four times the current carbon dioxide level, which is not enough for the models to create supergreenhouse conditions

That contradicts Dr. Hansen, who says that the next 3% increase in CO2 will cause the end of civilization as we know it.

It's absolutely fascinating that all past climate change is entirely natural, but all climate change since the mid-20th century is entirely man-made. I wonder how it is that none of the current warming is natural?

What's even more interesting to me are the studies showing CO2 always follows warming. This holds true for the paleoclimate and the present climate. If you want to hear some real spin, just ask an AGW proponent about that.

I hope that one day that there will be overwhelming evidence that this wonderful, magical, life giving compound, carbon dioxide will be excluded from any discussion blaming it for global warming. These findings, along with the Aqua Satellite and Argo robots data will help.

...during the Cetaceous and Eocene periods...

Cetaceous, is that the early whaling period?

Reply: Hey, Those are the PSU report's words.

This has obvious implications for the alarmist models' prediction of climate catastrophe.

It will be interesting to see where this study appears and does not appear in the media. Any bets?

If it does appear anywhere, it will be interesting to see how quickly the alarmists jump to debunk it.

DC

I know this is off topic, but I stumbled across an article about improving the net energy gain from ethanol by finding a better way to ferment grain to generate ethanol. The source is Machine Design, which is an engineering magazine.

http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/72401/ScanningforIdeasABetterWaytoMakeEthanol.aspx

Basically, this new method increases the net energy gain over 5 fold, going from 1.3 times to 7 times the input energy required. Costs would be at about $1/gallon at the current cost of corn. I, like most of the skeptics who post here, would love to see the US rid itself from foreign oil even though we are labeled as being tied to the big oil companies. I think ethanol is receiving a bad rap as a posssible solution, but I won't go in to that right now. Anyway, I am sure this technology could be used on crops like switchgrass as well. Technolgy such as this, brought to you by a free, capitalistic system will be the answer to our energy independence.

This seems to be more of the sky is falling talk...Yet the global warmers get richer??Yet we are all no better off...

Reply: It is?????

That contradicts Dr. Hansen, who says that the next 3% increase in CO2 will cause the end of civilization as we know it.

The additional 30% we have seen since the End of the Little Ice Age has coincided with the creation of a bunch of halfwits that believe, without any evidence, that the additional 30% caused a .6 K increase in temps when a 60% increase from the height of the last glacial period to the 1800's caused a 14 - 16 K increase.

Now by using The AGW Method (AKA BS) we can deduce that more halfwits are created when CO2 increases occur. No proof is needed, remember this is using The AGW Method.

All one needs is to have one of their buddies "Peer (wink wink) Review" it and have it passed off by a Committee was that formed to Pass off BS as fact if it meets a certain criteria. Studies that have the right key words and have no evidence whatsoever get a direct pass. Well, otherwise it wouldn't be fair if only studies that could actual prove something got passed. We have to remember many of these studies and all committees are made up of halfwits.

Using Rudimann, we can further deduce that a model created to show the number of halfwits born prior to 1850, "predicted in the past" should be more than we see today. Since we see even more halfwits (AKA AGW Zealots) the model must not be wrong but rather there must have been less halfwits prior to 1850 than once thought.

I can honestly see why most AGW advocates are angry and confused.

Once the world starts to cool and it is no longer fad to be a halfwit, they (the halfwits) will be whining about whatever Al Gore or some Supreme halfwit tells them to.

MOveON >:) Go protest something else you know little about.

Another study shows that we have more halfwits ever since the Gub-ment took such a lead role in educating most of our children. Those reliant on the Gub-ment or want to be are almost always halfwits. The study says so anyway :)

I was the author of the post refering to halfwits and The AGW Method.

Steve

I have thought for several years that the percent of possible sunshine has been well above long term norms in northwest Florida. There seem to be very few periods of lasting cloudiness or rainy trends. Even in years when the precipitation is near normal it comes in short bursts with long dry periods. Just my thinking as only my observations over last 50 years are considered and not official records. However this trend seems to go hand in hand with warmer weather. Is it possible that this a widespread occurrence and is influencing warming?

me:

Still don't think it's gonna work. The world is now seeing grain shortages and one of the reasons is the diversion of resources to the production of feedstock for biofuels.

Celulosic? Still has to be cultivated, harvested and transported to processing. Much less dense than grain, much higher transportation costs.

Anyway, all this becomes a moot point if the next solar cycle doesn't show itself soon.

All the best

Aaron

warming in the past = no people, or few people and no industry = must have been natural.

warming in the present = aerosols, soot, Nox, CO2, sulfur dioxide, methane = a large portion coming from human activities = man contributing to global warming.

hmmm - rocket science it is not.

I found this attached discussion also interesting about this Cretaceous supergreenhouse climate topic:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/the-debate-is-just-beginning-on-the-cretaceous/langswitch_lang/in

Here is a quoted passage from that attachment:

"Just when the hothouse starts looking really, really hot, along comes a new Science article by Bornemann et al: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5860/189)
dealing with climatic conditions in the Turonian (93.5 to 89.3 million years ago). The principal result of this paper is that there appears to have been a 200,000 year period right smack in the middle of one of the warmest periods of the past half billion years, when there were ice sheets (presumably in Antarctica) that were up to 60% the volume of today's Antarctic ice sheets. How in the world do you get such large ice sheets in a high CO2 climate warm enough for crocodiles to survive in the Arctic at the other side of the planet? And this apparent glaciation is not the result of a global cold snap. As in the Eocene results quoted earlier, the tropical ocean surface temperatures are again on the order of 35C."

Let me repeat that, there is evidence that the Antarctic ice sheet appeared to maintain 60% of its volume during the Cretaceous supergreenhouse climate period. Of course without direct observation (like we have now) the methodology used to come up with that conclusion is one for discussion.

Meanwhile the Arctic Ocean was identified as being totally ice free during the same time.

Those that continually questioned the effects of global warming have allways emphasized the recent reports that shows an increase in glacial ice over Antarctic despite the noted increase in global temperatures. The current pattern of decreasing ice in the Arctic and nearly stable Anarctic ice appears to be matching a typical warming climate. Based on this information, perhaps those observations of increasing or stabilized ice fields over Antarctica may not be as conclusive as they suspect regarding whether or not global warming is occuring.

More sunshine equals more phytoplankton, more phytoplankton equals more oxygen and hydrogen sulfides and co2 absorbtion, water vapor requires oxygen, hydrogen and sulfates, sulfates contain dmso,msm which are absorbed in the water droplets and when in excess the clouds release rain and trace amounts fall back to earth and the process repeats. A Cycle, everything on earth goes in a cycle. More clouds less phytoplankton,less phytoplankton less clouds and more sun, the earth can affect its temps naturally without man. It is a cycle like alot of rabbits and a few wolves, wolf population grows, rabbits go down, few rabbits wolves die off, wolves die off, rabbits go up, a cycle and we have no control over it, its happened since the beginning of time. There will be another ice age, I wonder what will be the cause?

Cold summer weather is hurting the butterfly population in the UK.

Butterflies need a warm summer in order to help numbers recover from last year's washout, say conservationists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7363411.stm

CPC's climate models predicted that the entire country would be above normal for the first four months of 2008.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/gifs/2007/200707temp.gif

Proving once again their complete disconnect from reality
http://hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/YearTDeptUS.png

Gary B.

Pre-industrial baseline 288,000
Natural additions 68,520
Man-made additions 11,880

Do you really think it is fair to so we added a considerable amount of co2 to the atmosphere?

On Earth Day, I bought a new car.

The good news is that, since my old car had been running for a good 6 months with the �Check engine� light on, I�m probably fouling the air less than I was the day before. For more http://lifeofearth.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-contribution-to-global-warming.html

Well, no surprise to hear Gary B turn to the dark side. OK.

Hey Gary, you connected aerosols and atmospheric soot to global warming. How warming and not cooling with those 2 examples?

"aerosols are believed to have contributed a cooling tendency and also have contributed to "Global Dimming."

"The airborne soot dims sunlight reaching the surface, causing cooling"

What do you know about the earths "drafty" and "weakening" magnetic shield? Could this effect our biosphere?

lack of cloud due to active sun?

It is encouraging to read that, in the past, the earth has recovered from periods of "global warming". Even though these periods may be cyclical in nature, whatever the cause, we humans need to attempt, to the best of our ability, to not add to them or accelerate them. We do this for our grandchildren.

And, as to ethanol, while it may be necessary for a time, there are more possible answers. Is anyone aware of the University of New Hampshire study, old now (2004, University of New Hampshire Biodiesel Group), about producing biodiesel from algae?

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Knowing that there are some answers and possibilities out there helps you sort those aluminum cans, plastic bottles and newspapers.

Just a question to all you Flat Earthers out there- exactly who are the "global warmers getting richer" that are referred to by Thomas Blackmon? I know Exxon and many other in the extractive industries have serious vested interests in maintaining their short term profits by Denying, but the converse I'm not clear on. Is it the researchers who have stumbled onto a junk science research goldmine (even if they are the ones in peer reviewed journals by a factor of 100:1 over the Denying researchers)? Is it environmental groups as posited by Creighton (BTW global warming until very recently was a very hard thing to raise any money on - you're much better off going with whales and wolves)? Or something or somebody else?

Hi Elizabeth,

Our grandchildren will laugh about global warming, just like we do about global cooling from the 1970s.

If you want to do something useful for your grandchildren, I suggest focusing on something having to do with reality. There are plenty of serious environmental problems we could be dealing with.

http://www.lomborg.com/

Can anybody give a reliable number on how much CO2 currently in the atmosphere is due to human activities? Please list the source, too.

Rich - No, I didn't turn to the dark side. I really don't know what you mean that it is no surprise. Why? Because I question Patrick Henry's data and motivations? I don't necessarily want to be on the "denier" side either. Not with PH posting false information and all the constant bashing of scientists...remember the "frozen waves on Lake Michigan" that PH posted about that turned out to be in Antarctica?

Patrick Henry:
Some pictures of how global warming is affecting Michigan.

http://codgy.com/michigan-winter-ice-waves/

Posted by Patrick Henry | April 17, 2008 9:05 AM

Travis and Paul both pointed out that PH was wrong, that it was Antarctica, yet PH never apologized or admitted that he posted wrong information. That would take credibility.

I often wonder if I should believe all of those graphs and charts that PH so conveniently "creates" with google? But that's another story. I really tire of the constant negativity from regulars on here about every topic.

Look at what PH is posting now - CPC long range predictions. We all know that those change. We all know that they aren't very accurate. It is called climatology and most who study climate and weather know that there is a 33.3% chance that it will be warm or cold in most areas. Am I surprised that CPC's long range is wrong? No.

EVERYONE who forecasts weather has a 10 or 15 day forecast. So, according to PH, everyone who predicts long range, who is wrong, must be dis-connected from reality?

My comment was directed at those who wonder why some scientists say that man is helping to cause global warming. I was trying to point out that man effects everything in the global environment. That's not rocket science. Did I say that CO2 is the main cause of warming? No. Do I wonder about the sun? Yes.

elee3 - If I knew what those numbers you posted mean, then I would respond. A link would help. Otherwise I say...I have no idea. Sorry.

Elizabeth, what do you mean recovered from global warming, maybe the earth recovers from global cooling, why is warming the all evil. Its like people think the earth should be a ball ice. Why!

Am I surprised that CPC's long range is wrong? No.

Hi Gary B,

The entire global warming story is based around the idea that climate models (like CPC) are accurate. Politicians are talking about trying to control global temperatures within a few tenths of a degree - based on models which can't even predict the direction of change much less the magnitude.

Check out the COLA reports. There is some serious cold weather happening on this planet, and the climate models have completely missed the mark. The are worthless as policy tools, and it is long past time for modelers to be honest about it.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html

Jep, Kansas USA, let's try this again.

"Please refresh my memory. What is your source in that 0.0087% (CO2) figure?"

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

Scroll down to Natural and anthropogenic, carbon dioxide, increase since 1750 = 87 ppm or 0.0087% (human actions).

In the world that Rich lives in, being able to show that a physical quantity is small on some scale or another is proof that it can't have a significant effect on anything. Rich did not do well in his high school science classes.

But of course this is AccuWeather, where all opinions about science are equal.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Just for you. Written by people who were possibly even wiser than those at realclimate.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Rich,

Brett wrote this in an earlier topic. You may want to read it. It's directed towards people like you:

Edward Lorenz, an MIT professor and meteorologist who developed the chaos theory, died Wednesday at the age of 90. The Boston Globe wrote a nice piece yesterday on Dr. Lorenz and here is an exerpt from the obituary that some may want to consider when they proclaim that the tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly cause a major change the future behavior of the global climate system.........

Of course, I've been saying this along, but maybe Rich will get the message this time.

Steve Bloom,

No one is forcing you to be here, if you don't like it here, the door is your keyboard.

Mr. Bloom,

I didn't realize you had an opinion about science. I thought your sole purpose around here was to whine about the forum.

RICH and Bloom:

wikipedia is not an authoritative source for anything. Callendar and Keeling set the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 abundance at 180-190ppm using ice cores after throwing out all pre WWII measurements except those by a couple French researchers.
Looking at the ice core data one sees a flat, monotonic curve in that range, therefore the naive assumption that is is the earth's natural state.
Now if you believe all that I have beach property on Hudson's Bay you should be interested in.

Adamant,

I can't answer your question precisely about who is getting richer, at least not very well - I would venture a guess and say most skeptics would think Al Gore and the scientists that are receiving funding for AGW research.

But that's not why I felt the need to reply. I was intrigued by your question, and I hope somebody qualified answers it. What I am responding to is this comment:

"(even if they are the ones in peer reviewed journals by a factor of 100:1 over the Denying researchers)?"

I am quite skeptical of AGW theory myself, and this is an interesting point to ponder. However, the reason it doesn't do much for me, is because "peer-reviewed" doesn't necessarily mean "good". My question is, who are the peers?

Imagine a scientist does a study and finds that cigarettes are not at all harmful to humans. A board of scientists with a stake in Big Tobacco (peers) reviews it and says it is acceptable, while rejecting most work from those with differing views. It makes a person wonder how accurate a study needs to be to earn the label "peer-reviewed".

If I believed these peers were neutral parties, I would put more stock in the "peer-reviewed" studies. If they really are only approving dissenting views at a rate of 1 to 100, that may mean the 1 part is unscientific and worthless, but it may also mean that these peer reviews are biased.

Adamant,

I can't answer your question precisely about who is getting richer, at least not very well - I would venture a guess and say most skeptics would think Al Gore and the scientists that are receiving funding for AGW research.

But that's not why I felt the need to reply. I was intrigued by your question, and I hope somebody qualified answers it. What I am responding to is this comment:

"(even if they are the ones in peer reviewed journals by a factor of 100:1 over the Denying researchers)?"

I am quite skeptical of AGW theory myself, and this is an interesting point to ponder. However, the reason it doesn't do much for me, is because "peer-reviewed" doesn't necessarily mean "good". My question is, who are the peers?

Imagine a scientist does a study and finds that cigarettes are not at all harmful to humans. A board of scientists with a stake in Big Tobacco (peers) reviews it and says it is acceptable, while rejecting most work from those with differing views. It makes a person wonder how accurate a study needs to be to earn the label "peer-reviewed".

If I believed these peers were neutral parties, I would put more stock in the "peer-reviewed" studies. If they really are only approving dissenting views at a rate of 1 to 100, that may mean the 1 part is unscientific and worthless, but it may also mean that these peer reviews are biased.

I've never met a government funded scientist who was interested in getting rich. If they had that kind of motivation, they wouldn't be working for the government or a university.

Many are motivated by obtaining prestige, tenure, research funding, and keeping their jobs.

Bloom,

You automatically get an "F" in science for trying to compare PU-239 with CO2. You also get an "F" in economics for trying to revamp a capitalistic system based on an inconclusive theory. You get your third "F" in debate class for making fun of the moderator. WTG!

Mark,

I read that post and frankly it didn't sway me one bit; especially with you and Bloom tossing around words like "significant" and blaming 0.0087% CO2 for everything. You do realize that there are many forcings, right? Some forcings we are just beginning to understand and some we don't even know about.

But... by the grace of God... this "significant" increase in CO2 has had "ZERO" effects on Bloom, Mark, RICH or his dog. Despite this "significant" increase NOT negatively humans (or RICHS dog), it has somehow "significantly" and negatively effected the other BIOS in our biosphere. Alrighty then.

BTW...what equation are you using to show that 0.0087% CO2 has been "significantly" responsible for warming the planet. Isn't it possible that CO2's role is grossly exagerated? It must be seeing that no one knows exactly how much warmth is attributed to it. What about the other factors? Do we just disregard those and lay the entire blame on 0.0087% CO2? And how are a few "theortical" degrees catastrophic? Your theory changes just as the climate changes. Hey... that's brilliant! Your theory is an oxymoron.

How many lives will CANCER take and how many lives will AGW take? But let's keep wasting money to tell us that the climate changes. And oh ya... cleaner burning ethanol has worked out great so far! Food riots anyone? Thanks AGW!

Gary Gulrud,

I know, but sometimes the best way to debate is to use their arguement against them ;)

Speaking of which, doesn't vegetation grow nicely in an actual greenhouse? Doesn't the word GREEN in "GREENhouse" gas suggest lush, GREEN and vibrant life?

Psst... Gary, just between you, me and this keyboard, I think world war is the greatest threat to humanity... not a few "theoretical" degrees. But I'm just a religious, right-wing nut job.

Have a great weekend all. Be GREEN everyone. Get out there and make some GHG's!

Triple C, the difficulty is that the set of "neutral observers" (defined as scientists with no opinion on climate change) and the set of climate scientists don't have much overlap. People who study the science much (to the extent of being able to publish and do peer review) tend to become persuaded that the work product of thousands of scientists over decades is correct on the fundamentals. That's one heck of a conspiracy.

But there's a way to test your idea: Get in touch with some of the respected "skeptical" scientists (yes, there are a few) and ask them if there's some vast undercurrent of climate scientists who think the "consensus" is wrong in some fundamental way but whose views have been suppressed. Offhand you could start with John Christy and Richard Lindzen.

But I'm just a religious, right-wing nut job.

Well, RICH, you are the one quoting Revelations in a discussion about China and coal.

If you present yourself here as a religious right-wing nut job, why should we not take you at face value?

If I understand this correctly, in the Cretaceous and Eocene ages there were less particles in the air to create drops of rain and clouds and thus the global temperature rose substantially. In the modern era we are creating more particles in the air (from coal burning etc) so would not that create more clouds and thus shield the earth from warming; even make it cooler? Seems like this would have very strong implications for global warming. Why do the authors not make this link, however, instead only talking about CO2? Maybe I am missing something.

I just figured out Global Warming, if anyone is interested. It is quite simple.

It really is because of cars!