The NOAA Greenhouse Index graph is interesting in that they forgot to include the greenhouse gas which is both the most abundant and also absorbs the widest IR spectrum - water vapor. Given that water vapor is probably responsible for 97+% of the greenhouse effect, this might be considered a minor oversight.

The little spike in the CO2 graph appears to line up with the Bali Conference, where 6,000 highly concerned diplomats and profiteers took long haul flights to a tropical paradise in order to express their deep, heartfelt empathy with the poor.

The methane spike is most likely due to Al Gore's new found taste for ethnic food, as he flies around the globe telling other people to cut back on their travel.

Very interesting..CO2 parts per M increases while the planet has been cooling since 1998...let me think about this one for a while.

This is a lie and they know it.

"Why did methane concentrations suddenly rise? NOAA suspects that the rapid rate of industrialization in Asia and rising wetland emissions in the Arctic and tropicical regions are the primary reason."

Strip mining more forests to grow bio-fuel is the main reason.
That is the only thing that has changed in proportion to the rise in methane.

This methane emission staory came out in 2006:
http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

"A frozen peat bog covering the entire sub-Arctic area of Western Siberia, the size of France and Germany, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas that is melting for the first time since since it was sequestered more than 11,000 years ago before the end of the last ice age."

"Researchers Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University in Siberia, and Judith Marquand of Oxford University first reported in 2005 that one million square kilometres of permafrost had started to melt."

It's interesting to note that is exactly the time when the curve of the methane concentration plot started to move upward.

Apparently, the actual rate of increase is beginning to decrease/decline. IOW, the concentrations aren't going up as fast as they were prior to 1998 (hmmm, that seems to be a pivotal year).

h/t Bob Tisdale

It's all in how you present the data.

Asia?? Wetlands in the Arctic/Tropics? Nah, it's we evil captialist Americans! C'mon, get a clue here. Have to tax tax tax us back to the stone age as a result. Remember, THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING....And it's all because of your SUV! Again, I put forth the statement. WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Analyzing the information on the two concentration plots that Brett provided, I discovered the following:

The CO2 concentrations increased around 1.3% since 2006 while the CH4 concentrations have increased about 0.6%. To put the CH4 concentration increase into perspective relative to CO2, you have to account for the fact that it is 25 times more potent than CO2. Therefore the CH4 increase is more in the order of a 15% increase in relative potential impact to the environment. If the rate of permafrost melting accelerates, as most experts believe, then the resulting environmental changes could increase exponentially as they feed upon themselves. As temperature continue to increase, the more permafrost that melts and the more CH4 that is released, etc.

The 8-year half-life of CH4 in the atmosphere means it will convert into CO2. This short half-life will diminish it's potency long-term, however, the following quote is worth considering:
http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

"An estimated 500 gigatons of carbon have been flash frozen in yedoma regions (in the Siberian tundra), and 900 tons in permafrost worldwide. This large store would more than double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere today if it is released."

If this occurs, it would get us halfway to the 4X CO2 concentrations that we believe occurred in the supergreenhouse Cretaceous period and it may occur in a much shorter time frame than occurred back then. The most problematic situation that needs to be considered is the potential of a more rapid rate of temperature change and whether or not the earth's environment can adapt to that rapid change.

The AGGI graph is interesting. Adding up all of the GHGs (except water vapor) gets us to 1.25% of the atmosphere. I would have preferred a graph showing nitogen and oxygen to lend some perspective to just how small these GHGs are.

I read an interesting Federal Energy Alert dealing with CO2 monitoring inside buildings. The purpose of the alert was to demonstrate energy savings through the monitoring of indoor CO2. They show that maintaining an ideal CO2 concentration of 1000ppm indoors will result in energy savings. As we humans exhale, we raise CO2 levels in confined spaces. Older ventilating systems were set to introduce fresh air at a constant rate of 15 cfm per occupant (which has to be conditioned) muliplied by max. occupancy for the structure. By monitoring CO2 levels, ventilating systems would only operate when CO2 levels rose above a set point, say 1000ppm, thus saving energy. Here is a link to the alert: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_co2.pdf

So, we are fretting about rising atmospheric CO2 levels of 385ppm outdoors while we spend a good deal of time indoors (especially this past winter) at levels many times greater with no apprarent negative effects.

So, you AGWers want us to do what?

Annual Greenhouse gas Index .......Hmmmmm.......why do they omit water vapor ? ?

I understand that water vapor is an integral part of the greenhouse effect.

Is it secretly omitted for "dramatic effect" ? ? If so, is this science ? ? or agenda driven .... at any price ? ?

Casualties of this type of junk science are clearly: integrity, responsibility and accountability.

Yet, how can we expect them to be held accountable when no one is willing to do so ! ! !

AGW Faithful:

Can anyone explain why GHGs keep rising and temps don't appear to be keeping pace?

Shouldn't #1 GHG (water vapor) be included? Let's get some perspective here.

"Gary Gulrud:
AGW Faithful:
Can anyone explain why GHGs keep rising and temps don't appear to be keeping pace?"

Gary, that is explained by lag.

Even though when they drag out the historical graphs, there is no lag.

OK, people are asking for a perspective here regarding why temperatures were steady since 1998 while CO2 has increased. Perhaps the following methan concentration curve will provide that pespective:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/methane.JPG

You will notice a leveling off of the concentration curve around 1996. If you actually read the report that Brett had a link to you you have read that concentrations were essentially constant for 10-year period of 1996-2005. However, as the latest concentration plot shows, and is confirmed by actual data of melting tundra and increase in methane emissions in the attached 2006 report:
http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

I think the increase and then leveling of the methane concentrations seems to match pretty well with the leveling of the temperatures. You also have to remember that methane has a 25 times more influence on a relative basis then CO2 so thast would be no surprise that temperatures would match the methane concentrations more.

We will have to see what effect the latest increase in methane concentrations has on the next few years. The only counter effect to the potential methane increase is that there is a natural 60-year cycle of cooler temperatures for the next 5-10 years. We will have to see which one wins out or do they cancel each other out. The next problem will be when the natural 60-year temperature cycle begins to increase from 2020 to 2050. How the combined effects of the natural temperature cycle with the increase in methane concentrations will be very interesting.

Due to the centuries-long lag between sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2, we may see increasing CO2 and decreasing global temps for centuries to come.

Brett, why don't you do a posting based on this link that promises 5X more efficient ethanol production? Is large scale production feasible? If so, even a 2X increase in ethanol production efficiency would be marvelous. http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/72401/ScanningforIdeasABetterWaytoMakeEthanol.aspx

Reply: I'll check it out, thanks

I agree that current ethanol production is marginal at best. However, the human spirit is naturally optimistic. I live in Wisconsin, and the way I see it is that the prospect of highly efficient ethanol production helps both Wisconsin's economy and the obesity epidemic. Also keep in mind that increased atmospheric CO2 helps ethanol-producing crops grow bigger.

I would like to point out that too much cheap food has been a curse on the United States for the past generation. The Japanese have much more expensive food and are healthier despite living in overcrowded conditions.

I can see how the cost of energy has a very direct and profound effect on the US economy. However, I cannot see any long-lasting negative effects of increased food prices. Food is in many respects a luxury item. Therefore, it is easy to slash your food budget.

Energy is not a luxury. Cheap energy is absolutely necessary for economic growth. Energy is incredibly abundant in our universe. The problem is how to efficiently extract and utilize it.

The little spike in the CO2 graph appears to line up with the Bali Conference, where 6,000 highly concerned diplomats and profiteers

(Rat Finks)

took long haul flights to a tropical paradise

(Take a flight to Lapland or the Siberian Tundra. Can't do that, it will go against our agenda.)

in order to express their deep, heartfelt empathy with the poor

(Yep, they really feel for the downtrotten, and the oppressed, and the minorities, and life's forgotton minions. That's why they want to tax them to death.).

The methane spike is most likely due to Al Gore's new found taste for ethnic food, as he flies around the globe telling other people to cut back on their travel.

REPLY: Ethnic food, such as BEEF Bourgeois? Gyros? BEEF Wellington? LOL!!!! Smell the methane, and the BS too.

This is not a good trend. While nature is trying to cool the planet, Man is trying to heat things up. Human ghgs are countering the natural cooling such that temperatures have been relative stagnant the last number of years. This looks like Dr Hansen's vindication. His ultimate vindication will take a little longer.

Today's basic science lesson: (Or is the discussion about water vapor a way on not facing the reality of the CO2 increase)

The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen, N2 and oxygen, O2) are not greenhouse gases.

The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth; carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%; methane, which causes 4–9%, and ozone, which causes 3–7%.

Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas.

About 280 ppm are also natural. Thank God for the natural greenhouse gases that make the planet habitable.

About 100 ppm of CO2 are due to human causes.
The increase in methane is due to CO2 increasing the temperature. This is one reason that CO2 and temp do not rise in tandem. There is always a delay.

PH - why the political bitterness? Bali Conference and Al Gore. You forgot Hansen for your trifecta of AWG political distractions.

Brett you need to look deeper
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
explain that

Another major story and change of stance on AGW by mainstream media
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597729-7583,00.html

Dennis H:

The melting of the permafrost is largely in Al Gore's mind. The dramatic pictures he showed of buildings sliding into the sea were not in the Arctic, they were in Newfoundland and it was due to clay erosion. The temperature in Eureka at 5:00pm today (Friday) is -23C so I don't think there will be much methane released. It is good to see that you are doing some research though, not just toeing the party line.

So what is your solution to the problem here folks? Talk about sitting on your hands and doing nothing.Go ahead and argue and complain.Who's to say this methane is not from the permafrost melting?? My "TUNNEL" idea solves this problem also!!

I saw a fantastic new documentary tonight at the theater - "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

After seeing it I have a much clearer picture of why so few scientists are willing to confront the scientific establishment. It is career catastrophe to do so.

Mandatory viewing for anyone involved in this discussion.

Hi gettingcold,

H20 is indeed a natural greenhouse gas, as is CO2. Both are by-products of burning hydrocarbons and respiration (which is also a form of burning hydrocarbons.)

Nature certainly is not interested in assigning blame - nor does it care about the neurotic guilt of the left.

Heres one reason why I'm still on the fence. GHGs make up roughly 1% of our atmosphere. Of this 1%, water vapor makes up roughly 75%. This means all other GHGs make up the other 25%. For the sake of argument lets say C02 makes up this 25% (we wont include methane and whatever for this discussion). So 25% of 1% of our atmosphere is C02 or as some say .0087% of the total atmosphere is C02. That seems like such a small amount, that its hard to believe it can raise our temps even a little. However the 75% that we call water vapor are also know as clouds and we all know that clouds on a cool night acts like a blanket to prevent temps from falling. Non of us would argue that. In fact clouds could keep them from falling 10 plus degrees per night. So if C02 is the other 25% of water vapor, than I can see how it would keep temps higher. Where am I going wrong besides maybe a little with the math?

My other problem is the whole concept behind global warming is C02 traps heat like a greenhouse. This makes the temps warm. That all makes perfect sense. But the "skeptics" have been saying that temps rise and C02 follows. The AGW side has been saying the opposite in that GHGs (mainly C02) rise mostly because of man and than temps follow. Now slowly at least some on the AGW side is reversing and saying its true that C02 follows temps. All except the Gore group. If both sides agree on this than in my mind the whole Greenhouse theory is proved wrong. So what is the debate about now? If its temps are rising, thats one thing, but you need man to be causing temps to rise for the greenhouse theory to be man's fault not just that they are rising. Have we been debating for so long that we have forgotten what the debate originally was about?

Brett, I really wish you would allow one thread every month or so to be Q & A. That would keep it on topic and allow us beginners to ask the pros here what we are thinking about. Thanks.

Reply: goldfinger, not a bad idea. I do not know how many "climate pros" visit this site, but I think we have a lot of smart individuals who comment frequently on this site who would be able to answer a number of questions. I would try to do so as well.

Its very confusing.

Hi Aviator, if what you say is true about the clay erosion in Newfoundland then my little respect for Al Gore slips yet more. Reminds me of the polar bear photo he stole of the Summer ice melt.

Climate change is proving to be quite a letdown to gardeners. A couple of years ago, we were filled with angst about the hot summers to come. We wrung our hands and applied more suncream.

I tentatively planted lavender and rosemary in my clay soil, and they thrived. "Hmm," I thought. "Long, warm summers and a garden filled with Mediterranean plants - this climate change thing isn't going to be all bad." Then came last summer and the honeymoon was over. Lashings of rain flooded the end of my garden, and the bedraggled lavender looked silly.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/gardens/story/0,,2275861,00.html

man its cold up here in minnesota and snowing. damn when is the global warming gonna get here i wanna head out on one of the 10,000 lakes soon.

John Henry raises an interesting point about water vapor. I'm not sure why it isn't measured, but I assume it's because it is regionally quite variable and constantly changing, and therefore harder to measure (as compared for instance to CO2, which is surprisingly constant and uniform around the globe). What is clear is that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas on our planet and its concentrations in the lower atmosphere are directly correlated with air temperature and is therefore a major magnifier of all the other AGHs.

Hi Aviator,

In all of my comments here on this site I try to put a some ideas and challenges to everyone by everything I say (to either prove me right or wrong) and I use what I feel is very credible research material to back it up. Personal opinions (and attacks) are just that if they cannot be backed up by some valid scientific data.

The melting of the Siberian Tundra and the resulting increase in methane emissions is being documented by credible scientists (and not Al Gore - who again is a politician) so I beg to differ with your opinion that it is all in "his mind." The fact that scientists are documenting a recent increase in tundra melting and methane emissions are being emitted at higher levels (http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm), and the methane concentration curve increases at the same time seems to indicate to me that something is happening. It all seems to fit and I challenge you to provide data that supports your opinion that it doesn't. Saying it's all in Al Gore's mind doesn't give me much information.

Those type of comments and personal opinions, while I understand why you make them, does nothing to increase the true understanding of what is going on in the scientific research world. I continue look at both sides but I confess everything I keep seeing is more on the global warming side that sees potential problems ahead. I am not an alarmist or a doomsday fanatic, I am just seeing things that look threatening and need to be seriously considered.

While I respect your opinions, I hope you can accept mine as a scientist as well.

Thank god for Patrick Henry and GWB! Oh, and Bill O'Reilly. If I hadn't been told about how we are in a "global cooling" state I would have been wondering why I have been sitting in 80 DEGREE weather in Maine in APRIL, also had a thunderstorm the other day. VERY different than last April. Thank God for Global Cooling!!!!! I knew I should listen to the expert bloggers here than to the so-called "scientists" who are are delusional with thier "Global Warming BS". Those damn liberals with their anti-corporation/greed mantra. Ahhh, back to watching Nascar and drinking Bud. A real human life compared to these "environmental nutjobs". WTC 7 must have been global cooling also I be thinkin'. Fire up the griddle ma', the real american , environment killin' man is home!!! LOL forever.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski has published a paper that deals with estimating preindustrial co2 levels. It can be found here http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdfB But I have another question: Has his work been peer reviewed? If not, why, if yes, then where can I find the review? His work should be dealt with seriously, even if it goes against the popular opinion.
Jim

Hi Brett. Question for you. Is it because NOAA and GISS : CAN'T , DON'T or WON'T publish Water Vapor Figures that we can't get any Data on this ?

I believe it is because water vapor levels in the atmosphere are constantly changing from day to day, hour to hour and that it is impossible to get an accurate reading.

Getting warm,

In response to your "Todays BASIC lesson"

70% + 26% + 9% + 7% = 112%. Ooops! Your math is a little off. You should MANIPULATE your numbers so they equal 100%. Perhaps you could use a lesson from your high priest Hansen on how to manipulate data?

"The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen and oxygen) are not greenhouse gases."

So (basically) how are nitrogen and oxygen warmed in our atmosphere?
___________________________________________

Greenhouse gases and earth day...

We are reminded (relentlessly) to think green, act green and be green. So wouldn't the green in GREENhouse gas suggest that we ARE being GREEN?

It's soooo stupid! EnvironMENTAList wackos. They care more about PLANTS than humans.

Don't believe me?

I CANNOT cut some trees in my own yard, but I can cut the life of a human(unborn)... no problem.

Have a great "earth year" everybody!

Hi getting warm...I am not in position to dispute your points but everything I have read about CO2 is that 93% TO 97% is caused by the natural cycle of exchange between the sea and vegetation. Did the 26% you gave include both natural and man-made CO2? And if manmade CO2 is just about 5% of the total shouldn`t it also be considered as being a natural ghg just like water vapor?

Sorry, getting warm....I just re-read your piece and you do state 100ppm as manmade which is about 25%. Wow! Would you mind passing on to us who made this calculation and the methodology that supports it. Thanks

a comment was made about 280 ppm is normal-how do we know that for sure with the small amount of data we have that that number is normal with the world population 5 bil 50 years ago to 8-9 bil today whos to say whats normal

deforestation-environmentalists like to argue about deforestation of the planet-i prefer to think that man has rearrange and enahanced plant life on the planet-in california alone a drive along the coast passes mile after mile of broccoli cauliflower lettucs of all kind artichokes etc wher ther was once scrub brush the cenral valley contains millions of trees in orchards that once were not there-the imperial valley growscrops of all kinds where there was once none -my point in addition to the human increase there is also a major vegetation increase-dont plants also usen oxygen and expel c02 at nite so maybe 380ppm is natures way of accomodating the requirement of co2 for todays planet-im not naive enough to not think that 3-4 billion more people are not adding more co2 to the atmosphere just by being alive all im saying is the system has grown and can support or needs 38ppm

off topic-i went back and reread greener diet what a great discourse betwee kipp/bt/mark and
oiznop/mary only in america can we see both sides of a topic make points get attacked and come back with more counterpoints i believe both sides made greatpoints in thier mini debate
i dont know if i read this right but i got the impression that despite the heated discourse all of you guys are still friends regard loub

CPC forecast that the entire lower 48 would be above normal in April. Looking like a world class screw-up at this point.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/gifs/2007/200707temp.gif
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.png

If the climate models are experimental and not to be used for policy or advocacy, they should clearly state that - so that policy makers do not mistake them for what they are not. On the other hand, if they believe their models are ready for verification, they need to be prepared for criticism as professionals from people outside their comfort zone - like what goes on in the real world.

My U12 soccer game was snowed out again today, with only two more playing weeks left in the season.

Reply: PH, I didn't realize you were under 12. You are one bright kid! Good luck with your make up game!! LOL

Global warming on Mars has wiped out every last glacier - not a single one spared. If only the Martians had listened to big Al Gore before it was too late.

April 23, 2008 Brown University researchers have found compelling evidence of thick, recurring glaciers on Mars, a discovery that suggests that the Red Planet's climate was much more dynamic than previously believed and could change again. Results are published on the cover of Geology magazine.
http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2008/04/martian-glaciers

http://leatherheadblog.com/2008/02/07/al-gore-instructs-martians-to-cut-co2-emissions/

Dennis, what 60-year natural cycle? I'm not aware of one. Citation?

RE: "The global concentration is now at 385 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels hovered close to 280 parts per million until 1850.":

I've read several articles on CO2 which suggest even the above is not solid. For example a paper by Ernst-Georg Beck (See: http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf) reevaluates previous data back to 1812 which had been discarded in 1958 which shows CO2 going up to 400PPM in 1825, 1857, and 1942 as well as a spike to 540 PPM in the early 1800's after the Tambora eruption which shows what big volcano can do).

I also read one (can't find it now) that suggests that essentially all of the CO2 concentration is ocean temperature driven (other than volcanoes) and that it can be accurately determined with a fairly simple differential equation with something like a 10 (?) year lag time between a temperature change and the resulting stabilized CO2 concentration. It suggested that the manmade contribution is miniscule.

This might be another example where the data has not been thorougly analyzed yet.....

North Pole could be ice free in 2008

"The set-up for this summer is disturbing," says Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). A number of factors have this year led to most of the Arctic ice being thin and vulnerable as it enters its summer melting season.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13779-north-pole-could-be-ice-free-in-2008.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news5_head_dn13779

Nice to see people making predictions that can be verified in our lifetime and for which they can be held accountable. I have this one logged and will be in contact with my Boulder buddies later this summer - one way or another.

Reply: Notice he said the word "could" not "will", keep that in mind.

We had snow yesterday and today. The air temp is around 34 but counting in wind chill it could not have been much above 20 today. Please look at the calendar. When will winter end??????????????????

Way back when I began to read about global warming, I was struck that few alarmists even consider water vapor. I am trying to remember but I think water vapor was considered to be more potent than C02? Anybody?

So let me get this right. The models do not take into consideration water vapor, clouds, sun activity?, wind, anything else? Aren't these factors a part of nature? If we are trying to replicate mother nature shouldn't we be more exacting with our input? Just wondering.

Hi Brett,

Some of the teams are playing 13 and 14 year old ringers - 6 feet tall with pimples. (Reply: We have a similar situation out here. My daughter's team usually ends up playing kids a year older, which at that age 11/12 makes a big difference.) I've thought about putting myself out on the field and provoking a confrontation with the other coaches. Tough for 10 and 11 year olds to compete evenly with adolescents. BTW - One of the latest springs on record here, but we still had a hard freeze last night which probably wiped out all the fruit tree blossoms. We are going into May with almost no leaves on the trees.

As far as "could" and "will" goes - groups like Greenpeace and WWF invariably declare the IPCC and NSIDC worst case scenarios to be fact. I don't see any government agencies making an effort to control the alarmism being generated in their name, and have in fact discussed this very issue with NSIDC staff.

Apparently "water vapor" is on the Morano's talking-point list today.

It takes only a moment of googling to find the answer to this question (see, for example, NOAA's explanation or the RealClimate explanation). Of course, the answer doesn't support the rabid contrarian dogma, and so the contrarian community rejects it.

For example, "Kricki Kachmar" writes:
So let me get this right. The models do not take into consideration water vapor, clouds, sun activity?, wind, anything else? Aren't these factors a part of nature? If we are trying to replicate mother nature shouldn't we be more exacting with our input? Just wondering.

In fact, the climate models do take this important greenhouses gas into consideration. The point, however, is that atmospheric water vapor is a feedback, as opposed to a forcing. The realclimate link explains this in reasonably accessible detail, and offers links to supporting references for any who are interested.

Meanwhile, PH again attempts to inject his Creationist twaddle into this forum. This "documentary" he claims should be "Mandatory viewing for anyone involved in this discussion" is, in fact, yet another distortion-filled collection of lies and propaganda from the Creationist/Intelligent Design religious extremists -- replete with the normal stock-in-trade of this crowd: misquotes of Darwin, misleadingly edited interviews, a wildly inaccurate attempt to conflate "Darwinism" with Nazism, and so on. Not to mention the film's plagiarism of the highly-acclaimed cell animation "The Inner Life of the Cell" or its similarly unethical misuse of "Imagine" and other music.

Perhaps PH can explain the manner in which this collection of religiously-inspired propaganda is remotely relevant to climate change.

Are bugs worse than SUV's? I wonder if other creatures are causing the same elsewhere?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/04/23/tech-beetle-carbon.html

"Scientists from Natural Resources Canada said the beetle's ravenous spread through pine forests in British Columbia and Alberta is killing trees. The decaying trees are in turn releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

The tiny mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) is approximately the size of a grain of rice.
(Doug Linton, Natural Resources Canada) The cumulative impact of the beetle outbreak in the region will release 990 megatonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases from 2000 to 2020, said the NRCan's senior research scientist, Werner Kurz.

"That's equivalent to five times the annual emissions from the transportation sector in Canada," Kurz told CBC News. "So these are very big numbers."

Steve Bloom,

I have discussed the 60-year cycle many times on this site using the NOAA and CRU temperature curves:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

Simply estimate the time spans between the last warm periods, 1930's& 1940's and then the 1990's and early 2000's. The cool periods occurred in the early 1900's and then in the 1950's & 1960's.

Following this natural trend, the next cool period will occur between 2001 and 2020 (60 years after the 1950's and 1960's) and the next warm period will peak out around 2050-2060 (60 years after the 1990's and early 2000's).

I have been critical of temperature plots I see here and on web sites like ICECAP.US that show temperatures higher in the 1930's then the present. I question those temperature curves since the physical record of glacial retreat does not support such a temperature regime. If the physical record, such as glaical retreat, increases since the 1930's, I would tend to believe that temperatures are higher now then they were back then.

I have also indicated that looking at an upward bias to this natural 60-year temperature trend, the peaks and valley are continually higher over time since the 1800's. I refer to these higher highs and higher lows as the upward bias in the natural temperautres. For example, this current cooling trend, expected to be reached in the 5-10 years appears to me to likely remain above the peak temepratures we saw in the 1930's, which by the way was a warm period and not a cool period.

I hope this explains, and puts into perspective, the natural temperature trend I was referring to and also to my feeling that the overall trend is still upwards despite the recent cooling trend that everyone is concentrating on. In fact, this recent cooling trend actually looks more like a leveling off of temperatures since I think that the cooling trend is being countered by the warming effects of increased grennhouse gases, especially methane. I also found it interesting that atmospheric concentrations leveled off during the 10-year period from 1996-2005, about the same time the temperature curve also leveled off. The problem is there are indications that methane emissions and atmopheric concentrations are starting to increase again since 2005.

My big concern is what then happens during the next natural upward cycle that will likely occur in the 2020-2050 time period? Especially with the possibility of increasing methane emissions that could create an ever increasingly vicious cycle of higher temperatures will higher methane/CO2 emissions. I am just putting it out there for you and others to ponder.

I always like to take a step back from all of the political spin, name calling and hype out there (from both sides) and concentrate on the bigger picture. I have yet to hear others say that my interpretation of the natural temperature trends being enhanced by the unnatural influences of greenhouse gases is incorrect or way off base. I will also only respond to those that talk intelligently with actual data to back up their opinions.

Jack Mclaughlin:
The figures that 100 ppm of CO2 are from human activity are from a nice chart on Wikipedia:

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

Its source is the IPCC see page 8 of this chapter:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

See ref: Neftel et al., 1985; Etheridge et al., 1996;

Patrick -- Today's distraction is glaciers on Mars, which has a totally different atmosphere - 96% CO2 and sandstorms.

Let's not distract or go all political. What reasons and science can you show that says that this dramatic increase on C02 and Methane will not have a negative effect on humanity and life, in general. Are you pro-life?

I am, in the broadest sense of the word.

Greg J:

At the seven-minute point in Al Gore's latest diatribe at:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243

He has slides of "Already, along the Arctic Circle", which is really at Daniel's Harbour, Newfoundland. Story at:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/04/16/second-landslide.html

I hope the links paste okay.

While I respect Dennis' citations, the history of permafrost in the Arctic is very sketchy - more so in Siberia. Even the Canadian permafrost extent is only estimated from sampling across a wide area and will little historical information:

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/permafrost/images/modifiedmap.jpg

Unfortunately, it appears that the researchers have drunk the frozen cool-aid - look at this quote, "General circulation models predict that, for a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic sources, mean annual air temperatures may rise up to several degrees over much of the Arctic." Aaaargh! Models again, no recognition that CO2 increases have a logarithmic effect and what is "several degrees" supposed to mean in a "scientific" paper?

Like most things involved in climate change, we have insufficient data to draw on over long periods yet people want instant remedial action. We have to grit our teeth and wait until real trends can be determined.

Kricki Kachmar;
Your post bring a Question to mind, Again.

For anyone with Statistical skills:
If you subtact all of the "un-accounted for" factors in the AGW theory.
Water vapor
Solar wind
Dust and Soot
Oceanic oscellations
Wind sheer
Bad instrementation
Deliberate Fudging of the temp record
etc
etc

What is left of the A in AGW?

Anyone up to the calculation?
It is beyond my Math skills.

If I hadn't been told about how we are in a "global cooling" state I would have been wondering why I have been sitting in 80 DEGREE weather in Maine in APRIL.

REPLY: And this is a problem????

I saw a fantastic new documentary tonight at the theater - "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

After seeing it I have a much clearer picture of why so few scientists are willing to confront the scientific establishment. It is career catastrophe to do so.

Mandatory viewing for anyone involved in this discussion.

REPLY: As mentioned in a previous post, PH, I did see it. And I even recommended it to out "progressive" friends on this blog. Maybe they will learn something. But something tells me they won't. Remember, anyone who disagrees with the elitests is a philistine. Oh, by the way, Ben Stein is a great American.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WAMRING LIE!!!!!

saly - Methane is released into the atmosphere when coal is mined.

http://www.tuckergas.com/cmmpg02.htm

China is a huge user of coal. So China has a huge coal bed methane problem. Most of it is released into the atmosphere.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008013_784582.htm?campaign_id=rss_as

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EXTEAPREGTOPENERGY/0,,contentMDK:20288258~menuPK:574057~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:574015,00.html

Gettinywarm..thanks for directing me to the Wikapedia site. I can see I will be spending a lot of time there in the next few weeks..just my initial observation I see they attribute 9-26% of CO2 to human activity but then in another part of their site they say that " natural sources of CO2 are 20 times greater than sources due to human activity"...this would then place it in the 93 to 97% range which was in my previous comment piece.

Jack, when you read "natural sources of CO2 are 20 times greater than sources due to human activity", you seem to have missed the rest of the sentence, that reads:

but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks such as weathering of continental rocks and photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton.

In this case, it is the change (and resulting imbalance) that causes the problem, not the absolute amount.

Oz and PH, If you'd like to discuss the anti-science, religious dogma of Ben Stein's movie, there are plenty of religious discussion forums out on the 'Net for you to use. This isn't one of them.

Hi Mark,

There was nothing religious or anti-science in the movie, though I did see a review on-line claiming that "Benjamin Stein" was a member of the Christian religious right (proving once again that US leftists are even more clueless than WWII Nazis.)

But I do continue to detect a an ongoing religious tone to your comments.

Jack, consider the following:

Take a bathtub, fill it, then open the drain but regulate the faucet so that the level stays equal (inflow exactly equals outflow). Now take an eye dropper and start adding water. After a while the tub will overflow. In a literal sense, nearly all of the water that overflows will have come from the faucet rather than the eye dropper, but is it then correct to say that the faucet resulted in the overflow?

To put the CH4 concentration increase into perspective relative to CO2, you have to account for the fact that it is 25 times more potent than CO2.

Dennis,

:) Please explain how? I understand that CH4 is ~2.5 times more potent per unit mass from;

Specific Heat CO2 = .847 j/gK
Specific Heat CH4 = 2.22 j/gK

2.22/.847 = 2.62

Methane is about 1,900 ppb or 1.9 ppm. The 25 times value you were referring to is if CH4 emissions equaled CO2 over a hundred year period and is based on Global Warming Potential (Made Up :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

So CH4's actual GWP is 200 times less than that of CO2 because of mass, even though it's Specific Heat is higher.

Oh! I wonder what H2O Vapor's GWP is? It has a Specific Heat of 2.08 and is 17 times more abundant at any given moment than CO2.

Oooops see quote below;

"A GWP is not usually calculated for water vapor. Water vapor has a significant influence with regard to absorbing IR-radiation; however its concentration in the atmosphere mainly depends on air temperature. As there is no possibility to directly influence atmospheric water vapor concentration, the GWP-level for water vapor is not calculated; see greenhouse gas."

Of course it isn't. The most abundant and most powerful GHG in our atmosphere is not calculated because if it were, more questions would arise that showed GWP is in fact a ridiculous idea when CO2 and methane's values are simply derived from conjecture.

I don't mean to offend, but do and AGW advocates actually check whether what they read is correct or not?

Would the Carrot or the Stick be more appropriate to get you all to verify your own and/or someone else's data/ideas? I believe the Carrot and not enough Stick is what has led many of the AGW Advocates to never checking. It is not Politically Correct to correct someone else even when they are grossly wrong. How can a Carrot work if you bring it to the one you are trying to motivate?

Correct, it does not work.

Who is John Galt?

Steve

BrooklineTom...thanks for pointing out my omission but I could not see the relevance since natural sinks can`t distinguish between manmade CO2 and natural CO2. Or can they? Tom, are you saying that if we eliminate the 5% of manmade CO2 natural sinks will balance out the remaining 95% and render those emissions harmless or am I missing something here? (which is entirely possible)

Dennis, I will just say that it's hazardous to try to identify cycles from such a short record. In addition it needs to be backed up by an analysis that provides a physical explanation. My understanding is that there's no research supporting the existence of such a 60-year cycle.

The question of the predictable periodicity of natural multi-decadal climate signals has gotten some attention from researchers; see here in particular. The paper itself is thick going, but see this article.

Who is Christoher Pearson? Here's a link that sheds some light.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Pearson

Here's a nice quote from the gentleman.

In an interview in 1999 Pearson said of himself that "I don't comfortably wear the tag 'a conservative'. There are some things that I'm conservative about culturally. In lots of respects I'm an old-fashioned radical libertarian. My conservatism is the conservatism of Hume I suppose, or J.S. Mill liberalism. And there's always been a strong anarchic sense about a lot of my thinking and writing." [5]

Hmm. Hume, Mill and anarchy. Interesting combination you don't see to often these days!

Dennis, also see this recent Science article. Although it's on a much shorter time-scale that the Tsonis et al research, note in particular the Hadley model prediction of a distinct warming trend beginning later this year and leading to new record highs within the next few years.

Hi Steve Bloom,

The Hadley-Met models predicted that 2007 would be the hottest year ever globally, and that the summer of 2007 would be hot and average precipitation in the UK.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=plphQL3kEd7UZAvio--OYHg&oid=8&output=image

They have a lot of credibility now. Thanks for the link.

Jack Mclaughlin:

Be critical of everything you read on Wikipedia.
It appears that the AGW Zealots are still very much in control of that source.

I don't even read links to Wikipedia any more.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/25/the-real-climate-martians-solomon.aspx

Steve Bloom...I have no scientific credentials so I do appreciate the analogy you are making and I understand it. I am doing my best to first establish the approximate percentage of manmade CO2 and natural CO2. If natural CO2 is in the range of 95% to 97% of the total and CO2 represents 25% of 385 ppm,(25% times 385=96) then 5% of 96=4.8 so we can now say that out of the 385 ppm only 4.8 ppm is from manmade CO2. Maybe we can find a way to enhance the natural sinks to absorb that tiny amount and we can all benefit from the cheap electricity that coal provides.

Hi everyone,

A lot of comments seem to be highly skeptical and negative, but pardon my view, but all of them are a bit narrow minded and ridicule.
Climate change is happening, as always did. But our pollution just keeps on rising and while the rising brightness in sun contributes to a global warming, our pollutants are accelerating the effect to a dangerous way.
Polar ice is indeed melting. Even if the temperatures are cool there. Remember that while ice melts it absorbs heat and cools the surronding environment. So, imagine the huge ammount of heat that is being given to the polar caps to cause their collapse and melting!
Ice melting will also for sure interfeere with oceanic streams, we still dont know their effect, but I guess its no childs play, no cozy staff!

Who is fool to believe that the world will keep the same way, despite our huges polluting contributions?

Its just a case of wandering which variables which surpass others.
Either global warming will create a hot world with extended droughts and bigger storms, or will put parts of the northern hemisphere into a little ice age. I am not scientist so I do not know which may happen and how much pollution is needed.

The only thing we get for sure is that climate is changing, and faster than usual as scientist say, and we may be the responsibles.

Either way, polluting is never never good for the environment. We should all turn as much as we can, people with lifestyles that create less and less disturbance on our unique Earth.
And everyone must act. Since one day we will be forced if we havent act.

There was nothing religious or anti-science in the movie

Another lie from Patrick Henry.

BrooklineTom...thanks for pointing out my omission but I could not see the relevance since natural sinks can`t distinguish between manmade CO2 and natural CO2.

Please see Steve Bloom's analogy.

I wonder which part of "feedback" versus "forcing" Steve doesn't understand.

Correction: I put in some numbers that were incorrect in judging how much CO2 is manmade. It would be a simple calculation based on 95% to 97% by natural sources of the 385ppm it would come to between 11 and 19ppm which is far less than the 100ppm cited by gettingwarm.

Hi BT,

From your remarks about "Expelled," it is obvious that you haven't seen the movie. Most of the movie consisted of interviews with prominent scientists on both sides of the debate - equal time given to both.

Mr. Stein did not badger, harass or interrupt the scientists. It was not an attempt to prove anything, but rather an expose of how scientists who threaten the mainstream are "disappeared."

There was no religious theme to the movie, and obviously Ben Stein is not a member of the Christian religious right.

BTW - You throw around very insulting words as if it was normal behavior in your culture. Makes you appear insecure in your belief system.

I have no scientific credentials so I do appreciate the analogy you are making and I understand it. I am doing my best to first establish the approximate percentage of manmade CO2 and natural CO2. ... I put in some numbers that were incorrect in judging how much CO2 is manmade. It would be a simple calculation based on 95% to 97% by natural sources of the 385ppm it would come to between 11 and 19ppm which is far less than the 100ppm cited by gettingwarm.

Uh, Jack, since you admit that you "have no scientific credentials", surely you are willing to at least read the analysis presented by those who DO have said credentials. If you then choose to disagree with that analysis, you may of course do so.

GettingWarm cited the source of her information, it wasn't wikipedia, it was the IPCC report. She wrote, I thought fairly clearly, that her information was from page 8 of that source. Here is the paragraph I believe she refers to:

From 10 kyr before present up to the year 1750, CO2 abundances stayed within the range 280 +/- 20 ppm (Indermuehle et al., 1999). During the industrial era, CO2 abundance rose roughly exponentially to 367 ppm in 1999 (Neftel et al., 1985; Etheridge et al., 1996; IPCC, 2001a) and to 379 ppm in 2005 (Section 2.3.1; see also Section 6.4).

Let's just review this, since it may be difficult to understand.

First, atmospheric CO2 was approximately stable at 280 parts per million (give or take about 20 parts per million) for the ten thousand years prior to 1750. From 1750 to 1999, atmospheric concentration increased to 367 parts per million in 1999 and to 379 parts per million in 2005.

The ten-thousand year concentration, 280PPM, is therefore used as a base. The current concentration, 379 PPM, exceeds that base by 99 PPM -- which various sources, including GettingWarm, rounded up to 100 PPM.

I don't know where you got your "95%-97" figure, but GettingWarm told you where she got hers.

I hope this helps clarify your confusion about the size of the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2.

Bushlover:

After this wonderul diatribe,
"Thank god for Patrick Henry and GWB! Oh, and Bill O'Reilly. If I hadn't been told about how we are in a "global cooling" state I would have been wondering why I have been sitting in 80 DEGREE weather in Maine in APRIL, also had a thunderstorm the other day. VERY different than last April. Thank God for Global Cooling!!!!! I knew I should listen to the expert bloggers here than to the so-called "scientists" who are are delusional with thier "Global Warming BS". Those damn liberals with their anti-corporation/greed mantra. Ahhh, back to watching Nascar and drinking Bud. A real human life compared to these "environmental nutjobs". WTC 7 must have been global cooling also I be thinkin'. Fire up the griddle ma', the real american , environment killin' man is home!!! LOL forever. "

It made me wonder if during the winter when you had some ridiculously cold day, did you come on here and drool and babble about global cooling?

Oz and PH, If you'd like to discuss the anti-science, religious dogma of Ben Stein's movie, there are plenty of religious discussion forums out on the 'Net for you to use. This isn't one of them.

REPLY: I will remember that, Mark, the next time you and BT feel the need to bash those of us who cling to our guns and religion, ooops sorry, meant to say the next time you and BT bring up religion and politics that does not pertain to the glo-bull warming farce. And I will remember to alert Brett when that happens too.

Hi Brookline Tom It is Jack again...I took notes from an article I read by Robert Essenhigh, an Ohio State researcher, who in turn did get his information from a 1988 IPCC study to assess the risk of human induced climate change. In their report the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of CO2 annually circulate between the earths ocean and atmosphere and another 60 billion tons exchange between vegetation and the atmosphere while only 5 to 6 billion tons are man made. I have heard other scientists make the same assessment on u-tube and will try to obtain their names for you. Again, even Wikepedia claims that natural sources of CO2 are 20 times greater than man-made sources.

Again, even Wikepedia claims that natural sources of CO2 are 20 times greater than man-made sources.

Jack, it's the dynamics that matter. That's the point of Steve Bloom's earlier analogy. The changes in "natural sources" since 1750 are not nearly large enough to explain the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.

Is the ice melting from above or below? This person claims the ice is melting because the oceans are warmer, not because the atmosphere is warmer.
And that the oceans are warmer because of heat coming from the earth's core. And this could be the start of the next ice age.

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

"atmospheric concentration increased to 367 parts per million in 1999 and to 379 parts per million in 2005."

Whats your point? We have record antarctic sea ice. The oceans are not warming. From 1999 to 2008 global tempertures have not increased, despite your "dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2."

Could it be that the rate and effect of CO2 is grossly exagerated? What horror if the planet warms by a FEW theoretical degrees in the next 200 years anyway... AFTER we use whats left of the dwindling fossil fuel reserves.

Get a grip BT. War is the greatest threat to humanity, not AGW.

Whats your point?

I answered a question posed by Jack Mclaughlin.

Get a grip BT. War is the greatest threat to humanity, not AGW.

I agree that war is the most urgent immediate threat to humanity. This site, however, is about AGW.

If you find AGW so trivial, then perhaps your time might be better spent on a blog addressing the risk of war.

"It made me wonder if during the winter when you had some ridiculously cold day, did you come on here and drool and babble about global cooling?"

No, but your buddies Patrick Henry and Oiz did that virtually every other day this past winter.

"War is the greatest threat to humanity, not AGW."

There will never be another world war. Get a grip, Rich. Grab a beer, kick back and relax, instead of scouring the world looking for the next country to invade on the pretense of imaginary WMDs. Scaring the populace into ratcheting up defense spending isn't "small government." Then again, like most Republicans, you're not really for small government. You just pretend you are.

Mark:

"No, but your buddies Patrick Henry and Oiz did that virtually every other day this past winter."

Strange... Gettingwarm comes on here and does exactly what you condemn Ponzio (read backwards) and PH for doing and you do not condemn him.

I dont agree with PH and Oiz when they do that, but I am not going to stop them from doign it. I actually get headaches from reading some of Ponzio's posts. But if you feel as if them doing that hurts their credibility, what does it to the AGWer that does it?

"There will never be another world war. Get a grip, Rich. Grab a beer, kick back and relax"

Your ignorance is disturbing. I won't waste my time by detailing this off topic reality. However, I noticed you mentioned Einstein on a different thread. How about these quotes from him?

"As long as there are men, there will be war."

"I know not with what weapons what WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Mark "hopes" that by electing a Democrat into office, the world will stop being violent and all of life will be harmonic. If only that were true, but history demonstrates otherwise.

I had several beers last night as I watched the Celtics win against the Hawks. I was relaxed and enjoyed every minute of it... but thanks for your suggestion.