I believe it's largely natural cycle too but this does not detract from the fact that we are engaged in a global experiment of atmospheric thickening. At some point in the business as usual scenario, Earth will surpass the natural gelogic background of co2 not to mention other human generated ghgs. Thus, efforts to reduce human co2 and other ghgs are laudable especially from a pollution standpoint ( e.g. hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide etc ) We should not fear natural warming but maybe we should fear an unrelenting human ghg emission that has potential for harm in this context. This may become unchartered territory, fast!

Dr Fred Singer is an Electrical Engineer, who has held a long series of academic and political post, but not much else. A senior fellow at a conservative think tank, he has no peer reviewed works in atmospheric science related to global climate changes (warming or cooling).

He�s also argued that there is no link between second hand smoke and lung cancer or between radiation and melanoma. However, anybody with a PHD making such claims will be able to get more than a few $$ for saying so.

No wonder he likens himself to Galileo and Einstein; as nobody else would ever draw such a conclusion about his work.

In other words, Dr Fred Singer is a classical quack.

Fred Singer also holds a PhD in Physics from Princeton. I would take his word on how so-called man-made global warming defies all known physics of the Greenhouse effect.

Anyone who believes that second-hand smoke isn't carcinogenic is a quack in my book.

There was an interesting article in a recent conservative magazine, National Review, that deniers should read. It points out how AGW is real, conservatives (re: deniers) need to accept this reality, and join the debate on finding solutions to the problem. If they continue their fruitless argument that AGW isn't occurring, the National Review argues, then they're missing an opportunity at offering "conservative" solutions to the problem.

I've been trying to make this point for quite some time now. I'm glad at least some of the right-wing is starting to get it and agree with me.

A summary is availabe at the following link -- for once in your lives, you can't question the source's "bias."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120668.html

Dr Fred Singer is a classical quack.

REPLY: You mean like John Kerry supporter Dr. James Hansen, right Andrew?....;-D....

Andrew,

I see you are resorting to the usual AGW last line of defense - i.e character assassination based on wild misinformation.

Here is Singer's actual quote-
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/singer_interview.htm
"The most serious form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma, is produced by solar radiation"

Dr. Singer is an extremely accomplished atmospheric physicist. From the article-

"Dr. Singer, you are a scientist who has achieved great renown for pioneering research in atmospheric and space physics. You were among the very first to study the cosmic radiation outside of the Earth's atmosphere using rocket-borne instruments. You developed the method of dating the origin of meteorites and showed how the Moon might have been captured to become a companion of the Earth. You pioneered instrumented satellites before Sputnik and devised instruments for measuring ozone and other atmospheric constituents from space. More recently, your research group measured the interplanetary dust and detected clouds of orbiting debris particles near the Earth. You predicted the existence of radiation belts before they were found by satellites and first published on the human production of methane, an important greenhouse gas. Your career has included academic positions and several government posts. You served as Chief Scientist in the Department of Transportation and were the first director of the US Weather Satellite Service. You have served as a consultant to the Secretary of Energy, the White House Science Adviser, and other government officers, and were for several years the vice-chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Since retiring from government and the University of Virginia, you founded a think tank, the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), in Fairfax, VA."

Ah, yes, I see Marx went out of his way to find a blog that shows that some so-called "conservatives" are jumping on the panic monger bandwagon, in an effort to make themselves look good, a la Rupert Murdoch. Like this Mr. Manzi that this blog mentions, who makes his living in marketing. Hey, who ever pays the most money (which I might at I DON'T have a problem with), that's who we will spin for! Even if it is a bunch of BS. Also, our Mr. Manzi is a graduate of MIT. Doesn't Noam Chomsky teach at MIT? Sounds pretty fish to me!

One other thing. Marko, I need to ask. The term "Right Wing" that you love to use in excess, please explain. Because my observation of history shows that prior to the 1960's Marijuana Marxist revolution giving birth to the political radicals in this country, the USA politically was what you deem as "Right Wing" today. Translation, there was no "Right Wing" until your big hero's came along with their drugged out hippie tripe and called this country an Imperialist state that is the reason for the world's problems. So again, I ask you, Please Explain "Right Wing" to all of us. I am very eagar to hear your response.

The DENIER

Andrew,

Why are you so fascinated with a person's "credentials" than what is actually being said. If a liar tells you that 2+2=4, are you going to go on about how they are a liar or focus on the statement at hand? Lemme guess, first you would question if they voted for Bush and then let everyone know that they were a liar ( Oh my gosh, did I tell you he voted for Bush??), what? 2+2 what? Nobody peer reviewed his work, he's a total quack!

BTW - Great "report" you directed me to. Was that reviewed by peers? Did you review it? :) Did you check their credentials? Oh, voted Democrat, super, must be A-Okay! ( With a thumbs up and a wink :)

Care to tell me what you thought of my "review"? Note: Not peer reviewed, I would not classify the person(s) who wrote that my peer :)

Regards,

Steve

Mark,

Someone needs to show that there is a problem before anyone can join in to help. I understand that is getting warmer. How about showing me why? Causation is a key factor here. There is a mere correlation between CO2 levels and Temperatures. This correlation can only be made up to 200 years ago because before that Temps rose and fell independent of CO2 levels. CO2 levels rose and fell because of temps (Henry's Law).

What point have you been trying to make? That even though there is NO evidence that GW is caused by man that we should just believe it? So someone who is trying to prevent votes from being transferred from one idiot party to the other idiot party writes an article trying to show that "conservatives" do care about GW. That's the proof I was looking for, thank you.

Regards,

Steve

>> Dr Fred Singer is an Electrical Engineer,

Andrew, the argument by authority is a classic logic fallacy. You need to read more about "critical thinking skills".

>> he has no peer reviewed works

"peer review" is not part of the scientific method. You need to read more about the scientific method. Besides, as the Wegman report exposed, the scientific proponents of AGW are a small number of advocates, forming a clique, all reviewing each others "work".

>> He also argued that there is no link between second hand smoke and lung cancer

Again, extremely bad logic. Newton advocated many theories that were completely wrong. Does that make him wrong about everything?

>> In other words, Dr Fred Singer is a classical quack

You certainly haven't made that case. In fact, ad-hominem attack is last resort of someone who cannot deal with the substance of his argument.

And his argument is simple: Only the scientific method is a credible way to achieve scientific knowledge. This means that a real scientist tries to falsify his hypothesis. Only failed falsification attempts give a hypothesis credibility to move to the theory stage, after many years. After many more years, it moves on the "law".

AGW has not even achieved the level of hypothesis, since it violates Henry's law.

Really there are only two things that must be evaluated here. It matters not what educational or scientific background Mr. Singer has. It matters only what his stance is in the American political system. The other item of concern is what is the lean of the source.

According to the AGW religion, that is the only thing that matters.

Singer's argument has been dealt with over and over. He's not the first person that has thought there was a correlation between solar activity and climate. However, it's been proven that the change in solar forcing since 1750 amounts to 0.1 Watt. By contrast, Greenhouse gases are 20 times that amount.

So, a person that wishes to compare himself to Einstein had better start thinking of something original. Sunspots is nothing new.

And yes, peer review is part of the scientific process. If it weren't then there would be no way to tell the differance between a real science and garbage.

Dr James Hansen is another example. He's got a theory about a global tipping points and sea level rises of inch/year. But, he can't get that into a peer review science journal and I doubt you'll ever see anything like that in the IPCC report.

Here is a good interview with Dr. Fred Singer on PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

>> thought there was a correlation between solar activity and climate.

Thought? The fact is completely undeniable. There is night and day, winter and summer, even deep ocean temperatures vary according to the seasons. Neptune has similarly warmed lately. How do you explain that?

>> However, it's been proven that the change in solar forcing since 1750 amounts to 0.1 Watt. By contrast, Greenhouse gases are 20 times that amount.

Oh really? Show me the scientific proof. Vezier makes a convincing case that C02 is not a climate driver. The sun, cosmic rays, orbital variation and the water cycle are all much more important.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/veizer2.pdf

>> had better start thinking of something original. Sunspots is nothing new.

Science isn't about thinking of creative new ways to blame man for something. "Sunspots is nothing new" is not an argument. Since the laws of reality have not ever changed, it's always true that "scientific reality is nothing new".

>> And yes, peer review is part of the scientific process. If it weren't then there would be no way to tell the differance between a real science and garbage.

Ahh ha. I said "scientific method". Peer review is a very recent practice used by scientific magazines as a QA process for scientific literature. Nothing more. It is NOT part of the "scientific method".

>> He's got a theory about a global tipping points and sea level rises

He has a speculative idea. It doesn't qualify as even a hypothesis, since if there were such a tipping point, we would experience it every summer. The climate would be completely unstable. If you come up with an idea that is falsified by direct observation, then it is falsified by the "scientific method", not by "peer review".

Steve,

You asked for some type of mechanism for Co2 to cause warming rather than a simple correlation. This can be done by searching for "CO2 Infrared Radiation Absorbtion Spectrum" on Google. It is a known physical characteristic of the molecule CO2 that it absorbs infrared energy (the kind that is reflected off the surface of the earth from sunlight).

This means that adding to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to slight warming over time -- even a slight warming over a long period can cause dramatic ecological changes. The rest of climate science is just details, how the other variables... cloud cover, rain patterns, soils, and other atmospheric gases will react to this imbalance.

We know that almost all changes in climate in the past were accompanied by changes in the content of the atmosphere. Denying this is just denying fact. We also know that humans place about 70 million tons of CO2 daily into the atmosphere and that this is changing our atmosphere. It's a perilous experiment. Fossil fuels will run out this century anyhow... shouldn't we begin the transition away from them for our children's sake for that reason alone?

Bill

Bill:

As I recall, in the 1970's and early 80's, the experts, scientific consensus, and accepted fact was that oil would run out about 7 years ago. I sincerely doubt that anyone has a handle on the quantity of fossil fuels left on this planet.

WE are not conducting an experiment by the way.

>> It is a known physical characteristic of the molecule CO2 that it absorbs infrared energy

Yes, but the water cycle dominates to such an extent that it makes C02 almost irrelevant, and certainly not a climate driver

>> This means that adding to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to slight warming over time

You forget that the greenhouse effect has a saturation point, ie 20 feet of glass will not make a greenhouse warmer.

>> -- even a slight warming over a long period can cause dramatic ecological changes.

The argument that slight warming is very beneficial is quite compelling. You have no real evidence to the contrary.

>> The rest of climate science is just details, how the other variables... cloud cover, rain patterns, soils, and other atmospheric gases will react to this imbalance.

You have it reversed. Cloud cover and rain patterns are orders of magnitude more important than C02. Henry's law requires that any C02 we add to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans.

>> We know that almost all changes in climate in the past were accompanied by changes in the content of the atmosphere. Denying this is just denying fact.

Accompanied! Henry's law requires that oceans outgas somewhere between 20 and 60 PPM of C02 for every degree C of ocean temperature rise. Sun heats ocean, oceans increase atmospheric C02.

>> We also know that humans place about 70 million tons of CO2 daily into the atmosphere and

I think it's more like 5.5 GT each year, which is only 15 million tons per day. Irregardless, human effect is very small, one paper calculated it at .2%. The AGW idea postulates that it is possible to externally increase and accumulate atmospheric C02. Henry's law requires that equilibrium with the oceans be maintained.

>> that this is changing our atmosphere. It's a perilous experiment.

For that to be true, Henry's law must be invalid. So, you're speculative idea (AGW) requires that Henry's law be invalid, and that we ignore contradictory observation: the depression cut human C02 output in half, yet no effect on C02 measurements. China and India greatly increase human C02 output, yet no effect on C02 measurements.

>> Fossil fuels will run out this century anyhow...

Oil is not a fossil fuel. Oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. It, like coal, and natural gas, is replenished from sources within the mantle of earth. In essense, it will never run out.

>> shouldn't we begin the transition away from them for our children's sake for that reason alone?

The essense of "reason" in science is the scientific method. Look it up. Teaching our children critical thinking skills is far more important than teaching them old falsehoods like "oil is a fossil fuel", and "man is capable of defying Henry's law" and "earth's climate is unstable".

"it's been proven that the change in solar forcing since 1750 amounts to 0.1 Watt"

Andrew,

Where do you come up with this stuff? According to the IPCC the solar constant is up by 3W/m2 over the last 100 years.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/FORCING/solar.constant.png

I encourage you to check the facts for yourself, instead of just repeating AGW propaganda, rumor and innuendo.

Thor,

At some point in the business as usual scenario, Earth will surpass the natural gelogic background of co2 not to mention other human generated ghgs.

What exactly is the natural geologic background of CO2? Let me see... I'm guessing that you think that the number would be approximately 280 ppm. Is that correct? Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news (for you), but the average CO2 concentration (geologic background) over the past 600 million years is in the the range of 1500 to 3000 ppm. Only twice in the last 600 million years have CO2 concentratins been below 400 ppm, that would be during the Carboniferous (Mississippian and Pennsylvanian) and during the Quaternary. Somehow during the Ordivician when another ice age was in progress, CO2 concentrations averaged a mere 4,400 ppm. Now, what is the natural geologic background concentration of CO2?

I eagerly await your response, however, if you're not up to it feel free to send in bt or Stevie B or maybe even Mark. Although bt chose to ignore this a while back; he must still be doing his research.

Andrew, FYI Jim Hansen has no problem getting his work (even the more speculative stuff) published in peer-reviewed journals.

Andrew, FYI Jim Hansen has no problem getting his work (even the more speculative stuff) published in peer-reviewed journals.

It worries me greatly that as a concerned member of the public and a scientist, although not a climate scientist, that when i come on to a discussion forum like this one to learn more about what might and might not be happening to our climate, that instead for most of the time al i see is name calling, character assassination, point scoring etc. You guys are the people that myself and my family look to for information on what is happening to our world, for perhaps guidance on what we can, or need to do to change it. If half the energy expended by some of you people on name calling, hair pulling and the likes was spent on actually discussing what matters, even if you don't happen to agree, then we might actually achieve something.

I see many people arguing that ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) is obviously a carcinogen. This is an excellent example of how good marketing works. As John Brignell at Numberwatch likes to say, "Using the same statistics that show that 400,000 people a year die from smoking, you can also show that 200,000 people per year are saved by smoking". All that truly has been demonstrated with smoking is that people who smoke are much more likely to get lung cancer. The question though is not so much "Is smoke a carcinogen", but what factors do the victims have that smoke enhances.

Fred Singer is not a quack. Arguing that he is shows a distinct lack of respect for science.

The science is not settled. SCIENCE is never settled. Engineers will excercise the practical side of science and make it appear that it is settled, but we constantly refine our understanding. In the case of global warming due to human activities, the science goes beyond not being settled.

When a weather forecaster can predict the weather a month in advance and actually have some accuracy, I might start to listen to the Climate Modelers. Until such time, I will continue to doubt those who say they can accurately predict climate 100 years from now. Climate is just the aggregation of weather. If you can't predict the weather, you cannot predict the climate. There are too many factors that are complete unknowns -- Volcanic activity, Sun spot activity, Underwater volcanic activity, and many many others. Any one of these can turn the model completely on its head.

The problem for modelers though is that they need funding. You don't get funding walking in and saying that your model is worthless.

TNT

brad

"I'm guessing that you think that the number would be approximately 280 ppm. Is that correct? Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news (for you), but the average CO2 concentration (geologic background) over the past 600 million years is in the the range of 1500 to 3000 ppm."

You also fail to mention that humans weren't around during much of this time period. The Earth was an inhospitable place for many species similar to what exist today, including us.

You also fail to mention that every warming period in the distant pass preceded mass extinctions.

The "It's happened before" excuse is growing old and tired -- and it's not science, it's merely posturing.

Michael,

The entire AGW debate is driven by politics and politicians. Would you expect any different here?

The difference between this site and some others (like realclimate) is that accuweather avoids unnecessary censorship and allows both sides to be heard. realclimate is notorious for censoring comments which disagree with their entrenched viewpoints.

Mark:

While the excuse may be getting tired, it is actually science. I mean it is your science to look at historical things and point out the extinctions etc. I would point out though that humans are just a tad more intelligent than say the dinosaurs. I mean they didn't even cook their food as far as we know. Actually, maybe that is why it warmed up back then. Giant T-Rex barbecue pits burning coal.

As far as posturing, you might be right. But, it is a means by which to recognize that the climate might really be just too big for us to significantly effect. Maybe it isn't, don't know. I think we still need to confirm the science instead of just presuming it to be true.

Your comment really hit home with me about maybe what you and the other AGWers are really concerned about, human extinction. Not trying to put words in anyone's mouths but that is what it seemed to me. Truly a very noble concern. But, since most past extinctions of seemingly not as inteeligent creatures seem to have taken thousands of years, I think the next 10 generations of us silly humans are probably safe. And even then, we will be zooming to other planets at warp speed if you believe in the Star Trek way of looking into things. So it really won't matter.

"every warming period in the distant pass preceded mass extinctions"

Mark,

Mass extinctions are generally associated with catastrophic events - like asteroids. Probably was warm some time in the billion years prior though. Thanks for the insight.

You also fail to mention that humans weren't around during much of this time period. The Earth was an inhospitable place for many species similar to what exist today, including us.

So, if we weren't around to muck things up, how did the CO2 concentration get so high? What is the natural geologic background concentration of CO2? Why don't you guys answer the question instead of squirming around trying to change the subject?

Yeah, 20 ton carnivores roaming the earth would tend to make it a bit inhospitable.

Thanks, Patrick Henry for taking care of his mass extinction remark.

If you are going to call anyone a "quack", Al Gore should be number one! he wouldn't hold a discussion with anyone having a opposing opinion.(i.e Denmark as one example). He tells us to do one thing, but he is exempt from everything. Because he's rich, he can tell us blue collar or poor people what to do and think. His opinion is based on slanted information from individuals that need to make a name for themselves and want to avoid the controversy of having their theories challenged. The bottom line is: Al Gore is a politician! he's schooled in the art of spin, misconceptions and half truths.

One other issue is the hysteria, scaring,and terrorizing going on with this subject is usually a sign the item is a lie. But, when children, as well as some adult, are afraid to breathe,go to sleep or live life because fear of this hoax is flat wrong!

>> The "It's happened before" excuse is growing old and tired --

Yea, like Leif Ericsen was in danger from an alleged unstable thermal runaway.

>> and it's not science, it's merely posturing

Which part of the scientific method do you not understand? There is direct observation that "global warming" happened before, 1000 years ago. Man DID not suffer.

For the anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming hypothesis to be true, you would need a few key items to be true:

1) CO2 increasing in the atmosphere.

2) Temperature showing a corresponding increase with high correlation.

3) No other likely driver of temperature.

1 and 2 are easily answered with a simple plot of temperature and CO2. A graph of which is here:

www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom1880.html

You can argue about the correlation.

The "science is settled" crowd sees a strong correlation from the late 70s to present.

While the "CO2 skeptics" crowd calls it hogwash.

To me, it is clear that the CO2 levels didn't increase much before the 40s, yet half of the 20th century warming occurred before this time.

While CO2 level increase was a bit more pronounced, the temperature dropped a bit, from the 40s to the late 70s.

Only from the late 70s on, have the CO2 levels and temperature been highly correlated.

Although more recent temperature records show no warming for almost a decade (i.e., temperature stable from about 1998 on.)

You could also look at the temperature and CO2 reconstruction from ice core samples for a longer time scale. A graph of which is here:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Initially, it looks pretty conclusive that CO2 and temperature are in lockstep, with a very high correlation.

However, when you look at this data at high resolution, it becomes apparent that the temperature changes first, and the CO2 changes later.

Up to several hundred years later.

(It is assumed that the oceans outgas more when warmer, and hold more dissolved gasses, when cooler, and thus the high correlation.)

The take home message is that temperature changes drive CO2, and not the other way around, when nature is left alone. Skeptics also note that

on a geologic time scale, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are near an all time low, and were much higher in the past. A graph of several CO2

reconstructions can be found here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Now, as for number 3, this is where the science is still fairly wide open.

The IPCCs 3rd report described their scientific understanding of clouds and solar forcing as "very low"

IPCC's chart of different temperature "forcings":

www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-9.htm

Recently, there has been more evidence that the Sun has been more significant a driver that the IPCC has shown.

A compelling case can be made from this recent journal article from Henrick Svensmark's team:

www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2007371711530.SvensmarkClimatology.pdf

This is some of the best work to date on alternative explanations for recent warming.

Also, the Max Plank institute found the Sun has been more active recently than it has been in 8,000 years.

As reported in Nature, "one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last

60 years" Link the that summary is here:

www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease0041028/

Looking at all of the above, especially the Svensmark article, it is fairly clear to an unbiased observer that the science is not settled.

I believe that a look at all the evidence shows the sun is probably the more likely driver of long term temperatures, and this CO2 scare is

likely without merit. More research needs to be done.

Keep in mind just a few more things:

1) CO2 is not a pollutant. It is plant food.

The cornerstone of the food chain. If CO2 was reduced to 10% of its current levels (normally a good idea for a true pollutant), then the

biosphere would die.

2) Water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2.

CO2 at parts per million levels is a minor player.

The greenhouse effect is a good thing.

It keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is

habitable.

3) The best protection against climate change is a rich, technologically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation.

The same level of hurricane that hits Florida and kills a few people will hit Bangladesh and kill hundreds. Don't damn the 3rd world to

extended time in poverty by crippling the world's economy with a meaningless Kyoto type treaty, that will

Gunnar,

Your post is an interesting point by point refuation of my post. Each of your arguements is a classic response of those used by the denialists, and in each case either is wrong or misreprents climate science.

the water cycle dominates to such an extent that it makes C02 almost irrelevant, and certainly not a climate driver

Yes, H20 is a larger component of the atmosphere, but it quickly cycles in and out of the atmosphere thru precipitation. It therefore remains in relatively consistent concentrations averaged worldwide. By contrast, CO2 remains for long periods in the atmosphere before it is absorbed... this is why is is rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere.

You forget that the greenhouse effect has a saturation point, ie 20 feet of glass will not make a greenhouse warmer.

You make no case for what this saturation point is; certainly Venus, with a CO2 concentration much higher than earths and a very strong greenhouse effect demonstrates that the effect can be much stronger.

The argument that slight warming is very beneficial is quite compelling. You have no real evidence to the contrary.

This is Griffens arguement (from NASA). Any paleoclimatoligist will tell you that seemingly small changes of even 1-2 Celcius have caused and will cause destruction of coral reefs (Happening), melting of our ice cap (Happening), longer droughts (See the SW, California, Australia, Spain right now), Bigger Storms (See Katrina). You should tell the people of Coastal Alaska, Micronesia, Bangledesh, and New Orleans about all the benefits as their coastlines advance.

Henry's law requires that any C02 we add to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans.

You do not understand Henry's Law. Is states that the atmospheric concentration of a gas and the concentration of it in the ocean must come into equilibrium. Therefore if I add CO2 to the atmosphere, SOME of it will dissolve into the oceans until the partial pressures are equal. This brings up the added point that adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is slowly acidifying the oceans into a PH range that the current shell-forming animals are not adapted to. Eventually many species will be unable to produce shells in this PH and go extinct.

Accompanied! Henry's law requires that oceans outgas somewhere between 20 and 60 PPM of C02 for every degree C of ocean temperature rise. Sun heats ocean, oceans increase atmospheric C02

This is a good point. And it results in some misplaced arguements from denialists that in past periods temperature ALWAYS affects CO2 and not the other way around. Their relationship is a two way mutually affecting one. Temp can cause CO2 to outgass from the oceans, and CO2 because it absorbs IR radiation, can also affect Temperature.

The AGW idea postulates that it is possible to externally increase and accumulate atmospheric C02. Henry's law requires that equilibrium with the oceans be maintained.

I dont understand your reasoning here. I don't think it's debated at all the atmospheric CO2 is increasing year on year. In addition, fossil fuel produced CO2 is isotopically unique to that produced naturally.... We KNOW that the the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans... this is not seriously debated by anyone. I also think you misunderstand equilibrium... equilibrium does not mean that higher atmospheric concentrations cannot be reached, only that equilibrium is reached with the concentrations in the oceans.

Oil is not a fossil fuel. Oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. It, like coal, and natural gas, is replenished from sources within the mantle of earth. In essense, it will never run out.

This one is funny. The Abiotic Oil theory is warmed-over Soviet science and is not used by any of the major oil companies in locating oil deposits. Heres a page on Schlumberger's (Perhaps the largest Oil-services company)website that describes how they think oil is formed...http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/makingoi/birth/index.htm

Bill

"Mass extinctions are generally associated with catastrophic events - like asteroids."

Wrong. That's one theory, but one that has many holes in it. You may want to read this article from Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225980,00.html

"Which part of the scientific method do you not understand? There is direct observation that "global warming" happened before, 1000 years ago. Man DID not suffer."

This is definitely one of the more ignorant comments we've seen on here. Well, Gunnar, 1000 years ago, half of our planet was undiscovered, much less uninhabited. The world's population was much smaller than it is today. Billions of people live very close to the ocean in today's world, as well. We don't rely on hunting & gathering like we did 1000 years ago. If our survival depended on hunting and gathering, and if our economy was agriculture-based, then yes, a warming world would benefit us. But the facts are that our world is much different today such that a warming world has much more consequences than benefits.

"Yeah, 20 ton carnivores roaming the earth would tend to make it a bit inhospitable."

If conditions were hospitable for humans back then, then we would have developed. We didn't. So comparing our era to the prehistoric age is quite fruitless on your part.

"Your comment really hit home with me about maybe what you and the other AGWers are really concerned about, human extinction."

No, Darren, I'm not worried about human extinction. But I would be concerned about extinction of other plant and animal species. And the fact that mass extinctions always followed these warming periods nullifies the deniers' argument that a warming world is "good."

It's not.

Mark,

If conditions were hospitable for humans back then, then we would have developed. We didn't. So comparing our era to the prehistoric age is quite fruitless on your part.

The only mammals present during the Cretaceous were extremely small mole size creatures. Hardly, the precursers of humans. The fact that they were so small didn't have squat to do with climate. Evolution hadn't progressed far enough at the time for humans to develop. I would suggest that you go to this website to brush upon on human evolution a little before you try to discuss this subject.

The environmental conditions are probably the biggest factor which determines the path -- and progress -- evolution takes. The fact that mammals didn't exist back then is a reflection of that.

Your website actually proves my point.

It's hilarious when deniers mention that "the North Pole used to be tropical." Yes, that may or may not be true, but what is definitely true is that humans didn't exist back then.

Humans couldn't exist in those prior eras which you like to reference.

The Earth was basically a fireball when it first started. So, in essence, one can always make the argument that 'the Earth used to be warmer'. At some point, however, your argument becomes silly.

You've reached that point.

Mark,

Humans couldn't exist in those prior eras which you like to reference.

Average temperatures during the Cretaceous were approximately 71 degrees F. Yep, that's pretty durn hot. Too hot for me!!

Humans live in conditions well below freezing (Alaska, Siberia, Norway, etc.) to well above 100 degrees F (Iraq, the Middle East in general) and you're telling me that an average temperature of 71 degrees F is too hot to support human life? The high for Balad, Iraq will be 113 deg F tomorrow with a low of 82 degrees F. That's just a tad bid higher than the average for the Cretaceous.

The Earth was basically a fireball when it first started. So, in essence, one can always make the argument that 'the Earth used to be warmer'. At some point, however, your argument becomes silly.

Your argument became silly a while back. I think I'll continue this argument with my dog. He presents a better argument than you.

>> Each of your arguements is a classic response of those used by the denialists,

bad logic, argument by authority, ad-hominen

>> and in each case either is wrong or misreprents climate science.

You certainly don't show that. Misrepresenting "climate science" is not the same thing as misrepresenting reality

>> Yes, H20 is a larger component of the atmosphere, but it quickly cycles in and out of the atmosphere thru precipitation.

Which is irrelevant to whether the water cycle controls our climate or not.

>> It therefore remains in relatively consistent concentrations averaged worldwide.

Which is irrelevant since all you're saying is that water has not been added from outer space. The point is that the water cycle controls our climate. It's so obvious (even kids know that cloudy days are cooler than sunny), that it would take quite a personal agenda to produce this blind spot in you. It's like you are a-priori deciding that only man can change the climate. So, since he is not adding water, it must mean that water does not control the climate. I mean this logic from you would be quite interesting to study from a psychological point of view.

>> By contrast, CO2 remains for long periods in the atmosphere before it is absorbed... this is why is is rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere.

Segalstad, a fellow norwegian, shows convincingly with a review all available papers that it's about 5 years, not the speculative and impossible 50-200 years claimed by the AGW advocates. This fact was also acknowledged early by IPCC's chairman Bolin

>> certainly Venus, with a CO2 concentration much higher than earths and a very strong greenhouse effect demonstrates that the effect can be much stronger.

Does it? Worse than comparing apples and oranges is comparing Earth to Venus. Venus is much closer to the sun, with no water, so no precipitation system to regulate temperature. Venus is not really a greenhouse, since it's 97% C02 (earth=.035%). That would be like a greenhouse that is solid glass. In this case, the temperature of the glass is more dependent on it's thermodynamic properties.

>> even 1-2 Celcius have caused and will cause destruction of coral reefs (Happening),

Speculative. If that were true, coral reefs would die every summer.

>> melting of our ice cap (Happening),

Certainly not. If that were true, sea level would be rising. We've seen less than .1% rise so far.

>> longer droughts (See the SW, California, Australia, Spain right now),

Speculative.

>> Bigger Storms (See Katrina).

Completely false. The hurricane expert quit over the politicians saying this complete falsehood. If science was the aim, then why would they resort to lying?

>> You should tell the people of Coastal Alaska, Micronesia, Bangledesh, and New Orleans about all the benefits as their coastlines advance.

Even if this crazy speculative scenario did happen, man is certainly adaptive enough.

>> Therefore if I add CO2 to the atmosphere, SOME of it will dissolve into the oceans until the partial pressures are equal.

Yes, I do understand that. However, the oceans have a deep mostly empty reservoir. The law explains the rise in C02, so no room for man to have a dominent effect. One study put it at .2%.

>> Eventually many species will be unable to produce shells in this PH and go extinct.

Speculative. Who cares anyway.

>> Their relationship is a two way mutually affecting one. Temp can cause CO2 to outgass from the oceans, and CO2 because it absorbs IR radiation, can also affect Temperature.

Can Cause? The first is scientific law. The second is a clique-reviewed speculative idea, advanced with lies and deception, with critical implications for our freedom.

>> I dont understand your reasoning here. I don't think it's debated at all the atmospheric CO2 is increasing year on year.

Yes, but it's explained by Henry's law. If an existing law (never, never mentioned in the GW hype) explains the observation, then the alternative explanation is falsified. It's like saying soccer balls fall because they are black and white. Yea, but gravity explains the falling part.

>> In addition, fossil fuel produced CO2 is isotopically unique to that produced naturally.... We KNOW that the the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans...

Actually, we know different. The lies you have been told require that C02 turns over in 50-200 years which contradicts empirical evidence. IE, it's falsified! According to http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/hawaii.pdf, only about 4% of atmospheric C02 is human caused.

>> this is not seriously debated by anyone.

Yes, it is. Besides, that is a serious logic error. There was no debate that slavery was wrong for thousands of years.

"Which part of the scientific method do you not understand? There is direct observation that "global warming" happened before, 1000 years ago. Man DID not suffer."

>> This is definitely one of the more ignorant comments we've seen on here. Well, Gunnar, 1000 years ago, half of our planet was undiscovered, much less uninhabited. The world's population was much smaller than it is today. Billions of people live very close to the ocean in today's world, as well. We don't rely on hunting & gathering like we did 1000 years ago. If our survival depended on hunting and gathering, and if our economy was agriculture-based, then yes, a warming world would benefit us. But the facts are that our world is much different today such that a warming world has much more consequences than benefits.

Given that all the facts you give here are irrelevant bad logic, I wonder if mine is the most ignorant comment. There was global warming then, By Henry's law, the C02 level did go up, the climate did not run away, human society then was far LESS adaptable than now, did not suffer, but thrived. Your argument is like "Spot is a dog, he ran, Johnny ran, Conclusion: Johhny is a dog".

"Your comment really hit home with me about maybe what you and the other AGWers are really concerned about, human extinction."

REPLY: Concerned about Human Extinction? Have to tell ya that these fear mongers on here are the ones who probably would be for Human Extinction, because they blame humans, especailly free humans for this non-existant boogie man that they created. If anything they not only want to implement more controls on us, but they would love to get their hands on controling the evil population. Believe me, I have seen it posted on these threads.

No, Darren, I'm not worried about human extinction. But I would be concerned about extinction of other plant and animal species. And the fact that mass extinctions always followed these warming periods nullifies the deniers' argument that a warming world is "good."

REPLY: Hey Here's proof that it is good (if it actually was an existing problem):

http://www.globalbeer.com/Images/Newsletters/Newsletter%2006.07.07/Newsletter%2006.07.07.pdf

I especially like the opening sentence! Where were all of the greenhouse gases and carbon emissions back then, hmm????....Happy Reading!

Forever the Denier of the FARCE!

P.S. Can someone please tell me what happened to summer?????

You should tell the people of Coastal Alaska, Micronesia, Bangledesh, and New Orleans about all the benefits as their coastlines advance.

I'm not sure what's going on in Coastal Alaska, but Micronesia, if is indeed experiencing coastline advance, it is due to the fact that the island is sinking. These little coral atolls are atop basaltic sea mounts and as the heat source that produced them either cool or have moved on (so to speak), the sea mount gradually sinks into the crust (ie, the Hawaiian Islands). Bangledesh and New Orleans were built on river deltas which also have a tendency to subside due to compaction and lithification of the underlying sediments. I'll have to look into it some more, but my guess is that if indeed the coastline of Alaska is advancing, it has more to do with tectonics (being on an active continental margin) than global warming and rising sea levels. Also, if the sea level is rising so dramatically, why isn't it a "global" phenomona?

"Humans live in conditions well below freezing (Alaska, Siberia, Norway, etc.) to well above 100 degrees F (Iraq, the Middle East in general) and you're telling me that an average temperature of 71 degrees F is too hot to support human life? The high for Balad, Iraq will be 113 deg F tomorrow with a low of 82 degrees F. That's just a tad bid higher than the average for the Cretaceous."

Wow, Paul, this reasoning of yours is so ridiculous that I think even your dog would win this argument with you.

Temperatures during the Cretacious period were anywhere from 15 to 20 Celsius higher than they are today. You may want to check out this link to educate yourself:

http://www.physorg.com/news10978.html

The rest of your argument makes no sense whatsoever. What does evolution have to do with Iraq? Evolution takes millions of years and is guided by the conditions that are present. It's what took place BEFORE we were here. What's that have to do with whether we can go to the Moon or live in Alaska?

Again, if conditions were supportive of the evolution of mammals and, more specifically, humans, then it would have happened. Comparing our climate with an era that was inhospitable to the species of today doesn't help your case. We don't want it to be as hot as the Cretaceous period, Paul.

Go back to arguing with the dog.

Temperatures during the Cretacious period were anywhere from 15 to 20 Celsius higher than they are today.

Gosh, Bubba, ya think? Besides, the link you provided was for sea temperatures off the coast of South America. The temperatures were estimated to be as high as 107 degrees F. Nice try. One location, not ocean wide. Water temps get as high as 97 deg F nowadays in the Persian Gulf. I know what the temperature was back during the Cretaceous.

What does evolution have to do with Iraq?

Nothing. You are mixing and matching posts.

if conditions were supportive of the evolution of mammals and, more specifically, humans, then it would have happened.

Think about what you wrote above. You are implying that if temperatures had been cooler during the Cretaceous, humans would have evolved a 100 million years sooner. Then, why didn't humans and mammals evolve during the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous for you Euro types) when we had an ice age going on and world temps were about equivalent to what they are today?

The argument can be made that a less glaciated ie warmer earth would have sped the evolution of hominids but mark's point about a significantly warmer earth and deleterious effect is a good one. We are talking about a paradigm shift. The scale and scope of mankind his increased markedly. Arbitrarily, this presents a problem in a world where the temperature increases by a few degrees.

Mark,

All these boys are doing, and quite effectively, is backing you into a corner, and you don't see it happening. Your pretty well alone, slowly digging yourself into a hole, pulling at loose straws to remain credible. You should be calling up the 10 or 15 like-minded folks at Real Climate to help you out in your quest.

I must say, you are putting up a valiant effort, but you have set yourself up to become the staunch crusader and "expert" advocate of "hypothetical modelling" only to become a true "denier" of reality as you refuse to see all sides of the equation, as all good scientists should.

Mark/Thor,

Mark seems to think that the only thing that prevented hominids from evolving during the Cretaceous or earlier is the climate (ie., it was too warm for mammals). My argument is that hominids couldn't have evolved if they wanted to prior to the Holocene, because the precursor species weren't developed to allow for the evolution of mammals, much less hominids.

Temperatures in the Early Tertiary (Paleocene through the Eocene) were as warm as the Cretaceous, yet mammals florished. Horses, apes, early hominids, etc were found all over the earth. There were palm trees in southern Alaska and England. If these mammals could survive during these warm times and humans can survive quite well in the tropics today, I'm not quite sure how you came up with this idea that a warmer earth is somehow "bad" (not that I actually think that this warmer earth is going to actually happen). Please enlighten me.

Mark/Thor,

I just had to throw this in here. As far as life goes, the only time that had a harsher climate than the present was during glaciations. Read this about Neogene climate and paleontology . While reading the following, remember that the climate was cooling to what it is today. It appears that life was good when it was much warmer. But alas, I fear that more than likely we will continue into another ice age.

The Neogene Period spans 22 million years, during which the world became much drier and cooler, culminating in the biotic disaster of the Pleistocene ice ages and the harsh conditions of our own day. During this interval, the relatively uniform and stable climatic regime which had cradled the world's ecosystems for 200 million years, since the Late Triassic, came to a comparatively quick end. Conditions had been deteriorating since the end of the Mesozoic. The Paleogene included times of marked climatic instability that are poorly understood, and the waters near the poles had begun to cool. However, the Paleogene world was still -- by today's standards, at least -- thickly forested, warm, humid, and without strong regionalism or wide seasonal temperature swings.

By the end of the Pliocene, this had all come to an end. The drift of the continents had sealed off the waters of the far arctic, as the northern margins of Asia and North America crowded together. In the south, Antarctica, now out of contact with any other landmass, was circled by a continuous circum-polar current. Thus both poles were thermally isolated from warm equatorial waters; and (perhaps for the first time since the Ordovician) both poles accumulated heavy coverings of ice. The ice sheets, in turn reflected more sunlight (increased albedo) and lowered sea levels, further reducing temperatures and warm-water circulation. At the same time, the virtual closing of east-west circulation through the Mediterranean Sea and between the Americas isolated those waters, allowing the build-up of hot, circulating currents, conducive to monsoon seasonality.

The world dried out. Huge deserts developed in North Africa and Central Asia. The deep forests of the continental interiors of the Americas, Asia, Europe, and even Australia were replaced by arid plains, steppe, prairie and tundra. Grasses appeared at the beginning of the Miocene and quickly replaced the thinning forests. But grasses are poor fodder: tough, low in nutrients, high in tooth-destroying silicates. They die back to their roots in cold weather. Under the triple hammers of drought, starvation and cold, herbivorous species were smashed or utterly changed. Their predators followed them into extinction or transformation. The later Neogene saw the creation of an entirely new guild of hunters, the pursuit predator, able to follow scarce prey across miles of open country rather than waiting for the easier opportunity which might never come. The pursued developed their own responses: herd behaviors, seasonal migrations, and big bodies, adapted for speed and endurance.

Another line of adaptation led to small-bodied generalists -- rodents, raccoons, rabbits, and possums -- and their predators, the foxes, cats, dogs and snakes. These generalists were mainly unspecialized herbivores or omnivores, with partially fossorial habits, strong territoriality and high reproductive rates. Theirs was the ability to exploit many resources within small, locally or temporarily favorable conditions, excluding competition and using rapid reproduction as a defense to predation, to quickly take new territory, or to recover from local disasters. These organisms often developed seasonal torpor as a method for surviving seasonal extremes.

A few species do not fall neatly into any of these categories. Humans are one. Bears are another. In one sense, these are hyper-generalists, able to use a wide repertoire of behavioral adaptations to compensate for a conspicuous absence of genetically-endowed talents. In another sense, they are throw-backs to a style of life more common in the Paleogene or the Late Mesozoic. The survival of this group is hard to explain, with so many other, robust lineages disappearing. One wonders what fate an unbiased Pliocene biologist would have predicted for such strange creatures.

The world dried out.

This is in stark contrast to the predictions presented by the infallable computer models of the IPCC. Of course, their dire predictions, based on computer models (GIGO), are diametrically opposed to what has actually happened in the past. But Thor and Mark will remain convinced that even if by some remote chance these computer models predictions of a warming world bear out, the world remains doomed.

I'm Jim Manzi, the guy who wrote the National Review cover story on global warming referenced early in this thread.

I think both sides in this debate grossly exaggerate their level of certainty in the science. I can summarize my position on the science as:

1. CO2 absorbs and re-directs infrared but not shorter-wavelength radiation.
2. Therefore, all else equal, more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will make it hotter.
3. But, all else is not close to equal. Any change, including pumping out more CO2, will kick off an incredibly complicated set of feedback effects.
4. No climate model has ever demonstrated a validated capability to sufficiently account for these feedback effects to allow accurate predictions of the multi-decadal impact of increased CO2 concentration.
5. Therefore, while we can reasonably expect that we will experience some increase in temperature as a result of CO2 emissions, this impact could plausibly range from negligible to severe.

I wrote a more detailed article that goes into this science in some detail that you can see here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmViY2Y3YzY1YmVkYTg4NjczODhkYWU1Mjg1YzhjMTI=

I think that the rational policy response is therefore to treat this as basically an insurance problem. The National Review article starts with a higher-level review of the science and then focuses on these policy and political suggestions. You can get a PDF of it, if you'd like to read it without commentary, here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/3/19/902907/NR%20%20%20Digital%20Article.pdf

Best regards,
Jim Manzi

Jim, Thank you for your response. Brett Anderson

>> both sides in this debate grossly exaggerate their level of certainty in the science.

The certainty of Henry's law is not exaggerated. It explains the increase. The AGW speculative idea rests on 5 claims:

1) That pre-industrial C02 was low. False. Actual measurements show a different picture: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html

2) That C02 accumulates in the atmosphere. False. The evidence is that the turnover is about 5 years.

3) That man can have some significant effect on the C02 level. False. All the evidence is that C02 follows temperature, and is not effected by man. The C02 level actually went up during the depression, when human C02 output went down dramatically. Despite dramatic increases by China and India, the measurements don't show it.

4) That man can actually measure the global C02 level or the global temperature

Actually determining the global C02 level is an extremely complicated undertaking. Would any real scientist measure the temperature in one place and say it represents the globe? The same is even more true for C02 which has more sources and sinks than you can shake a stick at.

Similarly, the thermodynamic state of the earth is an extremely complicated thing to measure. The components include core, crust, ocean & atmosphere. Our purpose of our thermometers is to tell us what we want to know: the temperature of the places where we live, like in cities. Some of these are next to AC vents, or in urban environments. Even with satellite, which altitude shall we measure?

The scientific method starts with measurement.

5) That C02 is a climate driver. False. Vezier has shown and common sense dictates that it isn't so. The C02 level has been high before, and the climate was not effected. If there was such a positive feedback to temperature (sun increasing temp, oceans increasing C02, C02 increasing temperature), the climate would be unstable, which contradicts all observation.

>> I can summarize my position on the science as:

With all due respect, your position on the science is unimportant (like everyone else's). The only thing that matters is the scientific method.

>> 2. Therefore, all else equal, more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will make it hotter.

Yes, but humans being outside also make it hotter, whenever the temperature is below 98.6. A rational person relies on the scientific method, and doesn't restrict freedom as insurance from the alleged threats of a completely unsubstantiated speculative idea.

Singer also told us that second hand tobacco smoke wasn't such a bad thing and that we should be spending our time on asteroid defense systems instead of global warming.

A few like Dr. Singer examine data and conclude there is no global warming, but even a high school student can examine the data and conclude that Dr. Singer is wrong.