Carbon dioxide does indeed have the ability to absorb solar radiation, as does every other element and compound.

Global Warming makes me sleepy...................^snore

This paper I'm linking to here is the most comprehensive I've seen...it goes into detail about all the forces at work here....read it, then talk to me....

http://www.randombio.com/co2.html

Quotes from the paper:

"This misleads the reader into thinking that CO2 levels have undergone a huge increase when in fact, CO2 levels have only increased by 23.7% since 1900."

(23.7% since 1900 is huge!)

"According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].

At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255."

(Current rate = no population increase, no more cutting down of the rain forests, etc.)

"Thanks to many readers for pointing out mistakes and making constructive suggestions."

Yes, and there are a lot more mistakes that need correcting. Methane release from the melting permafrost is not constant, but accelerating. Everything we do that releases CO2 also releases water vapor. none of that is considered by the author because it goes against his stand against global warming. But why let facts get in his way?

You wrote, "Current rate = no population increase, no more cutting down of the rain forests, etc."

Current rate usually means that the trend continues at the same rate of change.

If you have a graph of that change and the rate of change is linear, then all you need to do is extend that strait line at the current line's slope.

If, however, that rate of change is non-linear (curved), then the trend will continue to follow that curve.

The graph that I assume you are referring to appears to become linear for the last 35 years, so it it reasonable to assume that if nothing changes then the predicted data is a reasonable prediction.

The variables that created the last 35 years of data on the graph are changing with respect with time. Population is increasing, deforestation is actively taking place, etc.

If the graph is correct, then the predicted trend is very likely to be a valid prediction.

The biggest issue that is feeding the CO2 debate is the fact that the CO2 levels should be way higher than actually if all man made CO2 was not absorbed by nature.

This Carbon sink as it is called has depleted somewhere in last decade and since then the rate of rize is going up.

The full CO2 cycle is not yet understood: climatologists admit this and are studying the issue.

Those who will loose power when it all needs to be done different use this as claiming the whole issue is a scam.

They can't prove either that man has no influence, except some extreme groups who found it in their holy books. But for seriously vaste regions in the world these are the only source of information.

Well looks like the only solution to save the world is to eliminate the entire human race. The the fauna will over grow everything, O2 levels will increase and so will the size of the animals, until the the next introduction of an intelligent alien lifeform to mess it all up again.

What do you want to talk about? Details of forces at work are simply pieces of a puzzle, analogous to analyzing a film of a runner and declaring that you understand what makes him fast.

That paper explores, with terms like likely, to some extent, it is estimated (with no footnotes), the validity of this opposing data has been questioned (by whom?),and most interesting, is the assertion that the impact of CO2 on warming is not related to the increase in water vapor levels, which is in turn partly caused by increasing CO2 levels. Essentially the author is accepting the causal effect that CO2 has on temperature increases, but rejects the increase water vapor levels caused by that increase as an additional (and greater) contributor to the total effect. Furthermore, climate change methodology does not rely on theoretical totals of temperature increase to create hypothesis. It is clear that climate instability is greater when regulatory energy exchange is inhibited, no matter what the cause.

I could go on and on. I admit that there could be no issue with CO2 levels, re climate change. But we are in a highly accelerated temperature increase pattern right now, and it is the most likely culprit. Historical (the last 100 years) records are absolutely indisputable, and the increase is far grater than I believe it is dangerous. I also freely admit that a reduction in CO2 emissions is like to correspond to a reduction in atmospheric toxins, which is an even more pressing issue. Search Richard Muller to understand why it is no longer a debater over whether e man madCO2 is causing Climate change. If you want to ask why it matters, lets move on to that debate.

I question the data set to measure average global temperature. How does one randomly choose locations to measure the temp? Probably divide the globe into 1000 equal areas and randomly choose a lat lon location within each and use equipment to take the data. Seems most of the sights are near man made objects. I've seen pictures of one in San Diego that is near a condenser from an AC unit.

MIT has some good models and questions yet to be answered on their site.

I admit to the possibility that there is a temperature rise due to man, but the proof is far from in and I'm a skeptic.

We can't agree using this paper. It seems a little biased politically, i.e. "This validates suspicions that, if environmentalists get their way with CO2, a campaign to force us to reduce water vapor could well be next." I'll take the IPCC, personally.

You said "The Sun is in an extended period of increased activity."

This source says that the sun is in a period of decreased solar irradiance.

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

What is the cause of this discrepancy?

I know that it upset you that I said you were obstreperous and that I compared you to a 1969 rock and roll character. But did you really have to prove my point so quickly or are you really blind. Lets compare MaxT data set with your rebuttal data set. First I repeat the data from MaxT.

Lets start with identifying the range of the data presented here. The solar irradiance data moves from about 1365.4 to 1366.1 W/m^2 over a time span just over a century of years.

Now here is the data you choose to rebut with that has the longest span of time.

This is the most recent three months of daily data. Any trend or slope response of your rebuttal data will be at best part of a single data point of the earlier graph. Additionally the actual solar irradiance range in your rebuttal data is from 1360.3 to 1362.2 W/m^2. This entire range is lower than the earlier plot. So instead of a rebuttal you've provided confirming data, yet your comments claim the opposite.

Tommy can you hear me!

Nice work, but you pulled the wrong plot. It's the big one on the bottom, but I have noticed a trend of you pulling this type of stuff. It's called dishonesty.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you, however if you're going to call him a liar, then pull up the correct graph for us.

What I interpret his post in saying is that the two graphs presented are only depicting a small part of a big picture and the third graph giving an overall showing that the trend goes up and down over time.

I liken this to the stock market. The stock market is in a sideways trend and has been for the last 12 years and will continue until 2016 or 2017, at which time will make a huge climb. The stock market has done so consistently since 1933. All the up and down you see and people panic over them are just reactions. Since the stock market is going to go back up as much as it dropped during the sideways trend, history dictates this and has been consist since 1933.

1. I believe Fred was wrong when he clearly cited the wrong graph for his rebuttal and then resorted to insults.

2. The correct graph was already cited in the post you responded to. Look at my initial post #153, follow the link, and the large graph is the one I was citing. It has always been there for everyone to see.

Your plot ends just after 2000...we are nearing the peak of the 11 year Maunder cycle...your chart is incomplete for today, more than a decade later.

See it. Thanks.

By the looks of it, we've been at the same level since 1950, with a drop equivalent to the mid 1800's in 1980 then back to 1950's level again. Looks pretty inconsistent. Basically speaking, always fluctuating. What is causing the valleys to occur? There is a point where readings became pretty tight, then it breaks out into sporadic again.

Thank you for pointing this out, there are so many posts on here already, I wasn't going to open up everyone's links.

This is what upsetting is which chart to believe, Maybe if I was an accountant for Arthur Andersen, I could understand this.

SolarEagle, thank you for posting that article. I plan to reread it a few times! Being a "computer guy" I put a lot of faith in models that can be proven by predicting the present state of something by the use of known past data, and also reversing the process by input of current data to prove past "conclusions". The concluding statement says a lot! A lot more work is certainly ahead!

"Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations."

It depends

may be a better answer, depends on the occasion.

Well I have to again reluctantly disagree with jerrys. The FIRST question is the one atmospheric scientists have been working on for decades namely "What are the mechanisms that drive the Earths climate systems?"

Based on that research the majority consensus view is that the Earth's system is sensitive to CO2 levels (as well as many other things) and that Human activity is increasing CO2 levels.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is a value judgement that is outside the scope of science, it's political and certainly open to wide discussion.

As for jerrys' rant about "if you want the truth.. make sure the study makes no mention of CO2 ..", I think it shows he's trying a bit too hard. There's a small gap in the emission spectrum from the Earth coresponding to the absorbion/reradiation frequency of CO2, reducing that window even slightly will increase the temperature, higher temp means more water vapor and so on resulting in a new higher equilbrium temp

I think we have a fundamental difference in how we approach the issue.

I want to understand the mechanism and the general explanation, available in many websites, seems plausible while the data from many studies over the years seems to point in the same direction.

You however seem to already know the answer and collect a huge array of factoids to "prove" your point of view. Hence your latest a grab bag of ideas - internal heating, milankovich cycles, ocean currents, ants, latent heat, evil scientists etc.

Let's look at your "Latent heat issue" (the ratio is actually about 540:1). Yes, I am saying if the temp goes up there is more water vapor in the air, hence more heat energy is radiated back to Earth, hence the temp goes up until a new equilibrium will be reached. You've studied "Nuclear reactor design" so this basic thermodynamics idea should be familiar.

I don't think your individual facts are necessarily wrong, but I do think you're missing the big picture.

I have to disagree with your idea about attacking the messenger.

But dare to step away from the causes and start looking to the effect: something is going on with the atmosphere and it does not look good for the places were man tends to live.

Start with the question is a warmer climate good or bad: at global and regional level it is bad.

Colder climate? It is as bad as warmer.

There is too much equilibrium in the actual situation: some trees need to have cold feet, other can't withstand droughts. Some can't have frost, other really require it.

Insects tend to live in specific temperature zones and will migrate with it, this could bring certain insects in regions where there is no food for them as the specific plant they tend to eat is not following that fast.

General conclusion: rapid climate change (as happening now) is bad.

In the 80's the Austrian Alpenverein started warning about evolutions they saw happening in the higher regions of the mountains, their claim was that in 20 to 30 years time it might become so unstable in the alpine regions that it would become to dangerous to go up in summer.

These are simple facts: the Matterhorn is claimed to be unstable: the mountain is hold together by a permafrost which is thawing.

The collapse of such a mountain should be spectacular but it will also be dramatic.

My 5cent worth of advice: dare to look beond the discussion and start from the facts.

The Global Warming adepts did not invent it to make some noise: it all started from facts and real scientists who wanted to know what was going on. It took years of investigations to come to the concluson it was no natural cycle happening.

And don't laugh to hard: in some years most of us will anyhow use public transport or electric cars as mineral oil will be too expensive due the fact that the actual rise in demand can't be compensated anymore with rise in production. A decent report from the Pentagon is clearly explaining the mechanisms.

Iran knows why it is working hard to get nuclear running: they have the fuel (Uranium ore) and if you can make a nice weapon from that side product you can't avoid when enriching the stuff, who cares?

In 50 years they will be able to sell the fuel for the power plants that are running and keep the world running, that is why the world makes a fuss: the US wants to keep this ability in their allies ranks. As a danger for world stability the Indian and Pakistani bombs are much more dangerous, as they tend to fight regularly and could end up in wrong hands (the risk of a democracy)

The climate models are quite far evolved now, using real input and all parameters. But as they bring the wrong message some channels claim they are wrong. Anyhow these days the models are able to predict the amount of rain that will fall in our regions, quite impressive. 10 day predictions are even becoming precise, they even tell us when it all can turn the other direction, depending on that butterfly in the amazon region.

It's really easy to watch one person's presentation of the subject matter at hand and come away convinced of that person's position, much like Al Hore's video. When you start analyzing individual claims and each individual claim falls apart, obviously the whole is invalidated. It is not an argument in support of something to say that so and so believes this or that. Al Hore was very convincing. He was also very WRONG. This underscores my emphasis on analyzing the SCIENCE behind each claim and, to avoid being further propagandized, just going to the raw science in search of truth. Indeed, every time I do so, the various AGW claims are revealed for the fraud and deception they are, taking into account the part of the science or scientific principle that supports their position and omitting anything that contradicts, much like their fraudulent data sets.

I'm really getting tired of the en masse thinly veiled insults from you folks, claiming I missed the big picture. I didn't miss the big picture. I get the big picture. The big picture is this is a highly politicized issue with govt (CORRUPTION) inserting itself in the middle of it and an OBSCENE amount of money to be made and indeed already being made. My detractors are like a bunch of magicians attempting to use sleight of hand. Stay on target. Just as I piece by piece tore apart the fraud that is AGW, if I'm wrong you arm chair physicists and climatologists should be able to refute the evidence I present instead of attempting to diminish me and, by association, the evidence I present.

Each discussion of global warming on CR4 degrades further with the introduction of more obfuscation from the global warming alarmists. The earth has problems. CO2 level isn't one of them. CO2 is not a climate driver. CO2 is not pollution or an environmental problem unless we have too little CO2, THEN CO2 will be a problem. As we are at historically LOW CO2 levels, it is quite simply beyond LUDICROUS for you alarmists to be claiming levels should be even lower. BTW, that 3% (man's contribution to atmospheric CO2) figure I have quoted repeatedly, that figure is ACCEPTED and indeed bandied about by AGW PROPONENTS. I didn't make it up or get it from some nebulous corner of the internet. ANY ONE of you can do an internet search for corroboration. ANY of you posting a different number is quite simply a bald-faced LIAR. I have found overwhelming corroboration of that figure.

Does it really matter?

Notice this entire issue was originated by Politicians. It keeps us divided in our thinking.

It really doesn't matter who writes what whether or not it is fact or false. People are only going to accept the information that best fits what they themselves believe and ignore anything that disagrees with them whether it is right or wrong.

Notice this entire issue was originated by Politicians. It keeps us divided in our thinking.

I've been following this issue (if by "this issue" you mean climate change and its causes) for only about 40 years (and would have liked to be around for the earlier discussions, which began in 1896 with calculations of the effects of human-created CO2 and global warming climate change.) I cannot come up the name of any politician who figured prominently in the early research. Who did you have in mind?

As I remember, the relatively modern scientific debate (starting in the late 1960s) began with two main theories: the mainstream one at the time (that the planet would warm from human-generated greenhouse gas effects -- roughly in line with the 1896 calculations) or the alternate, that the planet would cool from the shading effect of polluting particles in the air. As computer models developed, the cooling theory fell by the wayside in the 70's. When the many positive and negative feedbacks are considered (requiring a lot of computing power), the warming theory is much better-supported. Now, of course, the planet is clearly warming, adding further support for the warming theory, and even the main "deniers" (the petroleum companies) have acknowledged that human activities are forcing climate change.

It really doesn't matter who writes what whether or not it is fact or false.

If you are saying that ad-hominem arguments are usually considered flawed, I agree.

People are only going to accept the information that best fits what they themselves believe and ignore anything that disagrees with them whether it is right or wrong.

This is far less true in science than in the culture at large*. Scientists spring from little scientists -- kids who love to experiment, observe, and figure stuff out. Egos cause such people to love to prove others wrong. Science is, as a result, comparatively objective, and conclusions can be supported or rejected on the basis of evidence rather than upon one belief system or another. While it is impossible to say whether Hinduism or Christianity has a better grasp on "truth", but it is possible to say that F=MA, and nearly impossible to present a serious and meaningful challenge to that.

But yes, in the culture at large, it is sadly true that ad-hominem arguments are effective. As Rupert Murdoch and Fox News have demonstrated, large numbers of people can be made to believe almost anything, no matter how patently false. People like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck because they are entertaining. Then, because they like them, they believe the things they say, even though both are clueless re science, economics, etc. There is no logic there, it is purely emotional. I think there are very good reasons for economists studying economics, scientists studying science, doctors studying medicine, and engineers studying engineering. But I am in the minority.

It appears that more than 50% of the US population disagrees with me. Most people look to entertainers for simple (albeit profoundly wrong) answers to complex subjects. It is so much easier and more fun than having to think or study. Global warming science cannot be tweeted, in any meaningful form.

* Even in the culture at large , there are subcultures in which acceptance and embracing the views of others are routinely practiced. In developed countries, many people have been steeped in a post modern period in which "anything goes" and in which change (even dramatic change) is embraced. (Hippies, etc.) But there is now widespread reaction against progressive and post modern thought, because the pendulum has appeared to have swung too far. One obvious result: terrorism. Fundamentalists feel unheard and unappreciated, so we have abortion clinic bombings, 9-11, etc. For small groups, change by peaceful means can seem impossible, so violence becomes the tool. Many people are deeply offended by American cultural spread, and find justification in their great books for violence, just as Europeans did for the Crusades, and as American churches did to favor slavery, segregation, denying women the right to vote, etc.

Great Post, thank you.

Aww, you shot down my Hero Rush...Now I'll have to find new ones...I'm thinking Jerry Springer and Geraldo Rivera. haha...

Thank you K, and you're right, true science is objective and non-biased, however the problems we have is people taking that information and molding it to fit their point of views and that is the information, we as the public are bombarded with. It's very much like turning everything into conspiracy theories. What do we believe?

From my point of view, most of the information put out there on Global warming has been used solely for the purpose of getting you to buy products.

You are confusing "true science" with the "laws of nature".

True science is a romantic notion of an unattainable state of knowledge that will enable you to postulate only truths. As anyone who has ever done anything remotely difficult knows, it's an uncommon problem that gets solved without many errors in judgement and misplaced diagnostics, formula's and preconceived notions along the way. Bias, if you will, is the director of any good science movie. Scientists do not know the answer, so they take an educated guess. This is how it has always been, but for some of the lunatic fringe, it is now essential to rewrite history, and to insist that science is only real when a fantastically complicated system is fact checked by the armchair politicals. Interpretation of the laws of nature is messy and controversial. The laws themselves are not.

Lifetimes have been spent learning things that turned out to be patently false. That can still be science. I see this same childlike awe in some of these reply's about the Constitution providing an instruction manual for what what our government should be doing. (or not doing) Like the owners manual in your car tells you not to drive if the check engine light is on, The Constitution says that you need to make prosecution of crimes public and involve representation. It does not say much about the internet or global banking, invading a country, or how the tires work, or traction control.

If I thought that global warming (or drastic climate change) were not real, I would be not be buying... what?.... I can't think of anything. I have solar PV because of the environmental benefits reducing pollution, and the adverse geopolitical impact of imported oil, in addition to the nice Return On Investment. What are you referring to? I just bought a beach house, so I'm not afraid of rising sea levels per se. I am going to build it on concrete columns, but that's cause I want to save insurance premium money, not because I'm afraid of sea level rise.

I agree with your statement with just one exception:

I am not confusing anything.

Yes we get a lot of people only taking what they have decided agrees with their own ideals and ignoring anything else whether it is right or wrong.

FFey as far as I am concerned stated earlier or later in his posts that he :

I want to understand the mechanism and the general explanation, available in many websites, seems plausible while the data from many studies over the years seems to point in the same direction.

Surely he is putting a lot of effort into reading and all his trust goes to the repeat information that is contained in those websites. We can talk all about how plausible it is that only because we can read it anywhere is it true? Partly this seems to be the reason why thinks get hot in this discussion.

Can you now see why I made my point? And sorry FFey it was not meant to be an insult.

To the 5 year old remark I would say just make a test and ask a few kids what the most effective greenhouse gas is. The answer that comes out from schools is almost criminal since water vapour is not the answer you get from there.

I think that understanding of Water Vapour in the atmosphere is critical to the understanding of the processes that are going on.

To answer the points you are making one by one:

1. This is a moot point as I am pretty sure that if Water vapour remains in the atmosphere and cuts of direct sun light we Will probably see an adverse effect. But it is so unlikely that we fill all the Atmosphere with water vapour and anyway we are not talking about water vapour or are we? Where is the CO2 in this. All I know and feel is that a cloudy night is much warmer than a clear sky night at the same spot the same time of the year. The difference is huge and will overshadow any effect from any other greenhouse gas.

2. Haven't done my homework on Methane so sorry I can not say it will or will not cause warming. But while I am at it. you coming in both earlier points from the premises that the Earth warms already and then the effect is that there is more warming. But where is the warming coming from is the essential question. Right?

3. Now this is a nice point to talk about. If I get you right Oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere when the Atmospheric temperature rises! I am getting this notion: it means Temperature would be the culprit of more CO2 in the atmosphere, rather than the other way around.

4. How far have we established this feedback loop then if we can not predict a clear sky or cloudy weather even over a year. Somebody seen that drought coming in States? Somebody seen the nasty summer start coming in Europe?

5. Since I have not agreed on positive feedback loops I will not agree on negative ones. How about a moving Middle point? It goes up and it goes down.

I don't see Fox so can not talk about this, but there seems to be some statistical information which could or could not be right. Almost like Global Warming Science.

Problem is that we as a whole society can still not see when we are given a run around. Problem is that this is a global scam and problem is that we probably never fully agree with every single one of us having his own opinion. Meanwhile Millions are starving, countries fall into war and people are pressed to move due to social, environmental and political pressure. Are we prepared for any man or natural made disaster, even tough we are talking about what might be the sourec, we might just tweak on the wrong end of society to tackle the problem. What if CO2 is not the problem and it still warms. Are we prepared for this? I think too much effort is spend to research into only one direction.

Coming to think of it: What is the consequence of a negative feed back loop in society? If nobody believes any more what is being said would we stop doing what could prevent us from preventing what we think is going to happen? Shall we just believe and do what we do so at least something is done? Is this the reason for the actionism?

Gosh, need to cut it off! Seems to be a never ending story.

So long

Of course the Earth reaches local limits of water vapour saturation. That's how clouds and storms and formed. Now the pressure and temperature in our atmosphere is nowhere near the triple point for CO2. So clouds and rain or snow of CO2 is not possible. Your observation of the warmth under a cloud bank at night is accurate. You're missing the point that the added CO2 will reduce very slightly the amount of cooling you get when the cloud bank move away.

If we don't quit pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere, will we end up like Venus with over 95% CO₂ atmosphere?

Hi. Thanks for answering my questions.

I've numbered most of my comments to match yours.

1. But it is so unlikely that we fill all the Atmosphere with water vapour and anyway we are not talking about water vapour or are we? Where is the CO2 in this. All I know and feel is that a cloudy night is much warmer than a clear sky night at the same spot the same time of the year.
Clouds and water vapor are two distinct things. Clouds are droplets of liquid water. Water vapor is an invisible gas. Water vapor has long been recognized as a greenhouse gas, and it's effects are included in every modern climate model. Clouds, on the other hand, have a different effect, generally tending to cool things off, by reflecting sunlight.

2. Haven't done my homework on Methane so sorry I can not say it will or will not cause warming.
Yes, it is a much more potent greenhouse gas (but less of it is in the atmosphere) than CO2. That these greenhouse gases (water vapor, CO2, methane, NOx, etc.) act as a mechanism for increasing surface temperature is not in question. One cannot explain actual surface temperatures without taking them all into account.

3. Now this is a nice point to talk about. If I get you right Oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere when the Atmospheric temperature rises! Yes, sort of. It is actually the increase in water temperature that causes the CO2 to come out of solution. This makes man made CO2 a "double whammy." Add a little more CO2, and the balance goes haywire, with even more CO2 being added from the temperature increase. Frozen bogs melt and release methane, exacerbating the problem. Ice melts, reducing reflectance, further exacerbating the problem. Satellite data shows that these effects are happening as expected.

4. How far have we established this feedback loop then if we can not predict a clear sky or cloudy weather even over a year. Somebody seen that drought coming in States? Somebody seen the nasty summer start coming in Europe?
For about 2 decades, it has been broadly recognized that the effects of climate change will be more severe weather: more droughts, more floods, more hurricanes, etc. The data appears to support that such things are happening, with, for example, record high temperatures happening all around the planet. These effects are visible over decades more so than over individual years. Can we say what precisely will happen next year? No. It was in 1996 that BP (the oil company) was the first major player in that notoriously "skeptical" industry, to say words to the effect of "Yes, man made global warming appears to be happening."

5. Since I have not agreed on positive feedback loops I will not agree on negative ones.
I doubt that there is any serious climate scientist who does not recognize that there are positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. You are welcome to your opinion that everything is random, but few scientists support that position.

re Fox: You are fortunate that you don't watch it. Several studies now have found the same effect.

Problem is that we as a whole society can still not see when we are given a run around.
True. The state of science education is awful in the US, so very few people have anything close to the knowledge and skill to make simple scientific evaluations. In Europe things are not so bad. (It goes beyond science: many Americans cannot even tell you where Chicago is located.) 80% of Americans believe that creation occurred as spelled out in the Christian bible, and less than 1% can describe the creation stories presented in other great religious books.

Coming to think of it: What is the consequence of a negative feed back loop in society? If nobody believes any more what is being said would we stop doing what could prevent us from preventing what we think is going to happen?
Yes. The economic power of the companies with a stake in maintaining the status quo (using large amounts of gasoline, coal and natural gas, buying large profitable cars instead of small more efficient and less profitable ones, buying huge TV sets, building huge houses) is staggeringly high. The power of a few thousand climate scientists, most of whom are completely unknown to the mainstream press, is utterly insignificant.

Even climate scientists have become discouraged and apathetic. The models (of which there are now about 40 "big" ones) are increasingly in agreement, but that message does not get out. Using less of everything, the obvious solution to many woes -- personal financial strain, environmental destruction and resource depletion, pollution generation, human and economic cost of securing oil access, greenhouse gas generation, increased food prices, etc. -- is also the least palatable solution for capitalism: we need continuous growth for the stock market to flourish, and need people to buy lots of useless stuff to pull out of the recession. No one has a workable solution to ameliorate the effects of CO2 and virtually every large industry has clear reasons for resisting anything that would reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Imagine what a disaster it would be if we started to only buy the stuff we really need. The average car cost would be cut in half, and we'd buy cars half as often. The auto industry would collapse, shrinking to 25% of current size. Hundreds of thousands of workers would be laid off in the US alone. Imagine if we saved money like our grand parents told us to. The entire economy would tank, worldwide.

When I am not driving my Zing prototype, I drive a 2004 Honda Accord (the cheapest version available at the time) and with 120,000 miles on it it runs like new. I will certainly still be driving it for another 9 years. If lots of people followed in my footsteps, we'd have an economic disaster on our hands.

Having no obvious solutions is not a good reason to deny the problem, however.

I am just taking your last point.

Its been a while but I think you deserve an answer:

All I see in this global warming/ climate change actions and talks and whatever is
... we actually provide solutions for a problem that we have not even found the reason for nor do we even know it exists ...

Why on Earth are we not taking the problems that we do know exist and tackle them?

Give me one reason why we can not agree to drive a car that takes less fuel just because it takes less fuel?

I just bought a big car which takes less fuel than the old one. I should be on the right track!

The ocean's ability to store CO₂ is complete, it is already killing fragile structures.

The warming of the water will release it again, same for the vast amounts of methane that are stored in the depts.

Check some information on killing lakes: they are fed from below with volcanic CO₂, from time to time it releases in one event (earthslide or so) and kills thousands round the shores.

the miniscule change in pH isn't damaging fragile ecosystems. OBVIOUSLY, with variations in CO2 level up to 25 times greater than present level in earth's past, if those "fragile" ecosystems survived that, they will survive this present day extremely LOW level of atmospheric CO2. BTW, for all you tree huggers, controlled laboratory tests tell a different story. The (ocean reef) life adapted to a more dramatic change in pH under controlled laboratory conditions and indeed came back stronger after a brief period of adaptation. These nonsense stories about the dying coral reefs have been circulated for decades. Actual real world measurements of the reefs tell a different story. I have seen some anecdotal evidence that people frequenting the coral reefs are negatively impacting them, but that is an entirely different matter. Much like your CLAIMED causal relationship between co2 levels and temperature increase (it's summer), you have to establish that the reefs are having serious problems from ocean acidification (they aren't) and then PROVE, PROVE CO2 is the culprit (which you obviously cannot without rewriting history). That's really the problem for you alarmists. You can't undo history, even though your bought off "scientists" just bursting with integrity have attempted to do so with their en-masse data falsification and manipulation.

??

Where did I claim the causal relation between CO₂ and the actual temperatures?

Summer here is cold, colder than normal.

There is a causal relation between climate change and human activities.

CO₂ in the atmosphere is just one of the parameters we can measure and can manipulate.

Don't let you be fooled by hard yeller that claim that the renewed scientists are wrong based on last year average temperature.

Climate is a period of 30 years: clearly longer than 2 solar cycles, clearly longer than most people can evaluate on their memories.

I accept that I don't have the knowledge and data to do the analysis myself, so I analyse the documents created by others. I had to come to a conclusion that the people who are giving the best documentation on their scientific approach and who are the most open on the results they publish tend to warn on the future.

Most of them even reduce what they really conclude as nobody would believe it, they present the lowest possible result as the potential risk we face.

As soon as the funding of an organisation is not clear, you have to pay attention on the results shown.

It is as in crime: follow the money.

We can agree to a friendly disagree as we sort out the particulars as to what we are experiencing and figure out what is exactly happening with out our emotions and just plain science. Now we know July was the hottest on record since records have been recorded for the US. What this means is unknown at present time. Have we hit the tipping point? More tests need to be performed, more information is required. Is this a cyclicyclical planet event? More time and tests to be recorded. We know Earth has had many intervals of extinctions over the past millions of years, ice ages, extreme heat issues so it has to be all put together as to what is mother earth up to now. We also know man has decimated mother earth in many ways and we have and will suffer for what we have done to this planet we live on. Maybe she is pissed at us and having a hissy fit at the moment. One thing for sure is with the droughts in the west, farms in the us unable to supply foods that we need, will this impact the food industry? Restaurants, fast food joints, your favorite diner, and the grocery store? Only time will tell... We just have to wait and see.

Till then, start planting your own gardens.

Homo Sapiens has developed to the point where it has the ability to study, consider and evaluate all avenues that might lead to its demise and do something about avoiding them. That in itself is a major achievement for any species.

"...Of all the creatures on this planet, apart from Humans I cant [sic] think of one that takes more than it needs and destroys its own environment without thought..."

Unfortunately, this homocentric viewpoint is upside down. EVERY species that exists, left unconstrained by parasites, disease, predators, etc., will reproduce until they have exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment. Without thinking about it. Furthermore, EVERY species that exists excretes waste into the environment, and will eventually render the environment uninhabitable for that particular species (think of the original anaerobic lifeforms that originally rendered much of the earth uninhabitable for their species by excreting too much oxygen). Without thinking about it.

Humans are the only species I know of that actually THINK about the impact on the environment as they continue to destroy it...

CO2's spectral absorption is not of direct sunlight. AGAIN, the sunlight strikes the earth's surface, warming it, which leads to emission of longer wave energy of lower energy photons. These photons radiated from the earth's surface are the ones that interact with the gases in the atmosphere, resulting in the greenhouse phenomenon.

First, thanks to all providing comments. Myself and others are becoming more educated on a very important topic. It is this high level of importance that brings out the emotions that will always be a part of this issue.

So, with the uncertainity of (the magnitude of) global warming and a higher level of uncertainty whether there is any change in the climate due to manmade GWGs, and the magnitude (and wide range) of possible impacts on our planet, and the current state of our economies.... What, if any, prudent/obvious actions should we (inhabitants of this planet) be taking?

Larry

My wife is a CPA and we have had the discussion about the "velocity" of money. You are right, fiat money DOES require velocity and the effects of it on the environment have been horrible.

Bravo. Sound Money is safer for the environment!

No, jerrys. You brought up the absurd conspiracy theory of 9/11 in post #39. K Fry post is #43. 39 is less than 43. You brought this absurd conspiracy theory up first. I do not know why you continue to push a political agenda to clearly false extremes. Making such easily proven false claims just undermines any truth to your comments.

Hey, donkey's behind, YOU brought up 9/11, not me. YOU brought up the birth certificate, not me.

Are there 2 people using your CR4 name, "jerrys"? In post number 35 you wrote this:

• It wouldn't matter to you that Obama and his wife both stated he's from Kenya. It wouldn't matter to you that ANYONE can download that fake long form and enlarge it and see the obvious childish fraud that it is. It wouldn't matter to you the long list of distinguished military OFFICERS who dispute the official 9/11 report and contend the buildings were demolished.

So which is it? Are you lying when you deny having brought up 9/11 (etc. etc.) or are there 2 different people who are "jerrys"?

You seem a little rattled here, going on attack with terms like "donkey's behind," "retard," "nut job". I hope you did not take my post as an attack on you. I was only using you as an example of a conspiracy theorist. Is it the other jerrys who is the conspiracy theorist?

And YOU ARE WRONG still about co2. I'll clarify a THIRD time.
I wonder if you are imagining that we have discussed this before. You are replying to my first post in this thread. I think your understanding of the greenhouse effect, as you've presented it in this most recent post, is OK. It seems to align with the standard explanation, as seen in Wikipedia:

• The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.^[1][2]

Perhaps you were confused by my assertion (in response to the OP's question "isn't it a fact (e.g. physics?) that carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation") that CO2 absorbs solar radiation. It does, especially in the IR region of the spectrum. You may have thought I was explaining the whole greenhouse process, but I was not.

You AGW nut jobs are getting increasingly desperate,

If we have "AGW nut jobs" on one side, and "flat-earth anti-science morons" (we'll say, for the sake of argument) on the other, it seems that the former are not increasingly desperate as compared to the latter. Here is an article supporting my case: Scientific Consensus on Global Warming You will note that the language is not insulting (as is yours and mine) nor is it desperate sounding. There are hundreds of articles supporting the notion that the consensus has grown over time.

I've made one post here, to which you respond with name calling. Is that the behavior of someone who is confident in his facts?

That's right, that post was written in REPLY to a poster who brought those topics up. I didn't bring them up. I responded to them. And it clearly demonstrates my point. When AGW proponents are losing, they resort to dirty tactics designed to diminish and ridicule the person posting the facts they find threatening. You are guilty as charged.

YOU did state co2 absorbs SOLAR radiation. it isn't SOLAR radiation. The SOLAR radiation strikes the earth, warms the earth and the EARTH RADIATES HEAT ENERGY (PHOTONS) which do interact with the greenhouse gases. This will be the FOURTH time I have clarified that erroneous statement made by you and others.

Alright kiddos, the Admins are here. If you want to discuss, that's fine, but don't insult one another, and give respect towards other peoples opinions even if they seem wrong to you. :)

Outstanding analysis of the typical CR4 reader, like me. I have learned a tremendous amount on CR4. I've taught people a few things. It seems that most here are confident in the future of science and those who practice it, and enjoy the nuances in the laws of nature.

Thanks, K Fry. very good answer

Yes, K Fry made a very good presentation.

I still will try to make a more complete explanation to answer Larry's question on CO2 absorption and why it is relevant to global warming. I probably won't get to it until the weekend but I hope to match the effort I made on Larry's other GW thread.

Thanks K Fry. I'm an underutilizer of Wikipedia but that is changing.

Heated arguments? My brother, who lives in Oregon, suggested that the reason it is always about 8 degrees warmer (f) in Washington, DC, than it is in Fairfax, VA (just 10 miles away) is all the hot air Congress generates. maybe it is Congress that causes Global Warming? We ALL know Al Gore was (is?) a major contributor.

I need to get some sleep so I tuned into this gw thread........ I knew I wouldn't be disappoi.....zzzzzzz