OMG! A natural event did all this! Amazing, simply amazing. I know stuff is still falling three years after Ivan as weakened and terminally damaged trees keep coming down every time we have a strong thunderstorm come through. Of course, since Ivan we've had this horrible pine tree beetle infestation that is taking out arseloads of pine trees and that isn't helping matters either.

Oh, that is right, AGW caused all those hurricanes with worse to come, which is why I don't exist and am not writing this since I died in the megadisaster supercanes of 2006/2007 from the positive feedback of AGW events. So disregard.......

I find that fascinating as well Brett, but this is all natural 100%. (Reply: yes it is, but I thought the article was interesting regardless.)Katrina was a natural event and trees releasing C02 is a natural event. This is not something we could have prevented or stopped in anyway! As far as I am concerned it was natures will.

I find this all extremely interesting, but I don't seem to be able to see the huge increase in this graph of CO2 concentrations.

What I find even more interesting is the amazing correlation between CO2 and lower troposphere temperatures of 0.07!!! Wait a minute, you mean that if the r-squared correlation coefficient is close to 0, that means that there is no correlation? WOW!!

I thought the science was settled. Guess not.

I'm curious if they studied the offset that
will be provided by the new trees / vegetation that are / is no doubt already growing, and will take the place of the damaged trees. And the
downed trees will provide additional nutrients to the soil and since the habitat is changed
for a while, edge wildlife species will also thrive. Consider it nature's clearcut.

These studies certainly add to the
database and are interesting on their own. But
these events are happening all the time worldwide as part of the natural process.

Perhaps also the locals could receive permission to harvest the downed lumber for use in rebuilding their homes.

One caveat to the study, which I read *somewhere* (and I apologize for lack of links), is that the Southern US forest is fast growing, and this carbon release will likely be offset sooner rather then later, natrually.

As far as I am concerned it was natures will.

"Natures will" killed and maimed millions of children until science developed cheap and available antibiotics against common bacterial threats like strep and staph. I guess Darren M withholds such "artificial" therapies from his children. "Natures will" destroyed millions of lives, for centuries, because of tooth decay until civilized society discovered how to fluorinate public water supplies -- a public health triumph that was fought tooth and nail by the same right-wing that now fights tooth and nail against ANY effort to address the impact of potentially catastrophic climate change.

Perhaps Darren and Kamatu take comfort in the observation that these tragedies are "natural."

Some of us do not.

In the link supplied by Brett, Patrick Michaels writes:
Four years later [in 1975], the surface temperature of the planet began to rise.

WHOA!

HOLD ON HERE!

We just heard Dr. Fred Singer assure us that there has been no significant warming since 1975. Our contrarians jumped to his defense when I challenged this "observation".

Which is it, guys?

Is it Singer or Patrick Michaels who's wrong about "the surface temperature of the planet"?

Or do you perhaps want to continue having it both ways, saying that it has risen when it's convenient to say that, and saying that it hasn't risen when it's convenient to say THAT?

The question of whether the surface temperature has or has not risen since 1975 is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, readily tested by rigorous scientific inquiry.

Funny how the contrarian/deniers seem so reluctant to admit the obvious results of this test.

I know many lives and livelihoods that were tragically impacted by Katrina (and many lives that have been put back together during the 2006-2007 quiet years). But given that Katrina has already happened, let's be grateful for the beneficial effect of the release of "extra" CO2 into the atmosphere, even though the effect will be small.

There is some concern about the fact that solar (sunspot) cycle 23 is delayed since 01/07, and may not end until 03-11/08. Even 12 months delay means the loss of significant beneficial global heat. Concomitantly, the sun's great conveyor belts have slowed to a record low pace, which tends to correlate with several sequential weak solar cycles, at the latest 15-20 years hence. SC24 may be the 1st weak one (opinions/models are mixed), but SC25 will almost surely be weak. 2 weak SC's in a row puts the earth into a Dalton minimum-like condition, during which the world became extremely cold.

When this happens, it will be a challenge to grow as much food as the world needs. And so even though the CO2 from these downed trees makes a minimal contribution to CO2, every little bit extra will directionally help plant photosynthesis, water management, and fertilizer requirements. It's unfortunate that we're not doing something now to prepare for this. It's also unfortunate that atmospheric CO2 concentration isn't substantially higher, since it apparently doesn't have that big of an impact on global temperature, but is a tremendous benefit to agriculture (10% productivity increase due strictly to CO2 increase since the beginning of the Industrial Age).

B. T.
WHOA!
HOLD ON HERE!
We just heard Dr. Fred Singer assure us that there has been no significant warming since 1975. Our contrarians jumped to his defense when I challenged this "observation".
Which is it, guys?

Many of us think that the rise in temperature happened but wasn't significant or dramatic, just as the drop from the 40s to the 70s wasn't significant or dramatic - they are just cycles and the CO2 plays only a small part.

Otherwise, how do you explain temperatures falling while CO2 was rising?

Global Warming is one of the stupidest scams. Yes, the earth is warming. Is it due to humans? Maybe, but not entirely. The earth goes through natural variations of temperature. It cycles through these throughout its life. Remember the "Next Ice Age" during the 70's? Political Hoax just like global warming. Scientists can't get money for research unless they have some big fear that the public can be concerned about. How much money is put into researching fingernails? Not much, because what can go wrong with fingernails (random i know)? Global Warming? Billions of $$$ each year. Thats why people are homeless, hungry, and dying. Thats why the government is trillions in debt. Global warming isn't the only agenda taking up the governments money. NASA is taking billions of needed money. Who cares about space. The only reason they get money is because they make a false need of space because "WE are going to run out of space on the earth." Very unlikely, we will all probably be dead or in heaven before that. This spending of money that the government is doing is going all to the wrong cause.
Thanks for reading the ravings of a mad person sitting on the computer.

Again, the "TUNNELS" cure this problem as Katrina would have made landfall as a cat2 and the loss of trees would not have been as great.

BT,

I am not denying that the temperature has gone up since 1975. However;

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased EVERY year for the past 150 years. Lets break it down to 30 year spans seeing that you and Mark harp on how warm its been since the 1970s. 150 years of evil CO2 releasing industrialization, 1860, 1890, 1920, 1950, 1980 and 2010. A steady and gradual increase in CO2 occured EACH and EVERY year. Well if .0375 percent atmospheric CO2 is trapping heat, how does a cooling period in the 1970s attach to your theory? Clearly there was more atmospheric CO2 in the 1970s than in the 1930s, yet it was cool in the 1970s and warm in the 1930s. Prove to me it would have been less cold in the 1970s IF it were not for AGW.

Why havent we seen sequencial record breaking years followed by even more record breaking years? With all of this CO2, we have yet to see a year #1 on record, followed by a warmer year, followed by an even warmer year than the previous. How is it possible that we havent consistently BROKEN records with a 40 percent increase in CO2? I could significantly trap more heat in my home by replacing my windows with efficient ones. We have hypothetically made our atmosphere 40 percent (.027 to .0375) more efficient at trapping heat, yet we havent broken any records and its still freezing!

I would get a refund on my new efficient windows because the gauranteed savings on my energy bill was grossly exagerated and incorrect.

Brookline Tom: We just heard Dr. Fred Singer assure us that there has been no significant warming since 1975.

Yet, in an earlier post in which BT makes a similar claim, he includes the quote he's referring to:

In this interview, this particular denier (Dr. Fred Singer) claims there hasn't been any warming since 1975. He says "I think the best answer is [global temperatures] have not risen dramatically."

Perhaps BT equates significant and dramatic, but I doubt that most people do. Significant can either mean meaningful, or in a more technical sense, statistically distinquishable from random variation. Dramatic implies a good deal more. Marriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed.) says in its usage note: "DRAMATIC applies to situations in life and literature that stir the imagination and emotions deeply." This captures the general connotation, even allowing for a certain degree of hyperbole in everyday use. So it seems to me there's no contradiction between a claim that there's been no dramatic warming and a claim there's been some warming, or even significant warming.

So, what's the carbon release from forest fires? How about the millions of trees that die each year to the spruce budworm? We are also losing trees to the gypsy moth and the emerald ash borer. Why isn't there concern about those factors contributing to CO2? Or is it a non-event?

Its pretty amazing how fast a forested area will bounce back. My guess is that there is already a pretty dense understory that is starting to grow back.

I remember after Mt St Helens blew and leveled the area around it, scientists were predicting that the area would be fallow for a very long time. Within a few weeks, new trees were starting to grow. Field foresters weren't surprised at this, since they get out of the office and work with the resource. They don't sit in cubicles and look at pictures.

Besides, they don't know how many of those trees were sent to the mill. Salvage operations are a big deal after something like Katrina.

BrooklineTom,

1. There is HUGE difference between human illnesses and a hurricane!

2. Everything you said to me had nothing to do with Katrina

3. And how do you stop a hurricane BT? Wait. YOU DON'T!

4. It's gods will, and if you don't believe in god then its mother natures will. If don't don't believe in nature then I guess my SUV caused Katrina.

5. Who builds a city BELOW sea level? Seriously, I am not showing any dis-respect to the people of New Orleans but did they really think that the city would NEVER flood?

6. BT, do you really think that decreasing C02 emissions would stop people dieing from weather events? COME ON! People die, its ironically part of life! The weather has, does, and always will take lives! I know it's a tragedy but ITS NOT OUR FAULT!

7. I do not take COMFORT in saying that this is natural! The fact of the matter is, IT WAS NATURAL! And if you claim that it is not then show me some evidence that we created Katrina. I can give you evidence that hurricanes are natural, seriously.

8. Next time you try to make me sound the devil, please provide me some scientifical evidence that actually has something to do with AGW.

Wow... Some people....

Claude,

Do you really expect people to believe that the sun heats the earth? Every school kid in the US now knows that CO2 is the primary (and possibly only) heat source on this planet.

Rich,

Our Earth is a highly non-linear and chaotic system. To expect a perfectly linear increase in temperature in such a non-linear system is not only unrealistic, but it's ridiculous.

Your house, in comparison, is a much more static environment when compared with the Earth. If you have oceans, forests, ice sheets, and centripetal force in your house, it might be a better comparison.

Hope that helps.

The problems in the Sudan are due to global warming, as eloquently articulated by the UN Secretary General.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7118245.stm

"A British teacher charged in Sudan with insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs has arrived at court.

Journalists were prevented from entering the court as Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, went inside.

She was arrested after complaints that her primary school pupils had called their class teddy bear Muhammad, the same name as the Muslim prophet. "

Natural Disaster! AGW enhanced superstorms are not entirely natural are they? And the bacterial processes release methane as well, like all those melting peat bogs, another sourse of climate changing heat trapping gasses...I still say weather modification and weather weapons are players in this dynamic and that Katrina was a storm artificially enhanced diliberately on purpose. Anybody going outside and examining Cirrus Clouds yet?

Last nite I watched a show on PBS titled "Journey of Man". It told of humans migrating to North America from Asia. When they arrived in North America the glaciiers were retreating. This was thousands of years ago. Just think there was globle warming thousands of years ago and there were a whole lot less humans on earth then there are now. Now I may not be as smart as some of you on this board, but it looks as if the earth's climate has been in constant flux for a very long time.

It seems a lot of people here have a number of misconceptions about the role of CO2 in climate change. It is one factor among many and is not solely responsible for the observed increase in the global mean temperature anomaly. However, it is by far the largest contributor to the increase in radiative forcing that is causing the rise in this anomaly.

Example 1: CO2 is consistently rising but temp records are not set every year. Well of course not! That is because the internal dynamics of the climate system oscillate at various time scales and result in much larger short term variations than the comparatively smaller long term increase in the mean about which these oscillations occur. This is one of the reasons that many graphs include a 5-year mean plot to smooth out the shorter term variations and show make the underlying long term trend more apparent.

Example 2: Well if .0375 percent atmospheric CO2 is trapping heat, how does a cooling period in the 1970s attach to your theory? The cooling period attaches via the inclusion of all factors affecting radiative forcing (e.g. aerosols and volcanic activity, variations in TSI, cloud cover, atmospheric GHG concentrations, black carbon soot, land use changes) in climate models as shown here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/. Here is a nice overlay of the change in net radiative forcing and global mean annual temperature anomaly http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/forcing.jpg.

Mark,

You: Our Earth is a highly non-linear and chaotic system. To expect a perfectly linear increase in temperature in such a non-linear system is not only unrealistic, but it's ridiculous.

What? WHAT?? That cannot be! Your CHAOS theory sounds so much like the CYCLICAL theory, doesnt it Mark?

You CANNOT have it both ways buddy! Are you a politician? You conveniently speak out of both sides of your mouth. Is .0375 percent atmospheric CO2 acting like invisible insulation and trapping heat? Its a fairly simple question. Your chaos (cyclical) theory explains the cooling period in the 1970s. Where did the heat go, the oceans? Well that cycle is now cooling the oceans. This has been going on forever, even before 1970. Why wont the earth cool after this warming period we are now seeing? History will repeat itslef old buddy, old pal. The climate will fluxuate, AS IT ALWAYS HAS. There will be cyclical (chaotic) cooling despite us releasing more CO2.

Your doomsday AGW theory of increased droughts, hurricanes, floods, disease, famine, rabid cats, and flying rabbits with big pointy teeth does not jive with the chaos theory. In fact, despite your DENIAL, your AGW theory is continuingly proving to be GROSSLY EXAGERATED buddy. Your theory conveniently changes as the does the climate. I suppose your theory will always change, just as the climate has changed, is changing and will ever change.

Weve already burned 20 percent of all the earths fossil fuels. 20 percent!!! Temperatures have increased by .6 degrees (not that CO2 is entirely to blame for that), atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from .027 to .0375 and behold... life is IMPROVING and people are LIVING LONGER, despite 150 years of evil industrialization! Nice try Mark. Thank God for industry! We are better off by it.

Patrick - Write while you can. In 2-3 decades we'll all be ice cubes. We're doomed, I say, DOOMED!

Thomasfurbs - At the end of the little ice age about mid 19th century, glaciers were at their maximum size in the last 12,000 years. What we are seeing is a return to normalcy, at least as far as the glaciers are concerned. But if the solar physicists are correct about the upcoming weak Dalton-like solar cycles, a glacial dike would be a good investment.

Hey Pete,

You: The cooling period (1970s) attaches via the inclusion of all factors affecting radiative forcing (e.g. aerosols and volcanic activity, variations in TSI, cloud cover, atmospheric GHG concentrations, black carbon soot, land use changes) in climate models.

Interesting. So the climate changed from warming to cooling, regardless of a 35 percent increase in supposed man made heat trapping gas? Could you please breakdown for me the spike in aerosols for 1962 and its effects on cooling, which occurred a decade after this atmospheric spike. These radiative forcings were outmatched almost 2 to 1 (.75 - 1.5) by CO2 in the years following this 1962 spike, yet there was global cooling in the mid to late 1970s? Why was cooling the prevailing factor here and not warming? Also, can you explain logarithmic effects of CO2 PLEASE. Thank you for that assessment.

Which levels in the atmosphere contain higher levels of CO2 and which levels of the atmosphere contained higher levels of radiative forcings?

Your link should show a constant rise in temperature from 1910 - 1963. This did not happen despite the low radiative forcings during that time. 1934 was the warmest followed by cooler years, DESPITE more CO2 than radiative forcings for this 53 year stretch. The temperatures, according to your link, should have continued to increase after 1934? Also your second link was a dead link.

Thank you.

RICH,

You CANNOT have it both ways buddy! Are you a politician? You conveniently speak out of both sides of your mouth. Is .0375 percent atmospheric CO2 acting like invisible insulation and trapping heat? Its a fairly simple question. Your chaos (cyclical) theory explains the cooling period in the 1970s. Where did the heat go, the oceans?

The short answer is that increased CO2 does not trap all heat; it just traps more heat than before. If it weren't for GHGs, Earth would be a large ball of ice drifting through space. Therefore global temperatures are still subject to natural variability, but with the added effect of extra CO2.

If you're a math-oriented person, think of it like adding two functions. If you add an increasing function to a sine wave, you still have a function that acts like a sine wave, but it is increasing with time. If you have a graphing calculator or a graphing program