I have a better idea. Here is grist for how to talk to reality-challenged global-warmers:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

This paper completely debunks algore and his pet scientists. Specifically, on page 15 of the report Lord Monckton states, "The "scientific understanding" is so crude that the central question - by how much can the temperature be expected to rise as a result of a given additional amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere - has not been definitvely established either empirically or theoretically." A point I have been stressing in most of my posts to this blog.

I got this report from http://ff.org/centers/csspp/misc/index.html where you can find quite a few excellent resources.

Enjoy.

So typical of someone who either 1) has no argument or 2) lost the argument is to answer a question with their own question.

woodNfish, please answer the questions in the article Laura posted. We're waiting. I have a feeling we'll be waiting forever.

Mark seems to be the one without an argument since he has no answer to woodNfish. However putting that aside, the real questions are 1. Is our planet warmer then 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 1000 years ago? 2. If Yes then what is the real cause?
The people who "claim" Global Warming are saying yes to 1. and CO2 to 2. Looking at CO2 for the moment, here is part of an article from http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

************************************

Basically on average Water (in the form of water vapour or clouds makes up about 20,000 parts per million (ppm). (In the tropics its about 40,000ppm). CO2 makes up 370ppm. If the relative humidity rises by 1.3% then we have effectively doubled CO2. Look at it another way. If we put 20,000 drops of Whisky in a glass then add 370 drops of Vodka what is the outcome? If you then add another 3 drops of Vodka will it make a difference? Uhmm, I dont think so especially when someone adds another 2000 drops of Whisky.

Back to Question 1. Is the planet warmer then 20, 50, 100, 1000 years ago? If you spend time looking at various papers or graphs the answer is no. We are warmer then 20 years ago, thats not in dispute but it was warmer in the period 1930-1940 then now. In some places around the world it was warmer around the nineteen hundreds then now. It was definitely warmer during the Medieval Warm Period then now by several degrees.

Global Warming as proposed by IPCC, environmentalists and other eco-nuts is a scam and a fraud equal to the flat earth society of the 1400's

To answer the question about what causes the natural cycles, THE SUN. Yes that big yellow thing that appears in daylight hours. Seriously though, there was a scientist called Dr Theodore Landscheidt who studied the sun quite extensively. He has passed away unfortunately. His papers were never published in any of the science mags since they wouldn't publish them mainly due to his anti CO2 global warming stance. However they were published here.

http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm

You can scroll through the list to find his papers. They are quite technical and hard to read in places. Basically as well as the 11 year sunspot cycle, he identified a 16 year cycle, 36 year cycle and a 179 year cycle. The acheivement of a scientist though is to be able to predict future events using past data. He did that with 100% accuracy. Four El Nino's, 1 La Nina, the end of the Saharan Draught that affected Ethiopia. He predicts that the USA will have an extended wet period from 2007 to 2013.
He was never given recognition for his work. For some reason scientists who give catastophe predictions with computer models that cant accurately predict anything are given more credance then this man.

In addition to my last comment, Dr Theodore Landscheidt's last paper can be found here.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

Its a good read

the answer is simple: look at the graph and, please, notice that CO2 and CH4 trail behind temperature: when temperature rises, the CO2 and CH4 concentrations rise a little later. I have no doubt that AGW activists have an explanation for that too, probably involving Exxon-Mobil black ops agents going back in time and altering the CO2 and CH4 concentrations around the places where the samples were taken in order to make us believe that increases in temperature precede increases in two greenhouse gases concentrations.

Steven and Emil,

Both of you have given a few of the reasons why I myself have doubts about Global Warming.

I don't believe that any studies have adequately addressed the cyclicality of our climate yet. Even Meteorologists such as Joe Bastardi with Accuweather have their doubts. Especially when you push model information against historical data.

Steven Beck: Hey, don't slam those flat-earthers! There has to be some stupid people around for algore to make money from.

In the paper I cited, in my first post above, is a text and references to several papers that studied previous ice ages and incidences where CO2 had significant increases. The research showed that the CO2 increases actually trailed the warming periods by anywhere from 900 to 2500 years. I'd love to just drop in the text with the references, but it is a pdf file and I am unable to grab any of it, but anyone is free to read it as I have. Even you, Mark, though I doubt that you will.

However, I do suggest that you read it Laura, as it refutes algore and his "Inconvenient Truth" quite thoroughly using peer reveiewed research. You mentioned in one post that you had seen his movie and couldn't find much wrong with the science behind it. I think you should read the article for a refresher course.

At the end of the article is a letter written to the PM of Canada and signed by 60 scientists from all over the world. It is an eye opener as well and worth your time.

woodfish, I read it. It's just a letter to a couple senators whining about how ExxonMobil should be allowed to corrupt the scientific process by waving dollar bills in front of them. Sorry, but I automatically disregard corporate-sponsored research.

And Steven, you have completely destroyed all of your credibility by referencing Junkscience.com. That website believes that all science is junk. The guy running that website still believes secondhand smoke is healthy and the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by the "anti asbestos" movement. But at least we know where you get your "objective" sources from.

For the few people here that aren't on Sean Hannity's mailing list, please check out more info on Steven Milloy, the founder of JunkScience.com. , at the following link:

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

And Steven, you have completely destroyed all of your credibility by referencing Junkscience.com. That website believes that all science is junk. The guy running that website still believes secondhand smoke is healthy and the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by the "anti asbestos" movement. But at least we know where you get your "objective" sources from.

The National Inquirer has more credibility than "Frontiers of Freedom" and "Junk Science".

Steven's cite of Junkscience.com is an improvement over his earlier reference to Landscheidt. From the Wikipedia bio of Landscheit:
Theodor Landscheidt (born in 1927 in Bremen, Germany, died on May 20, 2004) was a German judge, astrologer and amateur climatologist. His work on solar cycles has been cited by global warming skeptics to argue that observed warming is not anthroprogenic and will soon be reversed. In 1983 he founded the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Lilienthal, near Bremen. The Institute (for which Landscheidt appears to have been the only active researcher) later moved with him to Nova Scotia, Canada.

I'm sure we're all happy to learn that Landscheitdt was the recipient of the "Mark Edmund Jones Award" "which is considered one of the most prestigious awards in astrology."

His papers were never published in any of the science mags since they wouldn't publish them mainly due to his anti CO2 global warming stance.
...
He was never given recognition for his work. For some reason scientists who give catastophe predictions with computer models that cant accurately predict anything are given more credance (sic) then this man.

Not to belabor the point, but Landsheidt's papers were not published because he was a quack and his papers were rubbish. He was an ASTROLOGER, for crying out loud.

Jeesh.

Thank you for the correction, Mark. I put the wrong link down. This is the correct link: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf. I apologize for the incorrect link. I typed it in wrong as I wasn't able to grab it with my mouse.

I am sorry we won't be hearing from you again though Mark because you don't like corporate research - the same research that invented the telephone, television, the transistor (Bell Labs), the intgrated circuit (Texas Instruments), the microprocessor (Intel), the operating system you are using (Microsoft or Apple, and a host of others since Apple's OS runs on top of UNIX), the cell phone, the FAX machine, etcetera, etcetera. I guess you'll have to throw away all your computers and phones. So sorry.

So Michael doesn't like junkscience.com

I used it because it gave a nice explanation with a graph, but if you insist.

From the American Geophysical Union

http://www.agu.org/

In addition, water vapor is the most abundant of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the most important in establishing the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases allow much of the Sun's shortwave radiation to pass through them but absorb or trap the longwave, infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. Without water vapor and other greenhouse gases in the air, surface air temperatures would be well below freezing.
**********************************************

If you notice it says MOST IMPORTANT

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) typically 1% to 4%(highly variable)

Ok we have MOST IMPORTANT and 1-4%

CO2 makes up 360ppm, Water Vapour 10,000 - 40,000 ppm. My analogy still stands. CO2 is a minor gas that cant do anything for the global greenhouse effect.

When Dr Richard Lindzen says a range of 0.038 c to 0.98 C in 100 years, I take notice. That is a potential significant anthropogenic warming compounding the already 0.5 C warming of which maybe 30% ( source - the Weather Channel special on gw ) is attributable to solar variablilty. Perhaps the sun is responsible for a larger percentage of warming. The real issue here is that just because Al Gore has accelerated the anthropogenic disaster does not mean a business as usual policy is fine. These emissions are well in excess of biosphere's ability to absorb. This anthropogenic disaster may not be in 100 years and could be much longer in the making. This is not a matter of eco-nuts and Al Gore proselytising. This is a real threat long-term. Do we really want to trend towards a thicker atmosphere - i.e in the direction of Venus. The answer is no. Whether the disaster is comparatively near or far is irrelevant! Given Dr Lindzen projection, prudent co2 reduction measures should be implemented now... and just think of the benefit to air quality which is most certainly a problem in the U.S.

There are many correct facts in the above argument, but incomplete reasoning. It is true that water is the most important greenhouse gas, but the abundance of water in the atmosphere is controlled by the hydrological cycle. If you put more water in the air it comes back out as rain. Most first graders know this. Three quarters of the earth's surface is water, so the atmosphere already has as much water as it is going to get. This is why hydrogen is viewed as a global warming neutral fuel. Is someone arguing that the global rise in temperature over the past two hundred years is due to increased water vapor?

Quoting relative atmospheric concentrations is irrelevant. Radiative forcing depends on concentration, and absorption coefficient, and the spectrum. CO2 is the strongest infrared absorber around. CO2 absorbs in the spectral regions where water is transparent, closing the windows where heat was escaping to space. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations were steady at 280 ppm for several thousand years, but have now increased to 380 ppm. Most of that increase has occurred in the last 100 years. What natural process led to this increase?

It is true that no one knows the degrees of warming that will result from the doubling of atmospheric CO2 that is now inevitable. Estimates range from 1 to 10 degrees. That is a lot of uncertainty. The significant thing is that no one says it is zero.

CO2 is a minor gas that cant do anything for the global greenhouse effect.

I don't know what your day job is, but you better keep it -- this last post betrays an abysmal lack of understanding about even the simplest dynamic systems.

The environment is NOT a linear system. One can NOT assume that because a gas has small concentration, it is therefore not important.

From the wikipedia link above, the atmosphere contains "trace" amounts of Carbon Monoxide (CO). From the CDC ACUTE TOXICITY DATA, CO is "Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health" at concentrations of about 1,200 ppmv -- or 0.12%. By your logic, a LETHAL concentration of Carbon Monoxide would still be a "minor gas that can't do anything."

The atmosphere is FULL of non-linearities and positive feedback. Two fundamental properties of non-linear systems are (1) small changes in some quantity may produce disproportionately LARGE changes in system behavior and (2) changes are non-local, so that small changes in one region produce larger changes somewhere far away. Being two seconds late for a bus -- so that the bus leaves without you as you arrive -- can cause you to miss a conference altogether if your missed bus causes you to miss the last train that causes you to miss the last plane.

I'm sorry, Steven, but you might as well argue that the earth is flat, or that the earth is only six thousand years old and the fossil record is a lie (as is asserted by some religious cults). Or that we're all going to be taken up in the rapture anyway so it doesn't matter. Believe what you will, but please either learn science or leave the public policy decisions about science to those who do.

The scientific illiteracy of these exchanges highlights the importance of improving science education if we, as a democracy, are to make wise choices about important issues.

Tom, Tom - get a grip man. You are talking about a projection of 1 degree, and 1 degree does not a catastrophe make. And I think you should stop paying attention to the chicken little's at the weather channel who haven't got the guts to even publish comments critical of global warming on their blog. They are the same hyperventilating fools who were predicting a worse year for hurricanes in 2006, remember?

There is no threat. The temperature margins you quote are within the range of error. The global warming models don't work - they can't even predict the weather we've had with any accuracy, and to even do what they do as poorly as they do it, most of the variables (the ones we know about) have to be entered as static numbers.

Also, we know very little about the compostition of our atmosphere - about as much as we know about the oceans which, again, is very little. Sure, we learn more as time goes by, but not enough to make wholesale predictions of catastrophe. And the air quality in this country is quite good, actually. (Unless you live in LA which is a cesspool for many other reasons as well.) You might as well worry about whether or not the earth will be hit by an asteroid.

Take a deep breath, calm down and enjoy a comforting glass of wine or whatever beverage you prefer.

Ok, woodNfish. I'll take your advice as long as you supply the fish for my wine? I take it yours is a wooden fishing pole? I would like take a deep breath but here as in may municipalities, I would not want to chance it.

Without CO2 comprising the measly 0.3% of the atmosphere (or whatever percentage it is), we would be 18 C colder than what we are now. So, Steven, this is clearly not a "minor" greenhouse gas. If it was a minor gas, then removing it would have little affect on temperature, but the truth is...we'd have an Ice Age of epic proportions if we completley removed CO2. It's obviously a potent greenhouse gas.

It's pretty sad to see the GW contrarians shift their argument. First their argument was that it was all a cycle and we're not causing the problem. Now they say that even if we're causing the problem, it's no big deal. You gotta love a circular argument with people who have no desire to comprehend something that is beyond their surface level thinking.

Ooooo Steven....you unleashed the Tom. :-o

Usually, he's arrogantly pounding on me. Nice to get a breather for a change.

Oh no....he's turning this way....RUN! SAVE YOURSELVES! RUN!

Merry Christmas everyone and lighten up for the holidays!

I hope that woodNfish joins Steven in an introductory science class. We are not discussing "composition of our atmosphere" or "air quality", we are discussing climate models, global warming, and risk analysis.

Perhaps the two of them will retire to their respective beverages and leave the determination of public policy to those who are willing to listen and learn. Astrologers, right-wing nutcase sites, and industry shills may be entertaining to some, but they offer NO insight to the matters at hand.

Of course Steven Milloy, Junkscience's founder will say second-hand smoking is not bad for your health. "Milloy is also head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli," says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy. I suggest you guys go to this website an have a look at the information there published.

Now, if you're still doubting the planet is warming up... here's a website also worth-visitng: http://www.wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html. This is what many meteorologists use to predict the weather. I don't think the forecasts there provided are 100% accurate... but have a look at the current temps observed all around the world and see how MILD the Northern Hemisphere has been recently. This may not be a historical data base, but... see how warm Europe, for instance, has been. Again, check Alan Reppert's blog (though I don't agree with him on what is producing these above-normal temperatures).

Still unconvinced? http://www.metoffice.co.uk/ is worth reading also. Have a look at "News" and you'll see that even an ultra-conservative website supported by Tony Blair agrees temps are rising. It's no surprise to me to see that 2000-2006 have been abnormally warm.

Please, please... don't say this is just political hot air. We're debating about science, doesn't matter which party you like.

And finally, one thing about Junkscience... it's contradictory. If that site states all science data is just trash then, why do they publish scientific graphs on their own websites! Besides, we are talking about science here and not about nonsense statements. Apparently, those who have become enthralled in reading junkscience.com may believe they will be taken by Aliens or something, for all the things said by people is a HUGE lie. I bet they believe in conspirations.

That's all. Please, let me highlight I don't mean to offend anyone... I'm a 17-year-old weather fan. My last arguement: Sun may be playing an important role here, though it's not the only player.

Emiliano

Hello all!

What make me wandering is that in every discussion about global warming, I couldn't find anything about ice age. Just something about the cycles... As far as I know, the last ice age (or whatever is the scientific name) started about 14000 yrs ago and still continues, in the final stages. Another thing is the movement of the Earth axys. I don't know how this things can be liked to climatology, I'm not a researcher, but can they have any?