Global warming?

The day may be longer by 50 secs which will accumulation more heat. This will however be offset by the longer periods of darkness where the heat will be lost.

I don't think so. The earth is a better insulator of heat than conductor/radiator. This would be especially true if our atmosphere were also considered, which at this time, it must be.

cr3

It is said that earth receives energy from sun equivalent to about three million tonnes of petrol per second.Assuming part of the day of ten hours, it will amount to (3*3600*10) mt.

Assuming a car population of 200 million cars,and petrol consumption of 10 liters per day,

Average daily consumption of petrol would be 2million ton against equivalent to 100000 mt.of sun's energy received.

How, we do not know for certain but earth has been able to absorb sun's energy and there exists some sort of balance between the earth and the energy received.

You are right Riosi, sun and earth have been in a thermal balance ever since, no body doubts it.

I am conservative but not stupid and 100% sure that global warming is Man-made, by mens of the huge amount of heat we genereate daily and realy unbalance the global temperature seriously, which impacts over climate change, of course.

Dont get mixup as all reporters of news, and with some comments in this forum, since there is not EL NIÑO effect nor the green house effect nor 50 sec more sun in june, either, but the global warming is a fact and we all can help if we focus on the real causes of the problem, as follows:

WORLDISGREEN.COM...BUSSINESS STRATEGY & SUSTAINABILITY, SEPT 3, 2007

GREEN HOUSE EFFECT IS FALSE

IT IS A TRICKY SENTENCE THAT PETROLEUM GUYS WANT US TO BELIVE IN, TO CONFUSE EVERY BODY

- IT IS A CRAISY IDEA to send satelite MIRRORS to BLIND AND REDUCE incoming solar energy to avoid climate change -due to a mitic green house effect-.... Sun has never been harmfull to Earth....... Sun Radiation is in a perfect Thermal Equilibrium with Earth ever since. is`nt it so?............ we Humans are the danger to earth..

REAL CAUSES:

Real causes are down here, where HUGE amounts of waisted heat from more than 6 billions tons of hot gases -per year- are generated while burning fuels -in motor vehicles, water heaters, boilers, thermoelectric generators, driers, ranges, ovens, etc-. We dont have to be scientist to understand a math equation, showing that the problem results from the extra added heat to atmosphere:

IR sun energy + extra waisted heat from burning fuels = atmosphere overheating

= more evaporation = denser clouds = flooding storms = polar deice = actual kaoz

- Do you know what happen now that petroleum XX century is gone and Solar XXI century will replace fuels-WITH FREE AND CLEAN NATURAL ENERGY?- ......very simple.....the depleted AND EXPENSIVE petroleum will go down to 1 dollar per barrel and that will crack petroleum industry....... See? ...ENERGY will be free then, and peaple will save money to buy many thing else -as a free-maintance electric car ----and so on----- politically impossible?....IT SEEMS LIKE FICTION MOVIE….....but there are...

TWO SOLUTIONS:

1. Urge to replace all combustion devices, equipments and engines -WITH SOLAR AND ELECTRIC POWERED ONES-.

2. As well as urgent is to reforest the world with billions of trees – they are magic factories that will clean air from CO2, by:

Sucking CO2 + Absorbing solar UV and solar heat = to return us pure and fresh OXIGEN -instead-

Trees never heat the air -so- the craisy green house effect does not happen -that's a lie-

The true is that are cooking our self's in this global pot, due to PETRO-effect -nothing else-.

HOW YOU CAN HELP? :

- I urge any body who has responsability of enviromental care and have funds -you must support any projects where products (vehicles or equipments) pursue this change over -to a new solar and electric eco-culture-.

-I urge Presidents all -to issue compulsory regulations to stop using any apparatus, device or engines where combustion of fuels take place -of any hidrocarbons (liquid or gas) alcohols, biofuels, carbons or hidrogen too- because all react exothermicaly generating the hot gases that over-heat the air -depleting oxigen O2 and ozone O3 as well while they burn to CO2 -which ixcess is getting a letal concentration level, too-.

• Now, I hope you understand it better -the real global warming problem- & communicate it to all your friends -what is going on- to become more that GREEN peaple -but ECOLOGY ORIENTE PEAPLE, co-responsible- don't relay on heaven help, only. PLEASE STOP BURNIG FUELS guys.

jmjr, Senior Chem. Eng, MS from UMass,

Zapopan, jal. Mexico

CHEMA,

I am wondering if a term we all use is misleading to you. A "greenhouse" is a building with walls and often a roof covered with glass, so sunlight (both visible and infrared energy) can enter more easily than it can escape. This has nothing to do with the color of the building. The "greenhouse effect" occurs when the atmosphere of the earth acts like the glass covering the building--making the solar energy enter more easily than it can escape.

You are correct, as is Rjosi, that the earth seeks to be at a thermal equilibrium, radiating as much energy as it receives. You are also right, that human activities such as burning fossil fuels increase the amount of energy on the surface of the earth. This necessarily elevates the temperature enough so the additional energy gets radiated out to space. However, in addition to the energy produced by combustion, we have a change in the efficiency of energy radiation. CO₂ is very good at blocking the frequencies of radiant energy that are most prominent when coming from a surface near earth's temperature, but very uncaring with the frequencies of radiant energy that are coming from the sun. Therefore, even though CO₂ is a very small part in the mix of gases in the atmosphere, it can have a very significant effect when we change how much of it is in the atmosphere. I think you understand this. Increasing the CO₂ concentration therefore requires that the average temperature of the earth's surface must rise in order for equilibrium to reoccur.

Your desire that we burn less fuel is correct, even if your reason is poorly aimed. As members of a complex and integrated web of money, work, belief, social structure, etc. it will be very difficult to make the major changes we must to solve the coming global warming problem (crisis). But, we must. For those living in the developed countries such as the USA, we need to reduce our use of petroleum or coal as a power source to perhaps a tenth of our present consumption. OUCH. I believe we can do this, just as you indicate, by going to direct or indirect solar sources for our energy.

Your desire that we plant trees is also good. Their presence moderates the local climates to increase rainfall while their roots help anchor soil. Their shade permits many desirable crops and plants to grow and their height can moderate the force of storms. While trees and forests are in their growing/developing stage, they remove a lot of carbon from the atmosphere. We need that now. Later on, when these forests are becoming mature and more "carbon neutral", we should have returned our earth to the equilibrium temperature that is more normal for our existence.

--JMM

jmuller, I heard and read many peaple a thousend times explaining me what you repite -in your firts paragraph- about the mitic green house effect, which is someone fanny hipothesis that has no sustent and is unbelivable, and do not happens.

Since air -a mix of gases including CO2 that exxals from our longs too- is transparent to IR radiation no matter if it is coming from sun or going out from earth. It is a physics law. Not some one guess neither a virtual glass plate.

I didnt said that global warming is due to CO2 -as gas per se- but to the heat that goes along with it while burning fuels. then we should stop using fuels, no other way to avoid overwarming.

And I explain also, that trees are inexpensive factories that sucks CO2, UV and IR radiation -called photosyntesis process- and they return us fresh O2 intead. So planting billions of trees will clean CO2 from air for us, permanently and cleaply.

Other than that, it seems we agree with must of what I post in, and thats the positive thing.

Thanks for your reply, I like you read me, But any way you may rethink it and spread it all over.

cheers.

CHEMA,

In my previous post I tried to avoid using terms directly from physics or related sciences, and used more ordinary words or verbal pictures to give the same meaning. It appears that we agree on the value of reducing our consumption of fuels and on the wisdom of planting more trees. However, we have different understandings about the effects of CO₂ in our atmosphere. I will try to be clear in my reasoning.

1) The "scientific method" starts with observing something and then asking "why". This yields a hypothesis, which we can then test against observations or by controlled trials (experiments). If a very large number of tests all support the hypothesis, then we start to call it a "law". Of course, anywhere during this, we can find new effects, new interactions, or have ignored things which did not fit. This can result in revision of the hypothesis or its outright rejection. It can also result in our throwing out the "law". This whole process is often accompanied with a lot of discussion, argument, and so on. I assume you are familiar with the scientific method, so please forgive me if this paragraph was unnecessary.

2) I think that nearly everyone will agree that electromagnetic radiation is energy which can be described by its wavelength (or frequency). Also, that it comes in a very very wide range of
frequencies, from less than a few cycles per second (called Hertz or Hz) all the way up beyond many million-million Hz. Depending on the frequency you are interested in, you will have to choose how to observe it, generate it, and capture it. Radio waves, radar, light, x-rays are all part of this broad range of frequencies. Our eyes can only sense a small portion we call "visible light". Slightly longer waves we call "infrared", which we can sense as heat on the skin.

3) This electromagnetic radiation comes from two (I'm simplifying a little) causes: First is specific energy changes that we describe as taking place at the sub-atomic level, such as an electron changing from one state to another. These changes result in energy being emitted at a specific wavelength. An example of this is the colors of flames when certain chemicals are put into them (sodium gives yellow, copper gives blue-green, etc.). The second is because of the physical temperature of the material. This is "black-body" radiation, and everything is always radiating it. Black-body radiation is radiated in a band of wavelengths which is shorter when the "black-body" is hotter, and longer when it is cooler. At a high enough temperature, this band includes the visible spectrum and this "black-body" is no longer black to our eyes. You can easily see this by taking a piece of steel or iron wire and heating it in a flame--when it has been there a short time and you remove it you can feel it radiating heat to your skin but its "color" has not changed (you won't see it if you were in a dark room). When it has heated longer, it starts to glow reddish, then yellow, and finally towards the yellowish-white (if you could heat it high enough it would appear blue-white).

4) The sun's surface is very hot so its black-body energy is radiated in a broad range of wavelengths which includes all the visible and a lot on either side. A graph of this radiation will show that a majority is in the visible and near infra-red wavelengths. Some of this energy will reach the earth. The earth is much cooler than the sun, so its black-body radiation is only in the lower range of the infra-red and its much longer wavelengths. (The colors of the earth and clouds we see from space are because of reflection of the visible sun light).

5) All electromagnetic radiation passes through a vacuum without any loss (attenuation). However, when it reaches atoms or molecules (chemicals), it may interact with them. Different molecules will trap or absorb some of the radiation they are exposed to. However the wavelengths will be different for each molecule. This is why a colored window looks to be red (the chemicals in the glass have trapped the higher frequencies we see as yellow, green, or blue), or even black (all visible frequencies are trapped). We call this the transmission or absorption spectrum for that molecule. Every atom or molecule has a specific absorption spectrum. Ozone (O₃) absorbs energy very efficiently in certain portions of the ultra-violet range (0.25μm, which is significantly the wavelengths most harmful to our skin), but allows virtually every other wavelength to pass without trouble.

6) For carbon dioxide (CO₂), it absorbs best in a fairly narrow wavelength band in the long infra-red region near 4.3μm (but has two other bands near 2.7 & 15μm). This is well within the range of 310°K black-body radiation which peaks at about 9μm. In comparison to this, solar radiation to the earth (assuming 6000°K) peaks at about 0.5μm (close to a visible blue). This means that CO₂ absorbs about 8% of all black-body radiation from the earth's surface but far less than 0.1% of the black-body radiation from the sun.

7) Since absorbed radiation immediately heats the molecule, it will transfer its heat away by conduction to surrounding molecules in the air (losing some energy when they collide), convection currents, and black-body radiation (note that these three methods of heat transfer are applied physics).

Here is where we come into the argument portion of the question on global warming. Everything mentioned above is well-supported by multitudes of experiments and studies. However, its significance (how big an effect on surface temperature will be caused by a given increase in the CO₂ level) is getting a lot of discussion. Nearly all peer-reviewed research agrees that the earth's surface temperature is increasing. Coincidently we have observed a very pronounced increase in CO₂ concentrations. However, the atmosphere is a very complex entity, with many inter-related processes all going on. These include varying concentrations of H₂O vapor (which also is a good absorber of infra-red radiation), particulate pollution (which can reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth' surface), naturally varying cycles of the earth's orbit (which can increase or decrease the solar energy), global patterns of wind currents, changes in the earth's surface reflectivity--its albedo--due mostly to human actions (such as deforestation, melting snow and ice cover, etc.), to name a few.

In summary, CO₂ does absorb some of the infra-red energy leaving the earth, which means that it can influence the temperature of the earth's surface. The relationship between CO₂ concentrations and global warming is only a hypothesis (as I understand you to say). The global climate is presently on a warming trend. There are things we can do to decrease our energy use and production of CO₂.

I believe that good care (other words are stewardship, husbandry) of the earth and our environment would mean we should conserve and reduce pollution as much as possible. Almost every time these have been done, the cost has been paid back with greater savings in energy or clean-up costs. To wait while we study or argue can allow great and probably harmful change to the global ecology. Waiting is not a good option!

Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. --John Mueller

Hi, I am with you Her miuller, we better don`nt use scientific terms because we may look like a craisy guys, like Einstein. and that solves nothing.

Who cares if global warming is do to the CO2 -green house effect- or the due to petroburning effect where the heat that goes along with CO2 overheats the atmosphere and causes the sound global warming.

At the very end, it is the same -Desmadre- we all talk about. Eath is a big pot where we or broilig our selves due to petrodependance.

It does`nt matter if you have a very complex math equation to explain such warming effect, with some nice hipothesis, to compete for the Nobel prize.

But, It is a real problem, it is not a joke, and we are destroing our planet, our home planet, while stupidly debating what is the best process to explain the warming.

But at the very end, we all believe that it is due to burning huge amounts of petro-fuels, nat-gas and carbon, instead of using petroleum just to make value added petroquemicals and polymers but not to burn it. It will last no longer.

We do not have the button control to put the sun off, however we do have the button to put our gas water heater off as well as our gasoline car, our gas range, our cloth drier, our gas barbecue, and so on, and replace them with a solar or electric counterpart.

He, he, he,,,,, it looks like a fiction movie, but we must do that sunner than later.

I hope you are with me, to do some thing in our favor, to spread it all over, and to convince our friends our Blind politicians and Presidents to make an stop, rethink what is wrong, and correct it rapidly and stop burnig fuels.

America`s empire will fall if it keep petrolized.

Do`nt blame the sun for the sound green house effect -which have been there forever- it is unharmfull. and it is our salvation. I bet to sun energy for XXI century.

Please, do not reply like Manu, with so many math-formulas to convence me that I am wrong. Sorry I am not stick to the green house effect only, athough I do produced composite films for green houses in the past.

Drink a wine cup for me and for it to happen. Cheers,

CHEMA,

Thank-you, sir. We must not sit and ignore the waste. A wise minister (and friend of mine) recently felt the need to write a letter, which included the following words:

"The earth, lovingly created as an environment for life to flourish, shudders in distress because creation's natural and living systems are becoming exhausted from carrying the burden of human greed and conflict. Humankind must awaken from its illusion of independence and unrestrained consumption without lasting consequences."

--JMM

CONGRATULATIONS JMUELLER:

YOU PIN-POINTED REAL TARGET PROBLEM -HUMAN WAISTS- TO TAKE CARE BY EVERY HUMAN BEEN, INCLUDING OUR GOBERNATORS AND CITYHALL MAYORS OF COURSE.

NO CHANCE TO POST A GRAPHIC SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM, BUT IS AS FOLLOWS:

HUMANS WAIST:

1) SOLID GARBAGE .............-POLLUTING EVERY CITY, TOWN, RANCH, LAND FIELD.

2) LIQUID DRAINAGE ......... POLLUTING EVERY RIVER, LAKE, SHORE AND SEA.

3) GASES AND BURNT FUELS..POLLUTING AIR, OVERHETING ATMOSPHERE, CHANGING CLIMATES

Solution practices: Reducing amounts as possible by reusing but not disposables, recycling 100% and using and making compostables with lefts -to not dispose them off any where-, using solar energy at most instead of fuels, in other words, we most change our way of living. I think.

OBVIOUS DEDUCTION:

WE HUMANS ARE MUST PREDATORS ANIMALS ON EARTH

WE WILL EXTINGUISH OUR SELVES WITH OUR OWN WAISTS

-A NOE spaceship have to move to Mars to start over again-

have a nice chritmas time

Hi Guest:

Your points would come across better if you would type in lower case. Upper case is considered shouting, and tends to make people run away. Your essential point, that we generate too much waste, is certainly true... but it gets lost in the capitalization.

_{yes. much too loud this early. shhhhh.}

HOLA John Miuller:

Thanks for replying my comment on global warming, with a master piece of information supporting your sound green house effect, but detracting the real impact -too- of waisted heat effect acumulated from the same petroburning or petromania.

From other commenter -Masu- It calls my attention where he calculates, that an AREA roughly 390 km by 390 km of electro-solar panels should be installed "at a catastrofic cost" to catch enough solar energy to convert it into electricity -due to present low 25% efficiency of such technology-

However -do to present climates unbalance- I guess that catastrofes -happening every day around world- all ready are closing what he preffers not to expend in electro-solar panels technology for homes and industry, to stop using and paying power from present thermoelectrical plants -that work with petrofuels at a similar efficiency-

I hi-lighted the word AREA, because it recalls me -besides- another fact influencing global warming -not taken in account usually, except in my research report- and It is the widespread roads and streets paving -over a millon of Km2 with BITUMEN- a black charcoal wich acts like a real heater -by catching 5Kw/m2/day of IR solar energy-adding overwarming in towns air too -as much as +5ºC at noon- and should be prohibited world wide too -as well as the exposed bitumen coats to protect roofs from wetting-. Such surfacings must be clear -white on paving and aluminized on roofs-

If you think it is pinuts, too, please step nude on it to confirm that your egg breakfast can be cooked too; or open you car-window -right above such black carpeting- while wait for the green light, then you tell me.

Belive it or not, that is another forgoten FACT on global warming debates.

But at the very end, we all believe that it is due to burning huge amounts of petrofuels -nat-gas and carbon- instead of using petroleum just to make value added petroquemicals and polymers but not to burn it. It will last no longer.

We do not have the button control to put the sun off -or tune it accordingly- however we do have the button to put our gas water heater off as well as our gasoline car, our gas range, our cloth drier, our gas barbecue, and so on, and replace them with a solar or electric counterparts.

He, he, he,,,,, it looks like a fiction movie, but we must do that sunner than later.

I hope you are with me, to do some thing in our favor, to spread it all over, and to convince our friends our politicians and Presidents to make an stop, rethink what is wrong, and correct it rapidly and stop burnig fuels.

America`s empire will fall if it keeps petrolized.

Do`nt blame the sun for such hipotetic green house effect -which have been there forever- it is unharmfull. and it realy is our salvation. I bet to sun energy for XXI century.

saludos. cheers.

Chema.

Hi, I am with you Her miuller, we better don`nt use scientific terms because we may look like a craisy guys, like Einstein. and that solves nothing.

Who cares if global warming is do to the CO2 -green house effect- or the due to petroburning effect where the heat that goes along with CO2 overheats the atmosphere and causes the sound global warming.

At the very end, it is the same -Desmadre- we all talk about. Eath is a big pot where we or broilig our selves due to petrodependance.

It does`nt matter if you have a very complex math equation to explain such warming effect, with some nice hipothesis, to compete for the Nobel prize.

But, It is a real problem, it is not a joke, and we are destroing our planet, our home planet, while stupidly debating what is the best process to explain the warming.

But at the very end, we all believe that it is due to burning huge amounts of petro-fuels, nat-gas and carbon, instead of using petroleum just to make value added petroquemicals and polymers but not to burn it. It will last no longer.

We do not have the button control to put the sun off, however we do have the button to put our gas water heater off as well as our gasoline car, our gas range, our cloth drier, our gas barbecue, and so on, and replace them with a solar or electric counterpart.

He, he, he,,,,, it looks like a fiction movie, but we must do that sunner than later.

I hope you are with me, to do some thing in our favor, to spread it all over, and to convince our friends our Blind politicians and Presidents to make an stop, rethink what is wrong, and correct it rapidly and stop burnig fuels.

America`s empire will fall if it keep petrolized.

Do`nt blame the sun for the sound green house effect -which have been there forever- it is unharmfull. and it is our salvation. I bet to sun energy for XXI century.

Please, do not reply like Manu, with so many math-formulas to convence me that I am wrong. Sorry I am not stick to the green house effect only, athough I do produced composite films for green houses in the past.

Drink a wine cup for me and for it to happen. Cheers,

Some notes:

1. I'm not sure I buy the "50 seconds longer day, meaning more solar heating". Regardless of how fast the Earth rotates (length of a day), the planet is still absorbing the same amount of sunlight/solar radiation, per "day". One has to divide a "day" by 86,400 seconds now. If the "day is 50 seconds longer " in 10,000 years, we'd be dividing the total heat incidental on the Earth by 86,450 seconds for heat incident per unit time.

2. Re Global Warming, did you see the piece in Parade magazine Sunday, 8-26-07? The writer claims that much of the increased Global warming MAY be due to coal mine fires, particularly in China and India. Some 200,000,000 TONS of coal burn uncontrolled in China every year, and India contributes 10,000,000 tons of uncontrolled coal burning a year.

3. Look at the major cities of the world. Consider the road and highway congestion caused by accidents and construction delays in just the top 200 cities, population-wise. A typical car uses ~ 1 gallon an hour of gasoline, idling or moving slowly, which produces ~ 20 pounds of greenhouse gases (Carbon Dioxide equivalent) PER CAR. Perhaps 1,000,000 cars idling or at slow speeds at any one time during the peak commuting times (24 hours a day), every day, in all our world's cities and lesser populated areas. Do the math.

Some one out there is going to discover a process, possibly a catalyst, that will allow us to simply and cheaply break carbon dioxide down into carbon and oxygen, and he/she will likely be the recipient of a LOT of money!!

After reading the posts, I think that why ghg &gw are being promoted as the doomsday events are due to revenue/tax/profits by promoters(funded by closed member govt,s)- there is no truth whatsoever that CO2 or other gases such as methane contribute to an enhanced ghg effect- yes the world is warming(wow, 0.8 deg C)- but it always has & always will fluctuate- past ice ages confirm- the real cause is Milankovich cycles(not to mention Sols output waxing & waning). Why don,t all of you realise that what we take for granted ( the universe & earths existence, continuity of averages, as in the past, has to change, but the overall result is called an average, which we expect to be a constant, but in reality, is anything but!. (Glugg,glugg, gluggity, glug- Burp!).

Global warming is real, and at present, is available for all to see. Just go to NASA orbital photos, from 5-, 10-, and 20-years ago. There is an obvious recession of glaciers, icecaps, and icefields occuring around this planet of ours. Man, in his search for new ways to destroy our planet, is progressing with no regard to the future. We are leaving it to our children to save the planet.

How wrong can we be, in doing this?

-------------------------------------------------------

'Clean-up after yourself.' Miss Manners

Interestingly enough, in most of the temperature records, which occur since the industrial age, a global cooling effect may have ben occurring due to the mass of particulate ejected into the atmosphere. As third world countries industrialize they eject large amounts of particulate, then their environmental activists push to reduce the particulate, which had a cooling effect to offset the gases being emitted. Now you have gases in the atmosphere that functionally reduce the amount of heat radiated into space, and less particulate to reflect incoming solar heat. studies in India have found this to be occurring in the atmosphere in the recent decades as they have improved the particulate levels. Also considering we are coming out of an ice age period, it is a bit hard to accurately measure back far enough before the major ice age periods, but geologists seem to have found much warmer climates and much cooler climates earlier in the geologic history of the planet. While the solar warming is ongoing, the core cooling (and less active) is also ongoing, energy from these both need to be balanced with the reflective effects of the surface and particles in our atmosphere, and the insulation/heat capacity of the materials. I am not so sure it is a bad thing. Dry areas may become tropical again, like the Sahara used to be, wetter areas may become drier. My apartment might be a few miles closer to the beach. North florida and the eastern appalachians may be worth more money, south florida and the eastern seaboard worth less. The Dutch would likely eventually have to stop recovering land from the ocean, and italians would finally have to stop wasting good money to offset the continuous sinking of venice. It is likely the prime ag lands, we grow food on now would become desert, the colder wetter areas might become prime ag lands, and some fringes of the deserts could be recovered into tropical lands.

don't some major cooling and heating trends of a few degrees last for thousands of years, e.g. an ice age. How representative could measurements compared over a 20 year period be for discerning a major trend? Isn't this an extrapolation of a very short period of a trend to a very long period? Has anyone ever done the FFT on the oxygen isotope data gathered by Geologist to try and develop a return period for the various cyclic cooling and heating trends (or is it all just linearizations of data consistent with pseudo-sciences)? where would a projection of that frequency analysis forward predict conditions should be like? how would it compare to current conditions? I have seen data tied to volcanic activity and temperature changes, maybe these data points need to be factored into a model. A good model could start a run with some initial data points far in the past and should hit some key marks in the recent historical record where measurements were documented.

Measurements were taken of the distance from the underside of the arctic ice sheet to the sea bed back in the fifties. The same measurements were repeated in the late nineties. When the later data were compared to the earlier data and the distance had increased, the only possible conclusion was that the ice was melting. Apparently the sea floor is fixed and never changing.

As for the "obvious recession of glaciers, icecaps, and icefields"(sic) they must also be melting as there is no possibility of a decrease in annual precipitation.

When we observe a static system, are we surprised to find it is not changing? No!

Why then are we so alarmed when a system as dynamic and poorly understood as climate exhibits change?

If I may, allow me to indulge in a few noteworthy quotes...

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.

—Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.

—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.

—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.

—Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.

—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

—Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.

—Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling", 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.

—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

If consensus (erroneously reported, but that's another topic) is the new scientific proof, could we all not simply agree that the crisis is over?

Let the flaming begin!

Hey, you could quote the bible too. Which is as a scientific work of much more value.

Should we tell him the discussion is about global WARMING?

He seem to be using strange sources - Most of it was proven wrong in any case.

What continues to amaze me about global warming is that scientists seem to forget that we are sitting on a ~50 mile thick crust of condensed matter on an 8000 mile diameter globe of molten material. The results of our precarious situation are shown in plate movement and continental drift. A study of the sub glacial temperatures of various melting icecaps would likely dispel issues of surface warming from greenhouse gases.

Personally, I am more concerned whether a massive disturbance in the Earth's core will blow the planet apart than I am about slow global warming affecting life 10,000 years from now.. Either scenario is as likely.

I don't think there is much argument anymore that global average temps are increasing.......well there may be a few doubters left.

The real argument now has shifted to the question "Is temperature rise induced by the activities of man or is it a natural cycle?" I have no doubt that temperatures have increased, I personally think the jury is still out on the extent to which this is a man induced problem (probably at least some extent), and I am not completely convinced that we understand the probable consequences.

I am also a bit skeptical of the need to panic or fear, politicians and those with political agendas thrive on panic and fear.

That's my take as well.

Years ago I became frustrated with the politicalizing of the GW topic. Admittedly we should check our industry standards periodically. That's just good practice.

But I was just about laughed out of the class years ago when there was much heated (pun) debate regarding whether or not the earth was in fact warming.

Frustrated, I spoke up and said " Does everyone agree that there was an Ice Age? OK. Are we in it now? OK. There is your proof!"

The debate, in the last 20 years, has been about the human cause, not the fact that warming is occurring. That warming is occurring is simply a matter of measurement. I don't think there has been any serious debate about that for at very least, more than a decade.

Even the "debate" that has occurred re human cause is also effectively over. The last UN report, with contributions by some 600 scientists, concluded that there is now a greater than 90% certainty that the current global warming trend is man-made. Much of the "debate" was not a debate among scientists, but was rather petroleum interests vs scientists.

There was an article in Newsweek recently on the how the long gathering scientific consensus was cast as a debate.

A UN report & Newsweek article to hang your hat on! Nothing political about those 2 organizations. You forgot to thrown in Al Gore's movie as the other source. Then again some of the Scientists you point to in UN report and were used in the movie had to distance themselves from the human cause.

I ecspecially like how any you refer to petroleum interests vs. scientists. I guess oil companies only employ cronies, not scientists!

I have a copy of the summary report of the IPCC. If you can tell me which parts of it you believe are fundamentally flawed, I'd be interested in hearing your arguments. I was unable to find anything in there that I would call "bad science". Just give me a page number and paragraph.

(Did you know that Schiphol, the Amsterdam Airport is about 5 meters below sea level?).

Actually the official elevation is -3m. But yes, I worked at the airport for several months. New Orleans is also below sea level. Although the Dutch seem competent, it seems we can't be so sure about American engineering and political will. Therefore, if I have the choice to 1. tamper less with the environment, and avoid remediation vs 2. tamper more with the environment and face the need for remediation... I'll go for choice one.

What makes you think polar bears will not become extinct? Lots of biologists seem to be talking about extinctions of all sorts, and the bears are one of the obviously threatened populations. 112 species of frog have gone extinct since 1980. Is there something about polar bears that makes them extinction proof? Most of what I have read gives the same general message as this article, and the death rate seems to be increasing in the two years since this article was published.

It seems to me that if we wanted to reduce the rate of global warming to something closer to its "natural" value, (i.e., minus our contribution) I'd choose trying to reduce carbon emissions rather than hoping for a huge volcano or asteroid crash.

A stitch in time saves nine.

I grew up in Cleveland, where the Cayahoga River was so polluted it caught fire. Al Gore's predecessors were soundly ridiculed for proposing environmental controls -- some people actually argued that industry could police itself!!* But the Al Gore types won, and now you can actually swim in Lake Erie -- something I would not have dreamed of doing as a kid. Now CEO's and others ridicule Al Gore, and say "Hey we'll just engineer a solution when it's too late, rather than trying to work on the cause."

BTW, every day is the end of the world as we know it.

* This was ludicrous even then, back when CEO's were thought to have consciences.

Hey Ken,

Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this, I have been traveling..

OK, 3m, What is a couple meters between friends?

Polar bears are large cuddly, and unique. As a result they have an easily built advocacy and they will be preserved, if all else fails, in zoos. Now your frogs are in trouble, because there are thousands of species of frogs that are not in danger. Hard to build advocacy for a frog, especially in the presence of so many other frogs.

But isn't the whole point of Darwin's evolutionary biology? That the strong adapt and survive, and the weak go extinct? Species have been going extinct long before man showed up. We just became one evolutionary pressure among many others. Right or wrong, good or bad, we can't help but effect the world around us.

I am happy to reduce carbon emissions, and in a way your Lake Erie story makes my point, engineering solutions can be had, either in remediating current problems or in preventing future problems, once there is resolve to do so. Problem is that it seems to be human nature to spend more time remediating than preventing...

The negative side is that we have done such a good job of creating engineering and scientific marvels that the general populace (that does not understand science or engineering) has come to worship science as the new oracle of Delphi, handing out visions of the future for all to receive. The problem is that no one recognizes that our predicitions are probabilities based on assumptions as to boundry conditions. If we make poor assumptions, or if we over simplify a very complex system, then we fall into unintended consequences...

We have to carry on the best we can. We will make mistakes, and then we will do our best to correct for them. The other choice is to bomb ourselves back to the stone age, and start over. I am not up for that.

I wrote a book-length reply to Sonave, so I am running out of time, but wanted to at least say that I appreciate your thoughtful approach and I find your reply pretty interesting. I think that what makes it particularly interesting to me is that I essentially agree with everything you've said... to a degree (actually to a large degree).

I've often played devil's advocate when in the middle of a large city someone remarks "Boy wouldn't it be great to get out into nature!?" I'll say "We are already in nature. We are just as much a part of nature, here surrounded by concrete, as a beaver is, surrounded by the dead trees from which he makes his home."

Evolutionary theory takes on greater significance when the species in question is your own. Was the recent heat wave in the south due to global warming (regardless of what is causing that warming)? While it is appears likely that weather extremes will increase as things warm up, I don't think anyone could sell the idea that this particular heat wave was caused by global warming (perhaps it was -- but the contention is virtually unsupportable, and certainly unprovable). But in any case, a few days ago it was announced that 50 had died as a result of the heat wave. Presumably that is a good thing for the planet: many would argue that population is already too high. But suppose one of the casualties is some kid's overweight father? That kid probably won't think of his father's having been "selected out" as a good thing.

For the sake of that kid, it's probably better to do too much too soon than too little too late. (We may already be at the too little too late point.) Emission controls and safety equipment have added to car cost and profits and have generated billions in additional business. In a similar way, carbon controls will generate huge volumes of business, so that even if these controls are effectively placebos, at least the developed nations would be getting wealthier. And if the controls actually help... so much the better.

We will make mistakes, and then we will do our best to correct for them.

Of course, another possibility is to make fewer mistakes.

I had a simulation program running using weather data to determine the water requirements of crops. (Since about 1980). The data available at that time ranged from 50 to 70 years. In 1990+ when I heard about global warming I analysed the data available to me. The ±11 year cycle were clear to see but I could not detect any warming trend. 1988 if I remember correctly produced a few colder than ever days but I would not say it represented a trend. The conclusion made then was that no GLOBAL warming could be seen. I visited one of the areas a few months ago and according to my observations the Skye's is as clear as ever.

Since my data were from rural areas the warming in urban areas cannot be excluded. It is known that cities are surrounded by a bubble of filth. City dwellers should therefore call it local warming and concentrate on cleaning up their own air, but it is realised that it will be hard because commerce and industry will fight it.

To summarize I think the word "global" is inappropriate. The places where development is sustainable should be left alone and vice president's should be prevented from going there and attempt to stop needed development because it is impossible to curb the abusive use in his own country.

The principle "look for the beam in your own eye before you attempt removing the splinter from the eye of another" should apply.

On a positive note for global warming (I really hope another term could be used).

From images I have seen the reducing area under natural forest could be noticed. This development cannot be sustainable and should be stopped or changed.

Thanks Hendrik.

Recheck your data and use the figures from the last 10-15 years, You would be astonished.

In Belgium the temperature jumped with approx 0.9°C in average. The big change came between 1987 and 1990. Before that period, we had approx 2 to 4 heat waves/decenium In the nineties this shifted to one every year, which went to two in the last years. This year is the first without in 15 years.

The night temperature still makes the difference: it does not cool down as it used to. In a cold summer it could start freezing from mid august, now we have a cool summer (day temp is between 15 and 25°C) but the night still stays above 10°C.

I did some manual checks already.

The max temp of ±1966 has not been exceeded yet.

We have some hot days now (winter time) but it is still cooler that August 1955.

I agree with you that a full investigation might show some facts.

The latest figures are however used in water requirement calculations but do not show much variation from previous calculations. I think we in SA has a lesser problem with bigger cleaner areas.

I don't like the term global warming but I am 200% in favour of protecting and restoring the environment.

Just to make it clear.

The earth will heat up or cool because of natural causes or cycles.

In cities the pollution should be reduced, at least to prevent the local warming from spreading.

The creation of green belts should be encouraged.

How to do it? - Fire politicians, Ban industrialist, Close the stock exchange and use CR4 to run things.

The fact of global worming in not debatable. We have been coming out of the last ice age for the last 20,000 years and it is continuing.

As for the reason(s) why, no one seems to consider the emmisivity of the sun. Sunspot activity has been increrasing by a great deal in the last century, which is an indication that the sun is in fact getting warmer. This reason alone could account for the increase in the temperature of the earth.

I don't think people are denying the existence of global warming. What is driving the argument is what is causing it. On one side a group says global warming is a result of the increase in man-made CO2 in the atmosphere while on the other side, people are saying that there is not enough scientific evidence to proves that man made CO2 is the root cause to global warming and that historically (geologically speaking) the earth has experienced global warming and global cooling long before man arrived.

Whether Global Warming exists or not is a question that will becontinued to be debated in the future and posibly determined it the future as well, but in any event, why not take the safe road and use environmentally friendly products, whenever feasible or common sense would dictate such use.

Duracool refrigerant, an all natural product, non-global warming, non-ozone depleting is one such product, and it is 40% more efficient that the current refrigerant used in american cars since 1994, which by the way is highly toxic and dangerous. Duracool will increase your horsepower, give you colder air temp., and result in your ac equip having a much longer life span.

I am sure there are other products on the market also that would apply to this senario, being "green" and environmentally friendly is a good way to help the problem of global warming and the environment in which we live.

These refrigerants are mostly butane and propane and so are highly flammable. If the information on the EPA website is current, they are illegal to use in cars:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc-12a.html

Tad

Maybe that is the case, but it is solely to protect the interests o the local (North American) supplier that begins with a D Dow or DuPont. Actually it does not matter. The fact is that in the thinking world, ie anywhere outside the US of A., they use hydrocarbon refrigerants which are more environmentally friendly, use less energy (25% in a refrigerator), give better performance, and the rest. This is simply a way to preserve the interests of the D.... not to protect the users. No doubt they make a good contribution to both parties at election time.

So the use of isobutane R600 is totally justifiable as being of zero risk and offering both savings in use, as well as reducing the environmental damage caused by the "other gas".

The EPA simply toes the party line. Surely you must be aware of the influence of the oil industry on the US policy as regards global warming ? This is just another example. They dont rule for the people but for their own benefit.

I could go on ! But you get the message ?

The thinking world? Anywhere outside the USA?

Well I guess it goes to show that some of us have all the friends we need.

cr3

Thank you Raknruin for your comments; you hit the nail on the head. Europe and the rest of the world is far ahead of us in this area using hydrocarbon refrigeants, which save energy, and work much better.

Also the EPA site is not up to date, Texas has changed its law concerning the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants, and it is now legal to use them in Texas.

I posted another comment just now also about this which you may want to read. Duracool ignition point is about 300 degrees higher that 134a...... and certainly is not toxic like the 134a.....

The information on the EPA web site is not correct. Texas in 2005 changed its law specifically to allow automobiles, trucks, etc. to use hydrocarbon refrigerants. Also if you read closely the EPA regulations, it states that a hydrocarbon refrigerant can be used in place of a 134 a refrigerant.

Also, concerning flamability, the actual ignition point of duracool is over 1600 degrees fareinheit whereas the actual ignition point of 134 a is approximately 1300 degrees fareinheit, and the ignition point of butane/propane is between 800 and 900 degrees fareinheit. Also the 134a is very toxic, and the MSDS sheet states that a respirator should be used when working with it. In the event 134a a is exposed to heat, at a certain level it becomes very similar to mustard gas.

Duracool refrigerants are not your typical run of the mill hydrocarbon refrigerants, they are actually refined at least 3 times and have a synthetic oil that is made by the company, which is added to the product.

If the argument was simply about living a more environmentally-friendly life, I don't think there would be much to argue about. However when we start talking about and implementing carbon trading or adding carbon taxes to consumption (most governments put tax revenues into general revenues as opposed to linking those revenues to specific projects), then there is a lot to argue about.

I am opposed to forcing companies to purcahse carbon credits from third world countries - simply because there are no checks and balances in place to ensure the payments are used for what they are intended. Therein lies the basis for one to believe that the Kyoto Accord is a means through which wealth can be transferred from the North to the South.

Notwithstanding the above, the other reason for being on the "isn't happening side" is the seemingly lack of scientific "due process" to back up the theory that man made CO2 emissions are the root cause for higher global temperatures. Personally I am not sure if it can be proved scientifically - and climate models do not equate to scientific proof. Models are closed systems that predict something in the future based on the input parameters and the assumptions made that relate to how those parameters interact with one another. Nothing more and nothing less. If you have inadvertently ommited a key "ingredient" that might work as a catalyst in climate change, your model is wrong. If you have over or underestimated the interaction of two or more parameters, your model is wrong. Models are simulations and they are good for trying to observe what might happen - but they fall short of scientific proof.

Right on.

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of John Coleman. He used to be a TV Weatherman here in Chicago. I heard him on the radio yesterday talking about Global Warming and CO2. He basically said that Al Gore should be arrested and charged with fraud for selling Carbon Credits, when he clearly knows that Global Warming is a hoax.

Here is a site that link's to John Coleman's original comments about the Global Warming Hoax.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Dick Hourigan
Visit
www.RichardHouriganInc.com

Does really nobody see the little error in the header?

When the earth day prolongs with 0.005 seconds per year, the day will be 50 seconds longer in 10.000y but the sun will have 25 sec extra and the cool down in the night will be 25 sec longer too. This means that the result balance will be: exactly 0.

Sorry to wake you up.

Go yerself back und re-read Post #3...

the truth of the logic makes sense to me.

Friend. I see you are overcome with an omnipotent moment. Perhaps a touch of grandiosity as well. Don't worry. Many of us are at times such afflicted.

However there is a remedy. Usually when this happens, if one takes just a moment to digest the hair of the dog, they find themselves good as new. Some even better, once the humbling has fully been absorbed. Please read post #3.

Wow I usually at least make to 20 or 30 before I begin skimming.

cr3

Nice BS. I belive the point was that your math is screwed up. 0.005sec/yr rotation * 10,000 yrs does not equal 50 extra secs of a day. It equals 50 extra secs of a rotation. Post #3 only tries to justify that the effects of the day is more pronounced than the effects of night.

Thx.

The discussion whether the night will balance the day is indeed a difficult one. Slight differences in absorption and reflection coefficients can make the whole world tilt upside down.

What bothers me is that the whole discussion is again sliding down the east-west discussion, Are the US nice guys or irritant losers? None of us can answer this.

What is the right refrigerant? Halogen based stuff is known to have an ozone depletion effect but perform quite well on corrosion and leaking resistance. Hydrocarbons are known to be of a high greenhouse impact (methane is bad, way more bad than CO₂) But is its possible to work with them, as it is possible to work with approx every substance that is known to have a liquid and a gaseous state, it only depends on the condensing and evaporation temperatures, adapt the pressures and off you go. For simple chillers even water is used as cooling medium.

The Stirling cooler can do it without the need for special media. Simple dry air can do the trick. Why isn't this used? You can connect it directly to the engine and it starts to pump heat, adapt the pressure in the unit and the amount of pumped heat is changed.

The second effect is the slowing of the Earths rotation. The Earth's rotation slows about .005 seconds per year, so in 10,000 years an Earth day will be about 50 seconds longer meaning 50 more seconds of solar power collected on June 20^th.

I thought this solar radiation was measured by a satellite. What does a satellite care how fast the earth is rotating?

I thgink the Earth's rotation has nothing to do with it.

I am assuming that the orbit for the SV (Space Vehicle) is held stable at the same orbital parameters. This is a theoretical ideal, but for this experiment we can ignore conditions that perturb the orbit, I guess. Geosynchronous means that the orbital period is equal to the same period that the Earth rotates, but that is at the time of launch.

If the SV's orbit remains unchanged and the Earth's rotation changes over time, the SV's position over the surface of the globe will change, but it still takes the same time it originally did to orbit the Earth as it did 10,000 years ago. In other words, there is no magic tether between the SV and the point on the ground that the SV appears to hover above.

However, if the challenge question assumes that the SV's orbit is constantly changed to match the Earth's rotational rate, then, yes, it would impact the amount of radiation received.

Hi,

think about some more astronomical reasons to modulate the energy input to the earth:

the perihelion is changing with time as stated above,

the inclination of the earth's axis is changing with time,

the maximum inclination angle is changing with time,

the solar output is changing with time.

The first three are multibody mechanical relativistic problems.

The last has to incorporate the dynamics of the sun especially the turbulent heat transfer and the unknown plasma and magnetic effects.

These inputs will work with the absorption and radiation of the earth which is dependent on clouds and dust and CH4 and CO2 and SO2 and CxFy and how many more?

These and other influences generated 7 (or more) iceages in the last 1.2 million years, no ice age from 1.2 back to 20million years, further back some more but not very well known.

Today it is not warmer than 1200 years ago when viking people from northern Europe conquered parts of central Europe and sailed to greenland and vinland = Canada.

Some more periods warmer than that existed since the end of the last iceage 10thousand years ago.

So we will have one more warm period.

Some minor states will be a little bit effective in slowing down greenhouse effects but the major part of this world will continue as is.

So what do you expect to happen?

RHABE

Common Sense at last. We mere Humans cannot change the climate on the scale allegedly being measured. This planet and the whole Universe have never been in any thing approaching a steady state condition since creation.

Why don't we stop wasting time and resources trying to reverse nature, and instead use our intelligence to adapt our living spaces to the changing conditions.

I do think that we should be conserving energy and reducing pollution, but only because it makes sense. Known fossil fuels reserves are dwindling, and it makes sense to conserve what we have until we do find alternative energy sources.

Who survived the "Ice Age", the guy who tried to melt the ice, or the guy who got a fur coat?

"Why don't we stop wasting time and resources trying to reverse nature, and instead use our intelligence to adapt our living spaces to the changing conditions."

Hi,

you and the others that think similar will be among the survivors.

Many of the others will waste their time and possibilities in fighting against windmills (look at Don Quichote and Sancho Pansa) and if the conditions change to be really bad may be a lot of them and a lot of people that had no chance of action will loose the game.

RHABE

we do not have to worry about global warming as far as astronomical calculations is considered since our Known civilisation is not more than 5000years ,even though industrial revolutiontook place within 200years ,exploitation of earth resource within 50-70 years from today ,10,000 years is huge period for humans , if humans do not go extinct upto that age may be technology will be too advanced to exploit sunpower ,added 50 secs of power will sure to define economics of that time. Dyson sphere may be under construction , but today we have one job to let our new generation be aware of certain things ,avoid nuclear warfares or war itself , check populations at international levels,earth friendly poltics ,industrial developments ,maintaining ecology etc

I am 100% in favour of stopping pollution and abusing the environment. I will therefore submit to the unfortunate term "global warming"

I think Europe and America abused the environment in the past by developing without considering the effects. There is a great need for remedial actions. But it is appreciated that money rules and it would be hard to curb or rectify.

What I don't like is Mr AG coming to SA and converting a lot of people. Needed sustainable development is now halted in the name of "global warming". The same authorities however reserves the right to pollute as they feel fit.

As an after though : The Government in SA call importing food and goods "virtual pollution". That is you get the goods you need but the pollution is elsewhere.

Proposal: Stop exporting to the south, reduce pollution and reduce "global warming". It seems like a win win situation to me (we in SA have some pollution credits).

Can or will Europe, America, China etc. concider it?. (I think not)

I'm in total favor of this but hard economic rules made us close down local production and shift almost everything to China/Asia.

In a lot of cases the calculations which proved this were colored: they wanted to prove that is is better to move the production. Now the quality and reliability went down, stock levels go up. It is the short sighted economic rule of the actual stockvalue.

In SA I call it importing poverty. Local poor people are deprived of job opportunities.

Here you hit a sore point: as the simple jobs get exported to the "cheap" side of the world a whole bunch of our population is deprived of decent job opportunities;

it is not directly the poor but the not so smart part of the population.

It might differ from the SA but here everyone gets free education at a decent level, private schools simply do not exist (except the international style of schools, where education is not better), there is no need for them.

Indeed the problem is not to be named Global Warming but Global Human influence, where the ozone depletion, air quality (gasses and dust) and several other effects our activities have can be grouped.

We have an influence, as if it were only the toads we kill along the highway's.

I think Europe and America abused the environment in the past by developing without considering the effects. There is a great need for remedial actions. But it is appreciated that money rules and it would be hard to curb or rectify.

What I don't like is Mr AG coming to SA and converting a lot of people. Needed sustainable development is now halted in the name of "global warming". The same authorities however reserves the right to pollute as they feel fit.

I think you are spot on in both these statements, although I might pick nits with the "abused the environment in the past" part. As far I can tell, we are continuing to abuse the environment. Since 1985, the fleet average fuel economy has gone down, not up, as it would if we cared about ecology or conservation of resources. We can certainly mouth the words, but we don't set an example in any meaningful way. We are happy driving Hummers and consuming 8 times as much energy per capita as the people of other developed nations.

As an after though : The Government in SA call importing food and goods "virtual pollution". That is you get the goods you need but the pollution is elsewhere.

A valid perspective, I think. We have a very large group of people who see electric cars as non-polluting. If electricity fell from trees, perhaps it would be so. Even worse is the "Hydrogen Economy" promoted by the current administration. There, you take all the losses already associated with generating electricity, and compound them with the losses associated with creating hydrogen. Here, electricity is generated with overall efficiency of 38%. Getting hydrogen into a vehicle is at best 50% efficient. Fuel cells are typically 60% efficient. So even before the energy goes through an electric motor, transmission and tires, you are down to .38 x .5 x .6 = 11%. Promoting H2 could be a real boon to the petroleum, natural gas, and coal interests!

About the night day - summer winter ballance.

If it is true that we acquire more heat than is lost it is no wonder we have global warming.

Or what happened to the surplus heat 50 years ago or in the ice age?

To say that man can bring about global warming is to imply that man can bring about global cooling. Those scientists who claim with absolute certainty that carbon dioxide is causing global warming surely should have some ideas, other than reducing carbon emissions, about how to bring about global cooling. Nevertheless, we can pretend that carbon dioxide is causing global warming, and we can work to reduce those emissions. Now, what can we also do to bring about global cooling?

Not so difficult: start burning fossile fuels when it get's to cold. (that's why we need to save some)

Those scientists who claim with absolute certainty that carbon dioxide is causing global warming

You'll need to cite a source here from a reviewed journal. I have never heard or read anything by any scientist that claims absolute certainty. That sort of thing happens only in the pop media.

As "they" say - only two things are certain - life and death.

With regards to absolute certainty, you are right because in science that is very difficult to achieve. Having said that, and given a large proportion of the members of IPCC are meterologsts, who we have come to know as weathermen, and given that in weather forecasts, a 60 percent chance of rain or shows invariably leads to rain or showers happening (from my very unscientific observations I have made since Environment Canada changed their forecasts to include a percentage chance of occurrence, I can surmise that by lifting the likelihood of man generated CO2 being the cause of global warming, from a weatherman's (person?) perspective that is as close to certainty that they can get.

And live is not so healthy at all, none survives it.

A surprising number of people responding to this forum thread, as in past forum threads, are obviously not reading the current mainstream scientific discussions on the subject of global warming. There's a lot out there, I know, but for those who are still questioning things such as whether or not human contributions are significant please read the latest issue of Scientific American, on newstands now.

You're right. It is astonishing how many people who are at least presumed educated in the basics of science (as evidenced by subscribing to this forum) are completely unaware of, and unwilling to read the information in scientific journals on the topic. As you may have noticed in several of the threads on this subject on CR4, many folks appear to be saying "Heck, what do a bunch of dang scientists know?? I'm a car salesman, and I can tell you fer darn sure, that runnin my Hummer can't change the climate." Or: "Scientific American?? Who are you trying to kid? That's writ by a bunch of smarty-pants inellekchles, who gotta be liberals. Ya can't believe any of that. You should be watchin Fox news."

There seems to be great pride taken in ignorance. A recent book took a serious look at the cultural value of being stupid, and I just searched for that book, but didn't find it. I did, however, come upon this, which I'll have to watch, on the "gotta laugh to keep from cryin" principle.

It sounds like someone has a major "believe what I say because I am smarter than you" complex. Anybody can print all the statistics they want and make them mean anything to anyone at any point in time, especially if you were pushing an agenda and people are willing to accept without thought.

When all your brilliant reading material can explain how the influences of small percentage of the problem (human cause) can have such a magnitude of difference in comparison to the largest percentage of the problem (natural causes), then maybe I might change my mind.

If I spent my life troubleshooting problems with that mentality, I'd be home collecting unemployment. But then again if I way collecting a check paid by politicians and agenda driven organizations, I would make the statistics say whatever you want me to say and let you sell the BS. So go back into your ivory tower now, bury your mind into your reading materials so that you can continue to be told what to think and I will read my materials with a grain of salt, while continuing to find how they truly apply in the real world and how they can lead my to the root cause.

Perhaps it is also well to keep in mind the potential effect of a small change in weight on the position of an aerialist on a high-wire. More than a few have tumbled when their concentration wavered, or some other factor such as a muscle cramp interfered.

Chemists and biologists frequently see the effects from the presence of some chemical at the very low concentrations of 1 part in 10⁹. Decades ago, when I was a research chemist, a co-worker held out to me a vial containing enough urushiol oil that if it had been diluted into the millions of gallons of water supplying a major city, it would have caused widespread allergic poison oak reactions.

It is good to read all the materials "with a grain of salt". Look carefully at the research assumptions, the limits imposed in the models, the validity of the methods used to collect the data, the biases imposed by sampling methods, and the questions the data are being asked to answer. A well-written and reviewed study will disclose these limits and uncertainties. Inevitably you will come to a section which suggests areas for further research.

Sometimes, however, we are not in a position to see enough of the picture--seeing the trees instead of the forest. A good example of this was the elucidation of the double-helix structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. They did virtually none of the research, but were able to gather small bits of often disparate information from many colleagues, and succeeded in assembling this into a model which has been repeatedly verified by further research.

In doing our questioning and thinking, lets not fall into the fate of a frog placed in a pot of cool water which is slowly heated on a stove. His gradual "global warming" had rather lethal consequences.

--JMM

Anybody can print all the statistics they want and make them mean anything to anyone at any point in time, especially if you were pushing an agenda and people are willing to accept without thought.

That's several thoughts strung together, but you seem to be arguing my point that understanding science requires serious effort and and understanding of statistics. I could not agree more.

Taken individually, the thoughts are:

Anybody can print all the statistics they want: Of course, it's a free country.

and make them mean anything to anyone at any point in time: I am unaware of anyone who has anything close to that power. (Hitler comes to mind, but there were plenty of people in Germany who didn't buy into his "reasoning".) It is, however, possible to sway opinion through either correct or incorrect interpretation of statistics, provided the audience is unschooled in interpretting statistics. But the word "provided" is a key one. I've found that it is very difficult to fool the average competent scientist with misinterpretation of statistics. (It is the nature of scientists to say "yes, but..." and "show me the evidence".) If you have been able to do this (to make something mean anything to anyone), perhaps you can relay the story of how you did it. I'd love to be able to engage in mind control.

I think we agree that the best way to avoid being swayed is to learn about statistics and their central and critical role to all serious science. Without that training, we are guided only by the loudest talk show host, or by "gut feel", or simply by what others would like us to believe.

especially if you were pushing an agenda and people are willing to accept without thought.

Again, I think you've hit the nail on the head. As you know, scientists accept virtually nothing without thought. Not only do they require real evidence, but they require rock-solid thinking re the significance of that evidence. And when I say "significance" I mean that not in the unscientific, uncritical sense of "Yes, is seems significant to me" but in the more valid statistical sense of confidence levels, valid sample sizes, etc. etc... the stuff that can give scientists headaches and ulcers when they "know" that their theory is right, but they can't prove it with the numbers." It took Einstein years to have E=MC^2 generally accepted, and even many decades later there are loads of engineers who don't understand the relevant theories, despite the fact that everytime you use a GPS you are effectively validating those theories.

So I agree that scientific training, and continued engangement in the particular science at hand is absolutely essential. Thus, the best people to make reasonable assessments of the validity of reports like the IPCC reports are scientists, and particularly climatologists, geologists, chemists with relevent experience, etc. For the rest of us who are not actively engaged in climatology, then we need to read the reports and do our best to evaluate their merit. Apparently you have done this and found something in the analatycal methods to criticize, but you are unable to say what that might be. In my own reading, it all seems to hold up pretty well (and the scientists provide hundreds of caveats) but I am willing to accept the concensus opinion of the real scientists, because I know their methods are subject to continuous scrutiny and review. At times, one has to accept that the brain surgeon probably knows more about brain surgery than a shoemaker does.

When all your brilliant reading material can explain how the influences of small percentage of the problem (human cause) can have such a magnitude of difference in comparison to the largest percentage of the problem (natural causes), then maybe I might change my mind.

I'm glad you think my reading material is "brilliant" although I have no idea how you could conlude that. Much of what I read is pretty dull stuff, and some of it can give me headaches. I'm not your teacher, so I can't spoon feed this stuff, but if you want to know how my "reading material can explain how the influences of small percentage of the problem (human cause) can have such a magnitude of difference... then I think you will have to read that material. I'd suggest starting with some of the IPCC reports, and then, if you find issues to discuss, go right to the scientists involved. Almost all are completely accessible. My only suggestion would be that you'd get farther with them if you avoided scarcasm (e.g., your first post to me in this thread) because it doesn't facilitate open communication.

If you ask the scientists, you'll need to at least put some numbers to what you mean by "small influences" and "magnitude of difference." Otherwise how can they possibly provide any help?

If I spent my life troubleshooting problems with that mentality, I'd be home collecting unemployment.

It's hard to tell what the referent for "that mentality" is. Perhaps you mean the scientific mentality of always asking "why?" and demanding evidence. If you think that is incompatible with good trouble shooting, I'd have to say I do not agree. Sure, every troubleshooting problem does not require full statistical analysis, but many have found that an essentially scientific approach (as opposed to gut level hit-or miss, try-this-or-try-that approach) to troubleshooting works well. I've tought some systematic troubleshooting courses to industrial mechanics, and they found the essentially scientific approach to work much better than hit-or-miss.

bury your mind into your reading materials so that you can continue to be told what to think

Our reading materials must be very different. I've found nothing in the scientific literature re global warming or any other subject that has told me what to think. In fact, precisely the opposite is central to the scientific process. The antithesis to this is religious dogma, where you are, in fact, told what to think. Thus, the uncomfortable relationship between dogmatic religion and science.

In any case, I think we essentially agree that to understand the causes of global warming, we have to read the scientific reports, evaluate the analyses, contact the scientists when required, and then make the best decision we can.

My only caution might be that if you meant what you wrote: "I would make the statistics say whatever you want me to say and let you sell the BS," that you might give some thought to evaluating your moral compass. If, at the end of your life all you can say is "I sold out," you may find yourself unhappy. But that's only my take on it.

I have GOT to watch that one.

I will do just that, however having read a previous article in the same publication regarding global warming, as well as having read articles in National Geographic, I doubt that my position will change which is essentially that we need to clearly understand the complete science behind our climate in order to arrive at a 90% certainty that man-made CO2 is the driving force behind global warming that we currently observe.

My hesitancy to agree that man-made CO2 is the primary cause is manifested by a number of questions and issues:

• In the past, what derove climate change when man wasn't around and how sure are we that those factors are not at play now?
• What role does cosmic radiation play in our climate?
• What role is solar radiation playing in the disappearance of glaciers vs higher atmosphereic temperatures?
• If you were to remove the temperatures taken in and around cities, what are the variations over time?
• Even if we accept that there is a strong correlation between the atmospheric content of CO2 and industrialization, we have to recognize correlation does not prove causality.
• Evidence supporting the theory that man-generated CO2 has been cited in the observations that global warming is more prominent in the Northern atmosphere vs the southern atmosphere - If this is true how vcan we explain the acute melting of glaciers at the 18,000 foot level in South America as well as the melting of the ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro?

To me there remains a lot of unanswered questions and conflicting conclusion that as a Scientists I am hesitant to "jump on the wagon" and point the finger at industrializtion as the root cause. As a geologist who was first educated on the concept of Greenhouse Gas Effect in the late 1960's, who understand that through geological time there have been numerous periods where the earth's cliamte has been both warmer and colder, and whose professor clearly indicated that to have another ice age, we first need the ,elting of the polar ice sheet (North), I can only conclude that there is a great deal that we do not know about how our climate is run over the long term. Hense to point the finger at man-made CO2 as being the primary cause is the wronf thing to do.

Finally, I live in Calgary Alberta and have lived here for close to 25 years (and no I do not work for an oil company). From my observation, the temperatures we get here are dependent upon where the Jet Stream flows. If it is to the north, we have warm and mild temperatures whereas when it is to the south of us, we are cold and tend to be rainy. From a National Perspective, warm temperatures elswhere in the country seem to be affected by where the Jet Stream is. These temperatures are then incorporated into the data that is used to determine whether global temperatures have risen. It would appear to me that instead of trying to understand the linke between atmosphereic temp and CO2 content that we'd be better off understanding the driving force behind the path of the jet stream and global warming.

I recently read a book Climate and Weather, by Hermann Flohn (it was published originally in German with a concurrent English translation, in 1969, by McGraw-Hill's World University Library division). It is dense reading, and I would have to go at it a couple more times to understand his careful presentation of the physics behind the different layers of the atmosphere, the various circulation patterns (including the jet streams), interactions with continents and oceans, etc. However, his final two chapters "Climatic Variations" and "Weather and Climate Modification" explore a number of specific changes that we can expect in regional patterns of rainfall, temperature, wind, etc. if temperature or water availability in some area were to change.

In those chapters he discusses the 12% rise of CO₂ from 1890 to 1960, compared to a fairly stable base value of 290 ppm. He includes analysis of early research (1956 and 1963) correlating this with average global temperature changes. He concludes the topic by saying:

"The whole question [of global warming] in fact is still open but we must expect a steady increase in the CO₂ content of the atmosphere up to about 500 parts per million in view of the continually increasing quantities of energy we are using. We must therefore continue to study this CO₂ problem with great care because failure to do so might bring consequences whose gravity can hardly be over-estimated. . . ."

--JMM

I don't believe the argument has been about there not being a correlation between the rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. What is to be debated is the whether there is a causal-resulting relationship there.

From my perspective, it makes sense for more heat to be retained within our atmosphere as a result of increased GHG's. However, is it cause for alarm? What increase in H2O vapor has occured at the same time as CO2 has increased?

I also believe that the warming of the planet is a natual phenomenon as exhibity from the geological timetable. After all about 10,000 years ago there was 2 to 3 km (estimates) of continental glacial ice above the great lakes. Those glaciers were big enough, heavy enogh and were moving enough to carve out the great lakes yet today their reminants are only atop some mountains in the far arctic.

There had to be considerable warming of the global climate to melt these vast ice sheets and this warming took place without the influence of man.

My "gut feel" (and yes Scientists are entitled to gut feels as it is those feelings that are the precursors to new discoveries) is there is a lot more at work in today's atmosphere that is resulting in climate change that is far beyond additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Consequently we should not focus all our efforts and resources on reducing CO2 but should also focus on adapting to climate change.

In the end we are only capable of making observations like Herr Flohn has. However we must be careful in our interpretations of those observations.

Real easy answer: follow the money. The cost of politicians making everybody believe they are experts. They are: definition: EXPERT: a person who knows more and more about less and less.

There certainly is a statistical relationship between carbon dioxide levels and a warmer atmosphere, but cause and effect are reversed in a great many minds. You don't need to be a scientist to prove this for yourself. 1) Open two cans of carbonated drinks. Leave one in the refrigerator. Set the other one in a warm place. From time to time, sip from each can. Which can retains the most fizz over time? 2) Mix two batches of bread dough containing yeast. Set one batch in a warm place. Set the other batch in a cool place. Watch the action of the carbon dioxide produced by the yeast in both batches. Which batch rises the most from carbon dioxide? 3) Start two compost piles, one in December and one in May. Keep them moist but not soggy because soil bacteria need oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. Dig into each of them after three months. Which compost pile has the greatest degree of decomposed organic matter which indicates that much of it was transformed into carbon dioxide? Ask yourself this question: In each instance, was the increased amount of carbon dioxide caused by more heat, or was more heat caused by increased carbon dioxide?

While I see what you are trying to achieve, it doesn't quite work that way. In the case of carbonate drinks, the amount of CO2 in solution increases invesely with the temperature of the drink. Hence the colder drink will retain its fizziness more readily than the warmer drink.

As for the yeast reaction, it requires heat in order to proceed (the reason you place the yeast in warm water before you add it to the dough. The formation of CO2 in this process is a by-product of the breakdown of sugar by the yeast into alcohol and CO2. If the bread dough is kept cool, the yeast reaction will not take place and CO2 is not given off.

As for the compost pile, the degeneration of organic matter creates heat plus the reaction is accelerated by added heat (from the sun - hence the black colour of most bins which are used to absorb heat from the sun.

In the end, I am not sure how your examples add anything to the discussion at hand.

Regarding the three examples you gave, only a small percentage of people at large would reverse cause and effect*. Likewise, only a very small percentage of the relevant scientists reverse cause and effect re global warming: it is ingrained in their training that a simple correlation does not prove causation.

*Regarding carbon dioxide solubility, many may be unaware of the actual relationship between solubility and temperature, but your experiment would demonstrate that relationship for them. Certainly, virtually no one would suggest that the carbonated beverage warmed the room, or cooled the refrigerator.

About the heat absorption capabilities of the earth.

It is possible and it is called plants and trees.

The plant uses energy from the sun to bind CO2 in wood or growth.

Without trees and plants the CO2 and energy wont be absorbed - result: LOCAL WARMING.

Have anybody checked the reducing area under natural forests.

Who can be blamed? Everybody , what is the effect of shopping centres popping up everywhere?

The real problem may be the uncontrolled increasing of population numbers.

I am surprised that this is the first comment that might lead to the discussion of deforestation.

This conversation is finally getting some traction from a few that took the time to learn when they were in school. There probably is a warming effect starting to show. The root cause is not what they money grabbers claim it to be. As you state, the earth is moving closer to the sun, the moon is slowly moving away from earth, which causes instability on rotation, the earth moves quite a bit: 3-5 degrees which changes the angle of attack from the suns rays, and on and on. There is not a damned thing we can do to change it. This has been going on for more years than any of us or our ancestors have been around.

If you really want to rattle the chains of the so called experts, have them explain a reversal of magnetic polarity, that has happened in the past. It is part and parcel to the bigger issues that is natural. If it gets a little warmer, crank up the A/C and live with it. It has in the past, and it will do so again in the future. Learn to read the rings in trees, rock formations, and the footprint is there for all to see.

This conversation is finally getting some traction from a few that took the time to learn when they were in school.

I agree. Jmueller's posts have helped tremendously in explaining the actual science behind climate change. Certainly, many of the posts here reflect either incredibly simplistic views or remarkable misconceptions, but Jmueller has taken the time to keep the discussion on track. Kudos to him.