Which comes first...the chicken or the egg? It seems to me that if we are to believe the(concensus) scientists, political and otherwise, that first, co2 levels must rise, then, second the globe will warm up. Yet, there are scientists out there who dispute this notion. They claim that first the planet must warm up(which it has been doing since before we had IPCC climatologists), then, second the co2 levels will rise (as al gore has suddenly discovered). Who is right and how does this affect the "infallible" climate models? ...and I do believe that the USA is the prime contributor of co2 to the planets atmosphere. If the climatologists would just fine tune those computor models, they will discover that there are elevated co2 levels which coincide with our election cycles.
Conrad

The notion that the climate warms before the CO2 increase is laughable. Where has the 25 trillion tons of CO2 we've emitted gone, Conrad? Sure, some of it is absorbed by oceans and plants, but not all of it. The fact is we've had an almost linear increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.

Conrad, please tell us how 25 trillion tons of CO2 has magically disappeared into space, while the linear increase in CO2 observed for 150 years is a natural phenomenon. No, don't point to some blurry graph and say "See, SEE the lag!" We want to know HOW and WHY warming precedes CO2 increases. And we'd like to know where 25 trillion tons of CO2 has gone.

Thanks,
Mark

Mark, are you asking how and why warming could proceed CO2 increases in general, or specifically over the last 150 years? If in general, that's not hard to answer. Increases in global temperatures could trigger a reduction in things that store carbon dioxide- loss of forests, ice, etc. Thus as the temperature warms and "carbon sinks" are depleted, carbon dioxide could increase.

But let's reverse the question, because that could prove instructive for future global warming. If we accept that CO2 increases warm the global mean temperature, how has this trend reversed historically? CO2 goes up but there is obviously a global mean reversion or we'd be just like Venus right now (that is, not alive to discuss this as our planet would be one big ball of boiling gas). What are the climate forcings that otherwise prevent such a catastrophe from occurring?

The absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations may have been around 280ppm. Today, they are around 370ppm, a potential increase of over 30 percent. With an increase in CO2 by 30 percent one could deduct that this "greenhouse gas" should have substantially increased surface temerature by now. Temperatures on average were cooler in the late 1800's, the 1920's and in the 1970's, but are slightly warmer now. Is this more cyclical than anything else? We are not seeing a significant increase in temperature to definitively say that "greenhouse gases" are living up to it's name "greenhouse" and trapping heat. Do not underestimate the role that the sun plays in heating the earth. We cannot control this.

The bottomline is that there is simply not enough evidence to support an immediate, drastic change to humanity. We have time. Regardless, foundations are being laid down for old technology to be replaced by new technology. Keep living your lives. If you want to make changes, please feel free. Remember that our world is carbon based. How much we collectively do to reduce carbon emissions may be insignificant and may not be worth the amount of money spent. Only time will tell. Only after absolute proof, we the people of the world, can mandate change, if need be.

Hi Mark!!
I'm not a scientist, so anyone who went further than physics 101 will beat me to death with numbers. So before I form an opinion about a subject, I like to listen to what the experts say. In the case of global warming, I read articles written by scientists in various related fields whether its meteorology, oceanography, climatology, geology,...plant physiology, etc. The subject is complex and has many facets.
One point which I have read numerous times in articles written by various scientists is this: "as temperatures rise, the co2 equilibrium in h2o (ocean, atmosphere, etc.) changes, and this releases more co2 into the atmosphere. Thus atmospheric co2 is an indicator of rising temps.- not the driving force behind it." This I believe puts the horse squarely in front of the cart.
As far as all those gigatons of carbon,which you mentioned,...carbon is a plentiful component of the planet. I don't believe that it disappears into outer space, but rather returns to the earth in many forms. Coal and oil were both formed unknown millenia ago from plants which utilized atmospheric co2 in a process called photosynthesis to produce glucose and oxygen. How many gigatons of carbon are produced annually by the trees in our forests? Just look at one tree, with say a 16" trunk,...how much glucose does it manufacture every year? We'd have to get a plant physiologist to answer that question. At any rate, that is just one place where the carbon in co2 winds up. I think that there are too many scientists with their heads in their coreholes and they ought to come out and look at the sunshine, because I believe the answer to global warming will be found there.
Again, this is just my opinion and I don't buy into the "scientific by consensus method".
Thankyou for asking me for my opinion...more people should do that...Conrad

Conrad:

Very well put for a physics 101 grad. I congratulate you. Actually, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Sunshine is the key and CO2 concentrations lag temp increases. Not the other way around. And you are right, the oceans and trees "suck" up by far more CO2 than anything man could build. Besides even 25 gajillion giga tons, or whatever the magic number is of CO2, is squat compared to the size of the earth and atmosphere.

The SOLE reason that scientists, AlGore, and other govenermental groups perpetuate the CO2 firts myth is that they need some manner by which to blame society for this "problem". CO2 is a convenient by product of the burning of fossil fuels. Though methane and water vapor are greater greenhouse gases, man cannot be held directly accountable for those things, therefore we never hear about them as being an issue.

I tried to post this to Eliot Abrams last week but it did not seem to get through, so here goes again:

In looking over these comments it strikes me that most people lack a basic knowledge of climate fundamentals necessary for an intelligent argument. Here is a brief review. There are at least eight major factors (plus subfactors and feedback loops) that influence climate and one of these factors is affected by the activities of mankind.

These influences are:

1)Tectonic. The continents move around and thus affect the movement of ocean currents which in turn affects climate. The continents come together and break apart on about a 250 million year cycle. About 2.5 million years ago they reached their current position and shortly after that polar icecaps developed and have been with us permanently since then.

2) Orbital. (Three of them) The icecaps expand and contract on about a 40-thousand-year cycle and by a more intense 100-thousand-year cycle. These cycles are caused by changes in the earth?s orbit and in the angle of tilt of its axis. The orbit changes from an ellipse to nearly a circle on about a 100-thousand-year cycle. This determines how near to the sun the earth is. The angle of tilt of the axis varies from about 21.5 degrees from vertical to 24.5 degrees and affects the intensity of change from winter to summer. There is also a 22-thousand-year cycle caused by the wobble (like a spinning top). The wobble causes the precession of the equinoxes in which they (and the solstices) progress one day every 60 years taking 22-thousand years to complete the cycle.

3) Fluctuations in the heat radiated by the sun?possibly related to sunspots?occur on cycles of about 200 and 2500 years. (Note the graphs from a previous poster).

4) Atmospheric. These are the so-called greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and methane plus also dust. These affect the amount of sunlight getting through the atmosphere and also trap warmth near the surface. In the past the atmospheric changes happened primarily because of volcanic eruptions but also because of lightning-caused fires. In recent historical times mankind has contributed by the burning of wood and fossil fuels.

There are several possible ?wild cards?. About 20-thousand years ago the glaciers reached their maximum extent and began to decline. By about 13-thousand years ago world temperatures were near those of today. Then within 100 years an abrupt change occurred in Europe and eastern North America plunging temperatures to near glacial conditions that lasted about 1000 years. This is believed to have happened because glacial meltwater pouring into the North Atlantic shut down the Gulf Stream.

About 600 years ago Europe and North America experienced a cooling (known as ?The Little Ice Age?) probably due to the convergence of various natural factors. This period ended in the late 1800s and some climatologists believe that mankind?s burning of fossil fuels was responsible for stopping the Little Ice Age.

Here is where the media gets it wrong. They would have us believe that there is a major controversy among climatologists as to whether man is influencing climate. This was the case 10-15 years ago but is not the case today. Climate scientists are virtually unanimous in agreeing that 1) The acitivities of mankind are putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And 2) These greenhouse gases are and will continue to affect the climate.

Where the disagreement exists among climate scientists is in? 1) what the future changes will be and 2) whether or not there is anything that we can do about it.

The majority view is? 1) the world will get a lot warmer over the next 100 years. This group believes that mankind?s activities will override the natural factors that should be moving us into a return of the glaciers. Many believe we may be in for a very warm period lasting around 50 thousand years until the natural factors are so strong that they override the man-caused factors. A minority view is? 2) is that the natural forces that are moving us toward a return to a glacial advance will override mankind?s influences and take us into another glaciation. Still a third view 3) is that glacial meltwater running into the North Atlantic will once again plunge Europe and eastern North America into near glacial temperature conditions perhaps lasting 1000 years as this phenomenon did last time 12 thousand years ago.

A few climate scientists employed by energy companies have been bribed to deny that mankind?s activities are or will affect climate change. There are also religious fanatics who believe all weather is caused by God and that bad weather is punishment for mankind?s evil. Remember..it has not been that long since many people believed the world was flat.

Here is fact. 1) Mother Nature took a long time (around a quarter of a billion years) to take the carbon out of the air and put it in the ground in the form of limestone, coal, and petroleum. 2) In the space of 100 years or so we have taken a large part of that carbon out of the ground and put it back into the atmosphere.
3) Some past warm periods are correlated with high levels of atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide. (Recent information has been gained from Greenland and Vostok ice cores some going back 660 thousand years.

Here is conjecture: The current rise in green house gases will cause climate change.

I don?t want to get into the question of whether or not there is anything we can do about climate change. This is a highly complex subject. My personal opinion is that whatever we do will be too little too late. It is hard to get people to sacrifice today for benefits 200 years ahead. We run up against ?The Tragedy of the Commons? syndrome. Individuals and Nations would be asked to make personal sacrifices for the good of the world and the good of mankind. An individual (or a nation) benefits at the expense of others by using more than his fare share of energy. Without some kind of agreed upon incentives and disincentives we are not going to do it. My opinion is that we will use up all the readily obtained petroleum and natural gas and then go to the more polluting coal. Who is willing to shiver in the dark? China and India would like to reach our level of energy consumption.

During the coming century we will be coming up against three intertwined problems. These are depletion of fossil fuels, human over-population, and climate change. At the beginning of the industrial age human population was around a billion and the bulk of them lived a precarious existence. Industrialization, mechanized farming with high inputs of fossil fuels enabled that population to increase six-fold. Few biologists believe that this population is sustainable over the long term.

Virtually every problem we face today, is caused by or exacerbated by these three ?horsemen?. We can expect increasing, extinctions, famine, and pestilence and more wars over competition for decreasing non-renewable and renewable resources.

Thirty years ago we could have taken steps to gradually reduce our use of fossil fuels and to very gradually reduce world population to a sustainable level. Nothing draconian would have been necessary. A gradually increasing fossil fuel tax would have spurred efficiency and alternate energy sources. A cash incentive for voluntary sterilization given to those persons who do not wish to have any more children would gradually bring about a leveling off of the population.

Thirty years ago I was optimistic that we would turn things around. Now I am not so optimistic.

W. H. Martin, Field Biologist, Flat Earth Lane, Harpers Ferry, WV

The only Global Warming that is going on, is a lot of hot air from our Congress. Sure the sun gets hotter at times. But has nothing to do with mankind. We were told 30 years ago, we were going into cool down. Now the same people say we are going to melt. In Genesis 8:22, its says While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night, Shall not cease. Global Warming is a money maker for some, and they will one day put a tax on us if, we fall for this. And todays people don't think for themself, they let others do it for them. People wake up and stop letting other people think for you. Find Out the facts, not lies.

An excellent documentary, pretty much debunks the whole idea of "man-made" climate change. I reckon this is a turning point, in a few years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as a total myth. Im embarrassed that I ever believed it.

I can see future generations including this in a list of stupid global myths :
Witches exist.
The world is flat.
An Inconvenient Truth is a great movie.
We're changing the climate so much that the polar ice-caps are melting.
God exists.

Oops! forgot too mention the name of the documetary in the above comment.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

'they' want the people to concentrate on a unsolvable solution to a non-existent problem.'they' have paved the way to their goal by preying on the fears of the population. the fear of contamination of the atmosphere with man made CO2 which in turn is causing global warming and melting the sea ice cap, then we have the treats to the survival of the polar bears. all nonsense, the real reason for all this B.S.is to prepare the populous for a new tax via 'a cap and trade policy'.it will be passed along to the consumer as a cost to all state regulated utilities and private companies that exceed the federal CO2 standards.how are they going to sell the fact that CO2 is a harm to our atmosphere, well they are almost there ,except for you and i'll let you be the judge of the facts as follows:

composition of the Earth's atmosphere
78.08% nitrogen
20.95% oxegen
.93% argon
.38% CO2
100% [includes 1% water vapor]