pressure inside the cooker, everything cooks faster . . .

At higher altitudes, water boils at a lower temperature, and while this is not a recommended experiment, so long as the water in a stainless steel pot is boiling you can set the pot of boiling water on your hand and not get burned, but the caveat to this experiment is that the instant the water in the pot stops boiling if it is touching your hand, you get an instant second-degree burn, so it is best to avoid doing this experiment, for sure . . .

For sure! :(

And another curious aspect of water is that hot water freezes faster than cold water, which is an experiment that you can do safely by getting two glass jars and filling one with cold water and the other with hot water from a pot of boiling water, followed by putting both containers into the freezer of your refrigerator immediately on the wire rack . . .

If you prefer, you can add a bit of blue food coloring to the cold water and a bit of red food coloring to the hot water . . .

Then for the next hour or whatever, check on the two water containers every 15 minutes to see how the freezing is progressing . . .

And while not being exactly the same concept, this is the way an old-fashioned ice cream maker works, where the difference is that adding rock salt to the ice on the outside of the rotating metal container in which the ice cream mixture is churning lowers the freezing point of the ice so that the water on the outside actually is below the normal freezing temperature of non-salty water and other stuff inside the container . . .

Yet another bit of water information is that one can make ice in the desert, which is the principle on which using leather water containers to keep drinking water cool in the desert is based, where the leather or whatever is slightly porous, which allows a tiny bit of the water to wet the outside of the water holder, which evaporates and transfers heat from the inside water to the outside air, hence effectively cools the inside water . . .

Lots of FUN! :)

Great! Reading a science article and now I need a beer. Thanks. Hrrmmph!

@Keira Desblens:

Thanks for providing the additional information! :)

I got the correct answer in my reply (see above), but I was more focused on the rapid change in pressure than on what it caused at the molecular level . . .

It makes sense! :)

Scfi

Ice reacts in different ways under pressure,high pressure and extremely high pressure. Just like other things.

So who knows how ice reacts under the pressure of millions of tons.

None of Marks's posts reveal anything particularly intelligent. I'm not sure he has the ability to enlighten anyone. I am, however, impressed with some of the other posters, from both sides of the argument.

Gouranga,

the models they used 5 years ago are being invalidated daily.

It would be far more accurate to say that the models we used 5 years ago are being updated and refined daily - because we continue to learn.

Even with that caveat, the dozens of validated models used by nations around the world all (without exception) show warming of 2 to 5 degrees C by 2100. And the refinements being made to these models are not major overhauls - they are almost always 'tweeking' around the edges.

So far, we've had an increase of 0.74 degrees C (about 1 degree F) since 1904. But the rate of temperature rise is increasing. We've just finished the warmest decade on record. That might seem small, but the effects are already noticeable.

If you find AGW hard to believe, just keep watching.

Ragweed allergy season in North America has grown two to four weeks longer in recent years because of warmer temperatures and later autumn frosts, researchers said.

The city of Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, Canada saw the longest pollen season, adding 27 more days in 2009 compared to 1995. Winnipeg, Manitoba saw a 25-day increase during the same period.

http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Allergy-seasons-due-to-global-warming-20110221

"It would be far more accurate to say that the models we used 5 years ago are being updated and refined daily - because we continue to learn."

Except that scientist demand people believe their data as FACT and demand that policies changing our system and way of life be established...only to find out 5 years later that they were wrong.

Ru,

only to find out 5 years later that they were wrong.

Human-caused global climate change was predicted well over 100 years ago - and is right on track.

There is no peer-reviewed evidence to refute it - and every scientific organization in the country (indeed in all advanced countries) agrees. This is not a 5-year issue. Far from it.

Even the Pentagon is drawing up strategies to deal with the unstabilizing situations that will occur around the world, as violent weather reduces food supplies, and major droughts occur from changing weather patterns.

Don't believe the scientists. Don't believe the Pentagon. Don't believe all other advanced countries.

Exactly who do you believe on this issue?

They believe their eyes and ears. They see nothing different from their childhood, it's all the same. And the Earth is such a huge place, and besides, what can a couple thousand cars do to a world so big?

Daniel,

That's not a bad suggestion, but we'd be able to detect volcanic activity with global seismic sensors.

Something interesting is going on here - but it might take some time to figure it out.