Absolutely. A self-proclaiming prophesy!

This is just a 'old school' segment of analysing markets for investments. .

With a population increase of about 2.5 million a year. Were those statistic adjusted to take that into consideration.

How many of those new air conditioner units were bought just to replace older less efficient units or other new units that lasted 1 or 2 summers before they crapped out due to poor design and junk materials?

About 5 years ago I bought a high efficiency 8000 BTU window unit to replace my 20+ year old low efficiency 8000 BTU unit I have been using forever. I spent $175 saved about $5 a year on electricity for two summers and was marginally comfortable, I would have rated it as a 5000 BTU unit myself, then it crapped out (all the plastic parts inside and out including the fans sun rotted to pieces) and I have had the old one back in service ever since.

With all the crack heads stealing the outside units and recycling them for drug money here in SWFla, the HVAC guys were installing replacement units on new homes that hadn't even been lived in yet.

New EPA laws say that now the outside unit has to be matched to the inside unit and neither can be of a different effeciency rating than the one it is mated to.

Also, they upped the minimum efficiency ratings so older units have to be replaced as a set if one of them is under 12 SEER.

Soo, down on the floor of Wall Street, the call is to BUY

Sounds like you've had all the real honest discussions on AGW you intend to have. Enjoy your mirror.

I chuckled quite a bit at your response. Pretty typical of proponents of anthropogenic global warming. Why, oh why do AGW proponents just want everyone to believe so badly without providing proof? People in general want to do the right thing by the planet. Most of us are opposed to pollution. I'm going to ask a rhetorical question. Why do you suppose AGW continues to meet such stiff opposition? PLEASE, don't give me that "oil companies (energy companies, whatever) are behind it. I have yet to encounter a news article in the mainstream media that take a contrary position to AGW. Indeed daily we are bombarded with global warming scare stories full of maybes and could-be's. The reason there is so much opposition is because it's a fraud and people know it. It's utterly shameful as it distracts from REAL pollution problems that should be addressed for public health and safety.

I'm old enough to remember the 60's & 70's anti pollution rants from the "Greenies". The establishment (gov's, businesses, older people) were convinced it was all a hoax, after all how could we possibly be dumping enough rubbish into the air/sea/lakes/rivers etc to make any difference.

Now of course, everyone is Green and what seemed radical is just common sense.

The reason there's so much opposition is that almost no one has any idea of the actual AGW mechanism. Certainly the media never report anything other than the most extreme claims from either side.

uh, yeah, I'm old enough to remember the 60s and 70s and I take issue. Just plain people set about cleaning up, removing garbage that had been dumped in the bodies of water, planting trees, picking up litter, etc. It wasn't considered radical. I still remember the TV commercial with the Native American in a chief's feathered headdress with a few tears running down his face as he contemplated the garbage in a stream, and the plant a tree commercials with John Denver singing, "Plant a tree for all the world to share." The Green movement WAS a good thing until it got co-opted by commies.

"Now of course, everyone is Green and what seemed radical is just common sense."

There is a statement that says something to the effect that "if you tell a lie long enough, people start to believe it". That is the case with "Global Warming". There is no substantial evidence that mankind causes warming. We aren't that significant in the "big picture" to have much of an impact.

Not "everyone is green" where they think about everything, or at least most things, in light of it's relationship or impact on the environment.

It is good to be cognizant of how we are stewards of this plantet Earth we inhabit and we also need to be responsible as citizens of this country's resources and ecology.

Higher temps over several years or even a decade are inconsequential in light of what really shows long-term changes. Trends become visible over 30 - 50 years or more, not over just a few years. The several years time frame is just a small piece of the puzzle.

People in general want to do the right thing by the planet.

Actually, I've found people largely want to do the right thing by their own wallets.

And don't forget: Corporations are people, too!

include government representives, and you'll have everyone covered

The temperature data, seen as a digitised signal is an approach I used to make it easier for engineers (that have a fair grasp of sampling and its limitations) to visualise what I said. Please read it again (and again) and if you don't understand something, or something is not clear, just ask. S.M.

Good analogy, but it's based on the wrong assumption. There is in fact a data stream going back millions of years and a quick search of the inter web will find it.

There's a whole lot of clever people who've been researching this topic for decades and in the manner of academics fighting and knocking each other down, what's emerged is a broad consensus that some thing's going on.

If you do have some good ideas re longer temp cycles, Nyquist sampling etc all you need to do is get together with someone in the field, who has enough some credibility, and publish some papers.

Of course, if you've already decided you (with no experience in the whole climate modeling field) know better than the actual experts, it's best to put it all down to a conspiracy, perhaps driven by the evil Al Gore.

climate models are worthless. Not just my opinion. Real climate scientists say so. And the reason is obvious to real scientists. It is an extremely complex system and models don't account for the variables. That is why none of them ever work out.

It seems that one qualification for a "real scientist" is that they agree with you.

And the ironic thing is, this can be applied to both groups. Each trying pull a discreet answer from their opposition.

A real scientist loves science for science's sake. The phonies (Hansen, Mann, Jones) love money and will stab science in the heart for money. I have no respect for them. There are, I was dismayed, but not surprised, to find out, a disheartening number of scientists and scientific organizations and publications who have stabbed science and their fellow scientists in the back FOR MONEY. In fact, 49 NASA scientists and astronauts, HIGHLY respected men, jointly wrote a letter to NASA director in protest of Hansen. Hansen violated NASA policy with his continuous public speaking in which he claimed the science of AGW was a done deal, which is not NASA's official position. They said he gave science, scientists, and NASA a "bad reputation. Hansen's supervisor, Dr. Theon, chastised him publicly for falsifying data, manipulating data, refusing to tell where his data came from and refusing to disclose the particulars of his models so that independent scientists could verify them.

I will agree that climate modelling is complex and not all variables are yet accounted. One problem variable that is highly overlooked is the release of hydrates from ocean disturbances. We saw what a small disturbances caused by man can do in the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine what nature is doing. Yet no one is attempting to monitor these disturbances for methane releases. The Storrega slide is 8000 years old and it has only been in the last three years that anyone has been able to find chimneys of releases of CO2 not methane. The reasons are plenty but some has do do with the ready conversion of CH4 to CO2. The Storrega slide was very large between Norway and Greenland. Imagine the releases from such earthquakes as the recent one in Japan or when the Tsunami hit the Indian Ocean. Yet these releases are not even included in the models. How could they when they are not monitored?

The complexity of the measuring and observations required are the biggest reason it is hard to believe the science when they try to make dire predictions. Man may be a small issue but even if we went back to cave dwellers, I fear the earth will warm or cool regardless (despite anything man can do either way). If the proponents want to get the attention of everyone, they need to stop yelling at us that the sky is falling. I would still not throw out the baby with the bath water. The models just need much better understanding and interpretation.

I am glad we have all enjoyed the "tongue in cheek" humor in this post. It does show this is still a hot issue and will continue to grow in importance as we seek "conclusive" proof the global warming is, or isn't, real. Personally, I do not believe there is proof that mankind is contributing significantly to global warming. However I believe the probability is high that we are and we should be doing something about it.

Thanks for all your comments. I respect each and every opinion expressed here and encourage you to continue to provide this important feedback.

Larry Butz

Read recent issues of the Environmental Update newsletter I publish periodically

Sigh

The tongue in cheek humor is appreciated but denial is not a long river in Africa. It is not a theoretical extrapolation that humanity burning of fossil fuel is responsible for the rise in CO2 levels on this planet. It is a measurement that has been repeated many times. This is known as the Seuss effect, for the Austrian chemist who first measured this decrease in C14 until we nuked the air with atmospheric nuclear tests.

You're absolutely correct. This one pair of scientific reports only shows that humanity is responsible for the recent excess of carbon dioxide to exist in the atmosphere. However, there are many here who won't even acknowledge that we have or are even capable of globally changing this facet of our planet.

Just look at your reply. You know fully well that statistics can only reveal correlation. Statistics can never prove causation, yet proof of causation is obviously the only thing that can persuade you.

If the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica disappeared would that statistic imply to you that the Earth is warming?

See, there you go again. You immediately jump to the conclusion you prefer at every datum that I offer. You are not being scientific or open minded. Everyone has their irrational fears. You cannot rationalize an irrational fear.

Make it simple. What is your claim here?

_{My my my. I'm sorry that my universe precluded me from responding in a timely fashion to this thread. This is because my point with you, AH, parallels exactly Larry's point in one of his earlier replies.}

My claim here is that politics is clouding our discussion to the point that sound, reasoned pro versus con debate cannot be made because you presume a conclusion before the presentation, let alone the examination of any evidence. In a word you are biased beyond reason.

I disagree and strongly agree with many aspects that you've said here.

I disagree that the facts and research I've presented are very weak evidence to the points I was trying to make. They are very strong evidence to the points I was making that there is tangible evidence that the Earth is warming and that our use of fossil fuel is globally changing the balance of atmospheric CO2. (I did not finish the latter argument and will later after work.)

I strongly agree that the politics has made it virtually impossible to make global warming a reasoned discussion. Just look at the pile on that has filled this initially "tongue in cheek" thread. As for how to change this, I can only change myself. I will try to provide cited scientific data and analysis for the facets I believe are proven. Please recognize that I am only proving the facet and not any other grand idea. I will stride to indicate what I believe to be a valid or invalid conjecture from proven facets as my opinion. There will be many gaps between the facets I can prove. Others have proven many other facets, too. Likely some proven facets will disagree with my conjectures because I, like everybody else, cannot see or analyze the whole picture.

Thank You. I appreciate an acknowledgement of my efforts.

I agree that my analysis does not quantify how much global heating will occur from the anthropogenic CO2 contribution. That requires considerably more analysis than simple linear or exponential relations. I sadly do not expect this forum can respectfully tolerate the time and details to generate a plausible number. I am not saying that anyone should take my word on this. I'm saying that this analysis is available to be scrutinized by anyone willing to investigate it. I provided data and references for the parts of the global warming debate I feel qualified to make.

I believe (notice that this is an opinion) that a key problem of the entire global warming debate are the vast number of "red herrings" brought into an amateur discussion that never get methodically challenged. Instead bits and fragments of competing study results are recalled from memory to support one perspective or another. Let me now demonstrate what I believe should be done by examining the Milankovitch cycles that jerrrys brought to this debate.

The image and the link are once again the Wikipedia site information on this topic. The cycles of this celestial mechanics of motion have periods of 21,000, 26,000 and 41,000 years. I copied the timing diagram from the Wikipedia site because it includes the maligned Vostock ice core extrapolated temperature data and the extrapolated sea level from fossil benthic foram data. Now unless one expects our use of fossil fuel to last for many more millenia, any changes in climate that happens during our use of this energy source cannot be attributed to the Milankovitch cycle. What is very interesting is that the chart includes the calculated seasonal insolation (Q) from the Milankovitch cycle. The wave form of Q does not appear to me to be the dominant controller of either the Vostock temperature or the benthic sea level. The Milankovitch cycle is not only too long of a cycle to be a factor during our use of fossil fuel, it appears to not have ever been the domminant effect on the global temperature of this planet. I believe the Milankovitch cycle is a "red herring" in this debate.

However, there is one significant point that many will overlook in this chart that I wish to point out here. The temperature change presented by the Vostock core data shows a Δ3K. The proper temperature scale should be an absolute temperature scale reading for analysis. This deviation is about 1% (aka ±0.5%) of the absolute temperature. It does not take a big difference in the energy absorbed or lost by this planet to make a significant change in climate.

You demonstrate convincingly why use of Wiki articles for science is a poor idea. ANYBODY can put whatever they want in a wiki article. I would never quote one as a source even if it supported my position. I wouldn't call Milankovich cycles a "red herring" or any other derogatory term you wish to use to discount and discredit. The actual work began in the 1800s. It was put forth when there was no politicization of climate research. Milankovich put in many years on the mathematics of the theory as there were no computers when he began his work. He proved his point, showing direct correlation between the SUN and earth's relationship to it and temperatures (climate) on earth. The SUN always has been and most likely always will be THEE Primary driver of climate on planet earth. The research was so thorough, having been ongoing since the 1800s, that by the time Milankovich and company published their results and the results showed that a new 90,000 to 100,000 year period of prolific glaciation could be expected pretty much "any time" (in geologic terms), the mainstream media got all hysterical with the news and scientists were coming up with all kinds of crazy ideas to stop the oncoming ice age, including using nuclear energy to melt the glaciers and spreading coal dust over the ice to absorb the sun's heat instead of reflecting it back into space. Nobody was arguing against Milankovich's conclusions. His work had already been heavily scrutinized by INDEPENDENT scientists and accepted. I stress INDEPENDENT because AGW proponents do the equivalent of grading their friend's homework. Indeed they are hostile and uncooperative with any INDEPENDENT confirmation or attempted confirmation of their research and/or conclusions. The AGW proponents like to stress "peer-reviewed;" code word for "friend-reviewed."

The dramatic changes in climate such as the MWP and LIA were both accompanied by variations in the sun's output, greater output in the case of the Medieval Warm period, and reduced output in the case of the LIttle Ice age. There are, of course, other factors involved in climate. The next most major factor being the ocean currents, which also move in cycles, cycles of approximately 60 years in both the Atlantic and Pacific. These have both turned or are in the process of turning now and the effect will be COLDER weather, particularly winters. I think we just saw that in Europe. The Atlantic and Pacific aren't in lock-step, but they are very very close. Neither you nor anyone else will ever make an accurate climate model. It is way too complex with way too many factors involved. What is for certain is co2 is irrelevant. HISTORY proves that most conclusively.

THEE big concern should be chemical pollution with heavy metals and various chemical toxins and invasive species, etc., rather than Co2 which is not now, nor will it ever be, a driver of climate.

So if you don't like the data I cite, you really should cite a source you do like at the very least. This way we know that you are not making up data to fit your opinion. If you bother to follow my latest link you will find a different Milankovitch page that also compares the Vostock ice core temperatures to the Milankovitch cycle. In figure 2 this webpage claims that the ice core and Milankovitch cycle correlates. I don't see the correlation.

Regardless of this correlation or not, the shortest period this Milankovitch webpage identifies is 26,000 years. The difference between now and the earliest recorded human civilization is only 5,000 years. The Milankovitch cycle is such a slow rate of change that any deviations directly measured or observed by humanity will not be from the Milankovitch cycle.

GA. Very clear explanation. However, I still have a problem with the degassing that occurs within the oceans itself not being sufficiently accounted in the models. We have significant degassing from underwater volcanism and from hydrates. In my previous post I referred to the Storrega slide that actually occurred 8000 years ago between Norway and Greenland. Yet it is only been the last few years that anyone could find evidence of these unstable plumes of methane and CO2 still being released.Still the monitoring of the release of methane and CO2 from these underwater sources is woefully poor. Yet these releases may be very high. The recent Haiti disturbance, the Japan disturbance, the Indonesia disturbance are a few examples where little is known of these releases. isotope ratios may not be a good tool in such circumstances. Most models seem to account for only a small portion of these releases. We also do not have a handle on any oscillations of these disturbances. Man is a contributor to atmospheric CO2 and only the most ardent of denier will maintain such stance. My stance is hedged simply because no one has answered the underwater releases sufficient as of today. If man has a somewhat weaker contribution (mother nature being much larger), correction may be impossible or very difficult. I am stuck for time or I would delve deeper. I continue to add my opinion and am in a position to change such opinion if someone can show me the light. Great comment from you Redfred.

Thank You.

I only had the time to glance at your hydrates link but it does mention that some of the old deviations in isotope levels are likely related to volcanic disturbances. Knowing now that the re-stabilization time constant of today and presumably the past is about 25 years we can safely say that the volcanic disturbance was within 125 years of that carbon sample being stored. When I get more time I will review your links.

Despite the depth of my analysis here, I completely forgot to make a key point. Contrary to what many global warming alarmists wish to recognize, the 25 year decay time constant into the biomass, oceans and any other CO2 absorbers means that carbon sequestration is advisable only if we continue to consume fossil fuel. Five time constants after we stop adding to the CO2 level the planet CO2 level will again equalize.

Now I am convinced that the global economic pains from an abrupt stoppage of the use of fossil fuels are not worth returns of returning to within 1% of the CO2 level in 125 years. At the same time people that will be negatively impacted by global warming will need significant help from people who benefit from fossil fuel usage. This last aspect is where international politics must come into play. As we all know when politics at any level must be considered, often rational thought leaves.

I have to agree with AH on this.

The problem we have now of is showing proof, is that one can get buried in the proof of statistics, observations, data collection, ect...., to a point that it takes a career to go through it.

If that isn't bad enough. The proof can get selective, where the proof can support both sides on what actually is creating GW.

That is what I always felt is the debate.

"Even global warming alarmists don't deny that temperatures rise FIRST, then co2 levels increase .. " Really? Any evidence for this statement?

Your parent post to this one the response has been the clearest lead I have ever seen. as well as your response on this post.

This isn't a secret. Instead of asking me for proof, you can do what I do, find the answer yourself the same way I do, with my computer and the internet.

That carries more weight of what I have experienced. From other posts of just believe or show me the data, Of course references are important to validate, but your reference of Vostok is plenty of direction to get one that truly has an interest, get off their butt and look. That is where I have learn the most from.

And for that, I do have to you a GA, for two reasons, one of the direction of Vostok, And two for the motivational push.

People have to DEVELOP their own conclusions, and not parrot a group.

Sadly enough that asking for proof is what causes the greatest amount of trouble and arguments.

The problems I see largely comes from the "Just believe" types where anyone who questions them or asks for data and references to why they believe automatically gets labeled a denier and thusly there is no reason to provide proof because they are not a believer.

The second part of this problem comes from those people asking for references and data simply because they are curious or skeptical and want to learn why or what made that person so rigidly believe in the first place automatically getting labeled deniers when all they wanted is more information so that they can make up their own minds about the overall relevancy and validity or the present data and information that is at hand.

I am a skeptic not a denier. I know the climate is changing just as it always has. I however do not see these changes as all bad either. The world will not come to an end and all of humankind will not go extinct in one fell swoop either. From all the data and information I have seen so far from my perspective I see I have potentially far more to gain from these potential changes than I have to loose.

Because of that view that I have more to gain than to loose is why I am against jumping on the gloom and doom for all band wagon. Sorry but being I see gains from this that's why I fight the theoretical changes being proposed. I don't want a lesser future for me because it's convenient or gainful for someone else other than me and those around me who I care about.

Bring on the rain, the drought, the wind, the snow, the sun, the clouds, the food and fuel shortages, and whatever else you fear will inconvenience your life style. My life style is built on those things and has provisions to handle the extremes of all of them and in many ways put each of them to work for me for my own advantages and gains!

(BTW, I have a good bulldozer and a backhoe now too so bring on the raiding hoards and looters as well. I can dig mass graves with ease now and all that meat protean from the dead bodies will just make my garden and crops grow that much better. )

Jerrys --

Much of what you say is stuff I've seen on-line and in print elsewhere. But I have to say, your presentation is one of the clearest and most succinct discussions I've seen. GA.

I like your implied point that if people were truly open-minded, they'd be looking up this stuff themselves. (For example, NY Times economist Paul Krugman never provides links to the articles he discusses.)

Nevertheless, I'd like to see you do a blog entry yourself where you discuss these points in more detail and take the time to link to the articles you mention.

Hi Larry (please excuse my informality),

"Personally, I do not believe there is proof that mankind is contributing significantly to global warming. However I believe the probability is high that we are and we should be doing something about it."

You've go me a bit lost on that one. Is it not time when must nail our colours to the flag (Brit idiom). Proof may never come to be, but as with many courts we might be able to say 'beyond reasonable doubt' (and on that basis, action taken).

Nice intro blog - I hope you will add further. Rather late here, so I'll have to read the newsletter later.

Kris.

Hey Kris,

Yes, I personally believe that proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" and action needs to be taken. Even in a court of law (GB or US?) would the truth emerge?

Larry

Thanks for getting back to me, Larry . Very late here, so I need time to digest and consider. Good to have you onboard.

This article refers to window ac which are made mostly in China, ~95% of global production. The remaining 5% come from Asian countries such as Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia and VietNam.

I agree that the title of the referenced article is misleading. It refers to the seasonal cycle which naturally peaks in summer. The point the author was actually making is this is the highest peak in the last three years...which is not particularly significant but does captivate interest in a topic that has high emotional appeal.

I do wholeheartedly agree with another post made referencing the politicization of the global warming issue. This is unfortunate. It is a tough enough issue already without throwing it into the meatgrinder of politics. Any ideas on how we could de-politicize this issue and put it back into the arena of a fair debate between the scientists and engineers who can argue the facts for all of us to see and comment on?

OK, I agree. I'm getting a little starry eyed at the moment, but if you don't reach for the stars you won't get past the treetops.

Larry

Thank you for the (lack of) reply. Google 'Oscar Wilde' next time you reply and quote stars. I have just unscubscribed from this one.

If people really cared about 'global warming' they'd leave Vermont!:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/09/save-the-planet-get-out-of-vermont/

Over the course of a year, homes that primarily use air conditioning consume less energy than homes that primarily use heating.

Damn! Shut down Canada just when we are about to benefit from global warming. That ain't fair. It is hard to argue against global warming if in the end we get warmer and Canada is a net winner. I just planted my banana trees. Now if you want to push for an ice age, the USA will have to look out for the illegals from the Great White North.

Geez-o-pete. There's plenty of you folks already here, aye.

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

As an atheist, I respect evidence. The evidence I see is that humans have added so much carbon dioxide to the air that it is raising global temperatures to a level that will seriously and negatively affect humanity, and the rest of the ecology. The politicization is the fossil fuel industry buying out legislators, our media and our top psychologists to save their profits. The economics is that world standard of living is going to drop a lot because of drought and heat stress on agriculture, flooding and fires, and extreme weather events. We won't respond in time because our rational responses are blocked by our culture of competitive greed over cooperation with other humans. We're all in the same sinking lifeboat Earth, but we think only the other end is sinking.

I like evidence. Put yours on the table. I want to see it.

Anybody remember Milankovich cycles? The global warming alarmists first tried to ignore and dismiss Milankovich, et al, and then resorted to acknowledging same and attempted to graft their AGW religion onto the foundation of Milankovich and company.

Or maybe the aircons have got cheaper and more can afford to buy!

With regards to global warming altogether, I don't know either way but our Aussie government seems convinced it's happening. So much so that as of July 2012 we are paying carbon tax! Yes that's true. We bad Aussies polluting the world are getting taxed...well the big companies anyway, but they in turn will pass the cost to us.

So is the authorities pumping this idea only to introduce another means to top up the piggy bank?

It's often forgotten that the actual climate scientists reckon we'll need > 30years of data to see if there's an actual change going on.

The fact that global temps have risen a bit proves nothing we'll need to see what happens long term.

However, based on their models of how the earth's climate systems work it looks like CO2 will have an effect, how much is open to debate. Anyone claiming last weeks hot or cold spell proves something is mistaken.

Unfortunately the media sell more by putting out inflammatory headlines and have no interest in promoting any sort of balance, so we'll continue to see the "sea level to rise 100m by end of decade" drivel.

A 3-year high? I don't think you can prove anything just looking at the last 3 years.

No, especially in this economy. It could simply be that, due to lower incomes, people put-off buying new A/C units over the past few years, but now their old units have failed and they've had to buy new ones. Hence the recent surge is merely due to delayed expenditures.

I take a different approach to AGW _{God how I hate these acronyms}, I want to know if we can prove that CO₂ does not cause global warming, because if it does, and if we continue to produce it, we may well hit the point of no return and our atmosphere become like that of Venus.

What kind of proof do you actually need or require?

And if that is supplied, would you accept it?

The Grand Canyon has flooded five times in its existance. None of the times it flooded, man was around to see it. The water came from the polar ice caps. Global warming caused it and it will again. There is nothing man has or can do about it.

I got only two things I have to say about tha'at.

1. It would help if you have references to that, otherwise that is nothing more than a statement.
2. and I am not the one requesting proof

http://www.t-rat.com/Pages/GeologicalHistGrandCanyon.html

I'm at work and don't have much time to look, but maybe you can read this while you're waiting on a bus.

Cool link!

I have been there, but not that long ago. :)

Why the hell did I put the crack about Venus in there, now it is being used as a straw man. I don't care how Venus became hot, only that with a permanent cloud cover, it cannot go back.

My point was that the emphasis on proving that CO2 does cause global warming is backwards. We need to know that it does not cause global warming, to find the single negative that negates the theory.

I have to search, I had a chart once that showed something other than yours, I don't remember where I put it.

I don't care how Venus became hot, only that with a permanent cloud cover, it cannot go back.

Wasn't you that asked for proof? Nothing better than a comparison.

If you are going to reply to my posts, do me the courtesy of reading them first. I just picked Venus because it cannot go back, it is beyond the point of no return.

I hope that we are not responsible for GW but if we are, there is the danger of passing the tipping point. While there are many indicators that add to the theory that we are responsible, it would take only one negative to disprove it. I think we should be looking for that negative.

As far as the courtesy, if your offended from me actually reading your post, that I see no reason to apologize for..

Yes I was replying to your reference to your post #60.

this is sounding like tit for tat and as far as courtesy, thank you for actually finally responding though indirectly from my post #63 to you.

That is the problem, proof of GW is not discreet, not black and white, yes or no. it is very grey. and IMO that is no proof either way. So proof is hard to present, unless you pick a side, and use selective data.

And as far as looking for the negative, I not sure I understand your meaning of negative.

I feel, one should narrow it down, how? no one has the answer to that including myself.

Maybe instead of looking at what is causing GW, look what is not causing GW. get rid of the distractions, would this help. I can't answer that.

"If and when the climate scientists can explain what caused the last ice age and why it ended....." It's called Milankovich cycles. The earth's relationship to the SUN, tilt on its axis (it varies), distance from the sun (it varies) whether it is further from the sun in the summer or winter... and variations in solar output (they are mostly cyclical with apparently some surprises from time to time).

It is well documented (by VGW scientists probably) that Venus warming is venusiansgenic. It's settled. Don't start that debate again! S.M.

There may be global warming, but it is all up to our sun, not humans..!!!

My high school science taught me that warmer air holds more water. So if the earth warms, the balance of the amount of water in each of the phases will shift from solid (ice bergs & ice caps) to liquid to gas (atmosphere). Water in the atmosphere blocks energy from the sun so that it cannot warm the earth's surface. (Cloudy days are cooler than sunny days.) It is an ingenious self regulating feedback system.

We also know that if we fill a glass full of ice and then add water or scotch up to the brim so that the ice rises above the brim that if we get distracted and don't consume the contents and let the ice melt that the contents does not over flow the glass.

We also know that the volume of the oceans are much greater than the volume of the frozen water in the polar caps and the volume of the atmosphere is much greater than the oceans. Alarmists that say that the oceans will rise when the polar caps melt tend to ignore the these universally know scientific principles and leave them out of their models.

Alarmists that say that the oceans will rise when the polar caps melt tend to ignore the these universally know scientific principles and leave them out of their models.

Your principles are not correctly stated. For example, water in the atmosphere is a well-recognized greenhouse gas, and does not have the net effect of cooling, as you incorrectly imply.

But more importantly, uneducated alarmists are not scientists. I am not aware of any scientific model for seal level rise that leaves out the few parts of your post that are facts. To which model are you referring? Sea level rise is occurring mainly from ice over land melting, not ice that is already supported by water. Your glass of water analogy is taken into account in every model of which I am aware. Climate scientists are not as profoundly stupid as your "alarmists" who are unacquainted with the most basic science.

I gather than you (like many Fox News viewers) are unaware that Antarctica is a land mass.

I watch fox news and I have always known that Antarctica was a land mass as is Greenland. Many fox news watchers are far more well informed than the true believers at MSMBC.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap09/rossow.html
This website states that clouds both cool, and warm the earth, but the net effect is "cooling". So 'who' are you going to believe and 'why'?
My point is the exact same one that you have been spouting, that you yourself reject the "facts" that don't fit your political view point, because you have already made up your mind. That is as good a place as any to end this thread, as it is going to settle nothing. Ya'll can keep it up if you want to but I have had enough.