deniers want us to "study" this issue for the next 1,000 years without doing anything about it, but the fact of the matter is that we've been studying this issue for a LONG time.

Another fallacy deniers want us to buy into is that all scientists during the 70s thought we were headed into an ice age. Not true. These scientists are the ones that got all the press, and they were more believable at the time because the US went through three successive harsh winters (77-79). However, roughly half of the scientists believed that ever-increasing CO2 levels from our fossil fuel usage would start warming the planet. Huge advancements in the field of climatology, as well as direct observation, have proved this theory to be true.

Now the challenge is what to do about it.

That just goes to show that AGW is old science. In 1827 we were pulling out of the little ice age and there was a big difference from what happened in 1816! Im sure this guy put two things together, "let's see, it stopped snowing in the summer. And now its starting to warm. Well it must be global warming!"

The article mentions that the oceans can absorb carbon dioxide. However, they can also release carbon dioxide when warmed.

There is an established correlation betweeen global temperatues (GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES) and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atomosphere. However, historically, carbon dioxide levels trail temperature changes. The reason is that usually changes temperature is brought on by changes in the amount of solar radiation recieved. After a slight amount of warming or cooling, the oceans begin to release or absorb carbon dioxide which acts as a feedback mechanisms and further amplifies the change. Couple this with feedbacks from seasonal snow and ice cover and the earth can experience dramatic changes in climate.

This is another reason why climate scientist are concerned with the current global warming. Over the last century the pH and temperature of the oceans has risen, which in turn has reduced their ability to absorb any more carbon dioxide. So, as more carbon dioxide is released from the consumption of fossil fuels, the rate at which carbon dioxide levels in the atmophere increase will incrase as well and temperatures will continue to go up. If this continues for too long, then the oceans may actually start releasing carbon dioxide and there could nearly be a run-away warmup.

Brett,

This was a horrible example to use. He states the same old crap and makes a correlation based on conjecture. He plainly states in "Climate change of the past" that CO2 drove those temp changes. This is simply not credible. How would the ice ages be cyclical if they depended upon CO2 variations to occur on a "regularly" occurring basis? CO2 levels are low during ice ages because of Henry's Law and CO2 sequestration in ice. This is widely accepted and in his words "is logical".

Nice to know he is here in good ole Atlanta, we'll see if he can defend the BS he wrote. If he responds to me I will share his answers in this blog.

Regards,

Steve

Dear Mark, what ever credence you want to give to arguing for global warming vanishes when you resort to name calling "deniers".
Grab a robe and chant away but you won't shut up non believers by yelling loud and you won't win a debate without real data and science backing you up. Until that happens (and it hasn't yet) please put me in the denier category please.
Ed

in the 1950s, thanks to increased government funding for research after World War II, experiments confirmed the suspicions. There was an unmistakable connection between CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and global warming

And by 1979, after 30 years of falling temperatures, climatologists were convinced that we were headed into another ice age.

Perhaps we should ignore this minor detail about recent solar activity-
"Astronomers have been counting sunspots since the days of Galileo, watching solar activity rise and fall every 11 years. Curiously, four of the five biggest cycles on record have come in the past 50 years. "Cycle 24 should fit right into that pattern," says Hathaway."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

Mark:

Nobody said that the issue should be studied for 1000 years, we just said that in a 1000 years, the peer-reviewed scientists will be stating that the key to reversing the oncoming ice age will be to release CO2. LOL

Seriously though, is a long time now defined as 175 years?

I keep coming back to this being an interpretation of measurements or an instrumentation issue. In the past, the instrumentation was not all that accurate, in the present, the instrumentation is better, but the interpretation is tainted. The difference between then and now is that there is big money to be had at this point and everyone wants their piece of the pie.

Besides, every big issue confronting mankind due to any warming, whether manmade or natural, is an extrapolation. There is no fact to the comments that crises is on the horizon. Certainly this is possible but not factual.

Andrew,

What? No reference to the IPCC report? Congratulations are in order!

Let's start with your last paragraph first, just for the fun of it.

Over the last century the pH and temperature of the oceans has risen, which in turn has reduced their ability to absorb any more carbon dioxide.

First off, if the pH is rising, shouldn't the ocean become more alkaline? In reality, the addition of more CO2 to the ocean should result in a decline in pH. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. But let's not quibble 'bout who killed who.

The big claim about increased CO2 concentrations making the oceans more acidic is that it will inhibit the ability of crustaceans, etc. to build their shells. If these poor creatures can't build shells at a mere 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration, how could they have possibly evolved 600 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were in excess of 4,000 ppm?

After a slight amount of warming or cooling, the oceans begin to release or absorb carbon dioxide which acts as a feedback mechanisms and further amplifies the change.

So, if this were true and the feedback mechanism were amplifying the change, shouldn't there be an exponential infinite increase in temperature? If not, what mechanism do you have that will reverse the exponential increase caused by the feedback? (This should be interesting, as I already know the answer he will give, if indeed he answers.)

We just had a record low for July in Tn. so I think Global Warming is something that when it occurs man can do little to control it. We need to be caretakers of our planet but we are not as powerful as we want to think. Climate changes. Alaska was once warm (where do you think oil came from up there?) I'm tired of hearing Global Warming. Get a life.

in 1938, an English engineer named Guy Stewart Callendar took another look. People had been talking about a warming trend, so he checked the record and found that CO2 concentrations had increased 10 percent over the last hundred years.

Even the IPCC now admits that the warming trend prior to 1938 was due mainly to other factors (like increased solar activity.)

Mark re: your " huge advances in climatology " go to the Climate Audit website to view the US weather stations in parking lots, on roof tops etc etc. One would think we aren't really advancing when we are pulling boners like these. Imagine how screwed up the climate models are if they can't even locate a weather station intelligently ... as my prof used to say " to err is human, to get things really screwed up requires a computer ".
Be good folks,
Rick.

Paul;

Thanks for catching my bad regarding pH.

For a mechanism that prevent natural runaway global temperatures from increasing carbon dioxide levels, I can provide 3 possibilities:

1. There is just so much Carbon Dioxide available for ready release from warming oceans and melting permafrost. Since there have been at least 20 period of natural global warming over the last million years, they are all very similar and release comparable amounts of carbon dioxide each time.

2. There may be a bio-feedback mechanism. That is as the earth warms, there is more bio activity that picks up and eventually limits the carbon dioxide increases. The release rate is very gradual and the bio feedback is just about the same, so there is an eventual cap. It could be land based bio that grows better with warmer and moister conditions.

3. Increased precepitation could wash the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Since warming temperatures also result in increased precepitation, this could be the negative feedback.

What is concerning about the current warmup is that we have already passed the natural carbon dioxide concentration limit established over the last 650,000 years and there may still be the 100 ppm or so release in the works from natural sources. Obviously more study is needed, which is what make climate science so interesting.

Finally, regarding crustaceans from 600 million years ago. There has been a lot of evolutionary development since then. The crustaceans of today have evolved with carbon dioxide, pH and temperature in a range that has stayed within a narrow band for the past million years. Who is to say that they can adapt quickly enough?

Wow, what percentage is 175 years out of 200 million? This is definately observable repeatable science.

Andrew,

There is just so much Carbon Dioxide available for ready release from warming oceans and melting permafrost.

That was the answer I was looking for. Thanks, Andrew. The oceans hold 50 times the amount of carbon dioxide that the atmosphere does. That is a fairly substantial amount of carbon dioxide. So, theoretically, the maximum atmospheric concentration would be 19,000 ppm if all the dissolved CO2 would outgas. Not that that would happen. If only a fraction of the carbon dioxide stored in the oceans outgas, we could still end up with concentrations approaching 5,000 ppm, an amount seen in the geologic record.

If all that carbon dioxide that is turning the oceans acidic, shouldn't it also start dissolving limestone therefore releasing even more carbon dioxide? After all that is the test for calcite: test with dilute acid to see if it "fizzes". Dolomite is a similar test only you have to scratch it first in order to powder it so you can see the fizz.

Bio-feedback seems to be a stretch. References?

I thought that the warmer temperatures are going to cause extreme drought. You need to get your catastrophes straighened out. One day it's drought, the next day it's torrential rains and flooding. Besides the rain will be warm and won't hold that much CO2.

Since the sun started the cycle to begin with (and you agreed) wouldn't it make sense that fluctations in solar irradiance, sunspot number, cosmic ray intensity, tilt of the earth, orbit of the sun (in the Milky Ray), etc would have more of an effect on temperature than CO2 concentration? Besides, the correlation between solar activities and temperature are near perfect while the correlation between CO2 and temps are extremely poor (you know, that inconvenient 800 year lag).

Can you show me the reference that establishes a 300 ppm "natural" CO2 concentration limit? Cold ocean, low CO2 concentrations. There have been numerous ice ages before the present out break of cold. However, over the history of the earth warm has far outpaced cold by at least a 2:1 margin. Also, what does the last 650,000 years have to do with anything? What about the 600 million years before?

Finally, regarding crustaceans from 600 million years ago. There has been a lot of evolutionary development since then. The crustaceans of today have evolved with carbon dioxide, pH and temperature in a range that has stayed within a narrow band for the past million years. Who is to say that they can adapt quickly enough?

Actually, the crustaceans of today aren't that far removed from crustaceans of ancient times, especially the last 60 million years or so. Which brings us to one of the main problems with climatologists; no concept of geologic time scales and/or conditions on the earth during these times. You'd think that if we went back in time, humans couldn't survive without pressure suits and self-contained breathing apparatus. Everything has to be in the context of the last 150 years or so. Every once in a while you venture out 650,000 years, but that is extremely rare. Oh, well. I've ranted long enough.

Thanks.

Fever in Greenland! End of July forecast is -20F for Tuesday night.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076

Imagine all the ice tmelting under the sweltering heat. Some one better call up big Al, Nancy and Harry - and warn them of the impending catastrophe.

Without that big carbon tax they promised us, we will surely all suffer a horrible demise. Take my money Dems - please! And perhaps they can tax tea while they are at it.

Boxer in Greenland!

Boxer said the glacier she saw this morning spanned the distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco. "It's moving and it's melting and every single day, 24 hours a day"
http://www.ocregister.com/news/boxer-trip-change-1790180-greenland-ice

The definition of a glacier is "a moving mass of ice" All mountain glaciers move to lower elevation and melt. If they didn't melt at the periphery, the glaciers would keep getting deeper from interior snowfall and would eventually cover much of the planet. That is called an ice age.

Is Senator Boxer proposing to legislate a new ice age in order to stop glacial movement?

Patrick Henry;

Do you have a page reference for where the IPCC states as you claim.

I suspect you have mis-interpreted a section, but
will review it just in case.

Thanks,

JP once said this:

"It is the alarmists who troll for record droughts, floods, heat waves, etc... and then headline them around the world. It isn't the sceptics who have a theory and agenda to prove -but the alarmists."

Now let's see a typical post from Patrick:

"Fever in Greenland! End of July forecast is -20F for Tuesday night.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076

Imagine all the ice tmelting under the sweltering heat. Some one better call up big Al, Nancy and Harry - and warn them of the impending catastrophe."

Ahh, the typical hypocrisy of the deniers is a funny thing to watch.

Paul;

Carbon Dioxide levels have fluctuated and correlate very well with global temperatures over the last 650,000 years. During cold and dry ice age conditions, the levels are low. During warm and moist interglacial, they are higher.

While the oceans contain vast amounts of carbon dioxide, I don't believe all of the oceans interact with the atmosphere. For example, while warming has occured in the upper 100 meters the bottom has not. So, a question for a scientific researcher would be how much carbon dioxide is available in the top layer of the oceans that most readily changes temperatures with changes in the atmosphere?

I can look for some bio-feedback referance. Maybe it is somewhere in the IPCC report.

Remarkable that some here can't see the significance of -20F during the warmest month of the year. It hasn't made it above freezing in the interior of Greenland since June 2006, yet that doesn't stop AGW religious devotees from warning us of Greenland's demise.

AGW'ers,

The IPCC report is crap. There is no reason to go there to discuss CO2 levels over the last 600,000 years, but if you'd like to see their explanation of warming pre-1950 and post 1950 here is the link. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/465.htm

CO2 levels typically rise and fall with temperature not visa versa, this is easily explained and measured by Henry's Law. More CO2 is sequestered in snowfall. I ask you to look up CO2 concentrations and temperatures over the last 10,000 years. What you will find is CO2 hovering very close to 280ppm during that entire period up to the 1850's. You will also notice that temperatures rose and fell during that period. No influence from CO2. Now take a look at Solar Activity. See any correlations?

I ask you to look up this data yourself just in case the folks who looked up the data I found were Mormons, Black, Free Masons, Asians, or Republicans. Wouldn't want their political/religious affiliation or skin color to make you skeptical.

Now if you want to pay $10/gal for gas or pay extra for electricity because of the size of your carbon shoe, be my guest. You, the IPCC, nor the US government is going to force me to do so. I guarantee you that there are a huge number of skeptics in this nation and fortunately we are the ones holding most of the guns.

I've just about had it with this AGW BS. It started out with good intentions, but we can see what funding for next year and grants can do to "science". No other "science" (it is not science) operates in this manner. We have asked you all for "any" proof and what you give is conjecture wrapped up in techno-babble. We have asked you to actually read the "Scientific Basis" by the IPCC which turns out to be a horrible misrepresentation of how science works. We bring up errors with some of your ideas and are either ignored or called "deniers".

We know that the temperature measuring methods and means of presentation are seriously flawed when observing the fraction of a degree we are looking for. We know other planets and moons are heating. We know that just .1% increase in the Sun equals Quintillions of Watts. We know that climate change occurred for reasons other than CO2 in the past. Just how GD stupid do you think we are?

If you are not capable of using the Scientific Method to explain your AGW theories, show cause, and make predictions like every other science be prepared for a turbulent transition to a "greener" world.

Good day,

Steve

Remarkable that some here can't understand the concept of GLOBAL AVERAGES. Montana just finished its hottest July on record. Does that prove global warming? Of course not, no more than a really cold month in Greenland would prove the negative.

Remarkable that some here are so sure they have this figured out; are so sure of their scientific acumen on the subject, that ALL of the hundreds of climate scientists around the world MUST be wrong -- in fact they must all be money-grubbing whores with a liberal agenda that make them unable to have any integrity at all. Furthermore, that the entire scientific establishment must be corrupt, because they keep allowing all of these obviously incompetent scientists to publish papers (even in the journal SCIENCE - the most prestigious scientific journal in the country).

Instead we are to be convinced by Patrick Henry and his cold day in Greenland. By Patrick Michaels and other denizens of Exxon-funded think tanks that make up the disinformation that gets passed around the internet by people who can't even string logical sentences together.

Enough. None of us understand this completely, so let's defer to the people who do. If you can't figure out who those are, then we really do have a serious problem.

Mark,
And your point is...?

Jock,

Your claim that the "entire scientific establishment" is behind AGW is absurd. Perhaps you can provide raw data for your claims instead of repeating ad nauseum words like "consensus" and "prestigious." We