Global warming

[ConspiRaider]

We really should discuss the real world more.​

Absolutely, we should. Not the fantasy worlds of AGW; in which

• man's infernal combustion engines and industrial dooms major cities underwater after an 80 foot sea level rise
• trillions of dollars of taxes are demanded for urgent (ineffective) action based on arguments of fear on false premises
• there is no consensus in the scientific literature.
• worse case scenarios of highly questionable computer models are used to produce newspaper and media headlines

Yes, we need to discuss the real world.

For a rational explanation of how the natural 1,500 year cycle can cause things like the recent warming, and the recent melting of arctic ice, here is an interesting 10 minute video clip (and transcript) of Singer and Avery being interviewed on TV.

http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/503

Here is a link to Rigor's Polar Science Page, with a fascinating animation of arctic sea ice, and his published articles.

http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/

You know what's "real world", mhaze? Certainly NOT the tripe you are posting. "Real world" is happening right now - as a sneak preview - of the coming havoc once AGW becomes irreversible.

Are you familiar with New Orleans and Katrina? Look at the ripple effect of just that one devastating hurricane. One hurricane - one extraordinary weather event - and the reverberating din is NOT subsiding a bit.

Look at the fires in Greece. Those fires are THREATENING TO CHANGE THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE in that country.

Look at Beijing China, and the upcoming Olympics to be held in that city. The pollution is at a horrific stage right now - athletes are trying to plan ahead as to whether they should get to Beijing early and "acclimate" to the pollution. Or, do a quick-hit approach. In - do their events - out.

You know what the United States is doing? Same as Russia and other countries. While the lying BushTurd Administration is denying or minimizing AGW - studies are being conducted right now in and around the Arctic to determine how much ocean drilling we can do on "our" extended oceanic borders once the polar cap melts. How's that for hypocrisy?

You know that one of the driving forces behind the havoc in Darfur is hardships caused by climate change?

There's flooding in Britain. In the Midwest USA. Drought in other areas. Ever see the movie The Eiger Sanction, with Clint Eastwood? The Eiger is losing its snow, and is undergoing constant rockslides and crumbling. They could do that movie 30 years ago. They could NOT do it today.

And this is just today. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are NOT being curbed, worldwide. They are in fact INCREASING.

You just keep preaching to keep moving along, nothing to see here, nothing to see. Do you have kin? Little ones? When they eventually ask you why you expended your efforts in denying the reality of AGW and making their adult lives more dangerous and precarious: WHAT WILL YOU TELL THEM?

 

[mhaze]

Hi Conspir;

Your arguments stand on their own merit (or lack of), and do reflect the Alarmist AGW viewpoint. I do not share this viewpoint, obviously.

One minor issue - you note the China pollution. This is more traditional pollution, rather than AGW.

We are not mixing these up right?

I don't think there are many people who even anti-AGW, who think that pollution is okay.

 

[David Rodale]

You know what's "real world", mhaze? Certainly NOT the tripe you are posting. "Real world" is happening right now - as a sneak preview - of the coming havoc once AGW becomes irreversible.

Are you familiar with New Orleans and Katrina? Look at the ripple effect of just that one devastating hurricane. One hurricane - one extraordinary weather event - and the reverberating din is NOT subsiding a bit.

Look at the fires in Greece. Those fires are THREATENING TO CHANGE THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE in that country.

Look at Beijing China, and the upcoming Olympics to be held in that city. The pollution is at a horrific stage right now - athletes are trying to plan ahead as to whether they should get to Beijing early and "acclimate" to the pollution. Or, do a quick-hit approach. In - do their events - out.

You know what the United States is doing? Same as Russia and other countries. While the lying BushTurd Administration is denying or minimizing AGW - studies are being conducted right now in and around the Arctic to determine how much ocean drilling we can do on "our" extended oceanic borders once the polar cap melts. How's that for hypocrisy?

You know that one of the driving forces behind the havoc in Darfur is hardships caused by climate change?

There's flooding in Britain. In the Midwest USA. Drought in other areas. Ever see the movie The Eiger Sanction, with Clint Eastwood? The Eiger is losing its snow, and is undergoing constant rockslides and crumbling. They could do that movie 30 years ago. They could NOT do it today.

And this is just today. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are NOT being curbed, worldwide. They are in fact INCREASING.

You just keep preaching to keep moving along, nothing to see here, nothing to see. Do you have kin? Little ones? When they eventually ask you why you expended your efforts in denying the reality of AGW and making their adult lives more dangerous and precarious: WHAT WILL YOU TELL THEM?

Are you familiar with New Orleans and Katrina? Look at the ripple effect of just that one devastating hurricane. One hurricane - one extraordinary weather event - and the reverberating din is NOT subsiding a bit.

Well let's see, how many hurricanes have there been since Katrina? Seeing how it sits in a toilet bowl, the only thing it proved was how inept government is. All those yellow school buses come to mind. AGW hypothesis says hurricanes should increase with frequency and strength. Naturally (a foreign word to AGW), a 'new and improved' hypothesis will spring forth explaining why that observational evidence doesn't support AGW either.

Nice try on the precipitation:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/233

Umm, Russia has already laid claim to the North Pole. So you're right, Bush screwed up

China's pollution problem only shines the light on the failed system of Communism.

Ah yes, the "tipping point". There's no evidence to support your claim, but it has become the hallmark of gullible warming theory.

After that long speech, you still did not provide one speck of evidence supporting the hypothesis of CO2 being the main driver of climate.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Hi Conspir;

Your arguments stand on their own merit (or lack of), and do reflect the Alarmist AGW viewpoint. I do not share this viewpoint, obviously.

One minor issue - you note the China pollution. This is more traditional pollution, rather than AGW.

We are not mixing these up right?

I don't think there are many people who even anti-AGW, who think that pollution is okay.

The China pollution I mentioned is the "seen" part. But for everything you see, understand the unseen carbon dioxide and methane - very efficient re-radiators of infrared heat - are bravely making their presence known. Just a bit higher up.

Pollution is no longer just visible particulates and actually it never has been. We're producing quite a nice and diverse soup for our fragile atmosphere. Mercury particulates, CFCs, nitrous oxide and many more goodies are being vomited into the air - by us. You and me. Either directly or indirectly, via heavy industry. And via the products we use.

When do you think we will STOP destroying the ecosystem? When we're extinct? Or do you think we'll have the foresight to stop it beforehand - prior to Nature shutting us down for good?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Well let's see, how many hurricanes have there been since Katrina? Seeing how it sits in a toilet bowl, the only thing it proved was how inept government is. All those yellow school buses come to mind. AGW hypothesis says hurricanes should increase with frequency and strength. Naturally (a foreign word to AGW), a 'new and improved' hypothesis will spring forth explaining why that observational evidence doesn't support AGW either.

Nice try on the precipitation:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/233

Umm, Russia has already laid claim to the North Pole. So you're right, Bush screwed up

China's pollution problem only shines the light on the failed system of Communism.

Ah yes, the "tipping point". There's no evidence to support your claim, but it has become the hallmark of gullible warming theory.

After that long speech, you still did not provide one speck of evidence supporting the hypothesis of CO2 being the main driver of climate.

Before you beat your chest about the merits of Capitalism and the woes of Communism, understand that the United States of America - Capitalism Heaven - is the world's largest greenhouse gas contributor. In raw numbers, China is expected to overtake us very soon (if they have not already). But that still leaves the pesky calculation of "per capita". China's population is more than 4 times greater than that of the USA.

It's one world now. I'm in Los Angeles, and I am breathing particulates released by China's coal burning plants. The Inuit (Eskimos) use little or no heavy industry, and yet their mothers are being cautioned about breastfeeding their own children. Because pollution from the USA and Canada is being swept up into their territories and deposited upon them.

Now you can play your silly "Lookit this report it proves I'm right yup yup" game as long as you wish. Guaranteed, you'll be able to dial in the report / link of your choice to make you feel all cuddly and warm about our complete innocence in the case of ecosystem destruction. They are out there. An inexhaustible supply of hired guns to contradict any general consensus. They are yours for the cherrypicking.

When things really get bad and we have to take drastic action to counteract our Destructor-behavior - please get thee to a corner and stay there so you don't get underfoot and impede our efforts. You better hope we can come up with something - or things - to effect a semblance of reversal on what we've done to this planet. You'd better hope we're smart enough. Because we have NOT been smart enough on preventive measures.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Going off-topic for a sec', if you'll bear with me.

After that long speech, you still did not provide one speck of evidence supporting the hypothesis of CO2 being the main driver of climate.

He does, however, make an important point that deniers seem to be ignoring (see post #783): the weather is growing more powerful. Hurricanes in the Caribbean are predicted to grow more dangerous. And to give an example from my own homeland, rain and wind is becoming more plentiful here, which is dangerous considering that Bergen residents have had a long-lasting habit of building houses on hills. On less-than-stable soil. This because precipitation has never been powerful enough to do any harm. When precipitations increase... lives are lost.

What strikes me is that the climate deniers are often the same ones who wanted to invade Iraq due to its WMDs, even though none were ever proven to exist as of 2003. There was no evidence of Saddam owning them. Yet even today, in 2007, they continue to bring forth nutcase theories about how they're sold to North Korea, hidden in Yemen, or buried in the desert sands.

Yet when we try to rally those same people against AGW, which has been proven to exist and do damage, they suddenly stonewall. All of a sudden it's sceptisism, denial, head-in-sand. Anything but accepting that climate is growing more powerful, and is taking its toll in lives and money.

/off-topic rant

Well let's see, how many hurricanes have there been since Katrina? Seeing how it sits in a toilet bowl, the only thing it proved was how inept government is. All those yellow school buses come to mind.

So without Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans would still be flooded in the fall of 2005? I doubt it, friend. New Orleans was Katrina's fault, and Katrina was caused by AGW.

AGW hypothesis says hurricanes should increase with frequency and strength. Naturally (a foreign word to AGW), a 'new and improved' hypothesis will spring forth explaining why that observational evidence doesn't support AGW either.

What are you talking about? Care to elaborate?

Nice try on the precipitation:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/317/5835/233

I don't need a science mag to tell me precipitation has been increasing in Europe for years.

Umm, Russia has already laid claim to the North Pole. So you're right, Bush screwed up

Red herring. You did not address his point and you know it.

Ah yes, the "tipping point". There's no evidence to support your claim [...]

...that you are willing to acknowledge.

China's pollution problem only shines the light on the failed system of Communism.

Right. Pollution is a Communist problem. Right. So if we travel to Taipei, Taiwan, we'll not find a blanket of smog...

Oh. That's right. We will.

 

[Pipirr]

Thanks for the answer. For the benefit of the gallery and myself, could you break this down a bit more? I do find these GW threads educational. The more so when they aren’t being relentlessly Gored…

What experiments?
Ground based temperature measurements have traditionally been done with a thermometer that shows min and max. This doesn't work for determining GW because you need to know the rate of rise of the temperature when the sun comes out and begins the warming process.

This sounds like it would be fine for determining GW. Measurements of day temperatures showing an increasing trend over time would provide a useful dataset. What’s the problem with (and what do you mean by) a thermometer that shows min and max? Why is the rate of the rise of temperature needed?

And you need that rate of rise for the layers of the atmosphere. Then it is possible to integrate the warming of the layers of air over an entire daily cycle. That must be done not globally, but in a local area.

Ok, information on temperatures at different atmospheric layers. Why is this needed? Is it to prove GW in some way? I can imagine that it could be useful information to have, but I can also imagine that it would be tricky to obtain. What benefit?

Satellite and ground measurements of the atmosphere do not show the trends that would be expected under the theory of CO2 warming in the tropics, which is the most important area of this effect.

Which trends are these? Why are the tropics the most important area?

A dozen autonomous Predator aircraft (I'm using these as an example that people are familiar with but there are better UAVs for this, including some that are effectively disposable) flying at 1000 meter intervals from 1,000 meters above sea level to 11,000 meters above sea level -

• clear sky and reasonably calm weather conditions
• equatorial region
• over open water

Data logging temperature for several 12-20 hour periods would provide the required data set. Releasing that data set to the entire climate community would be quite interesting, and advance the discussion considerably. From the measured hotspot in the troposphere, the resulting amount of actual "greenhouse effect" could be calculated. Note that word actual.

This goes back to the temperature data for the atmospheric layers. I’d question the utility of one day of observations, and I’d also want to know how many days of measurements would be needed to get useful data. It sounds like a recipe for a messy dataset, but then I don’t see what it’s needed for or how it would be used. In what way would it advance the discussion, and how would the amount of actual greenhouse effect be calculated?

And one last one, what do you mean by ‘measured hotspot’?

Maybe these are sophomore questions, but it would help me get on the same page.

 

[Walrus32]

Just wondering...Mann was widely criticized by the AGW people for not revealing his data, methodology, or even where he obtained his tree rings for dendrochronology. He claimed that it a tactic on the part of the AGW crowd to intimidate him, or something like that...

Has he ever made a full and complete disclosure to all of his data and statistical methods used in generating the "hickey [sic] stick"?

 

[mhaze]

The China pollution I mentioned is the "seen" part. But for everything you see, understand the unseen carbon dioxide and methane - very efficient re-radiators of infrared heat - are bravely making their presence known. Just a bit higher up.

Pollution is no longer just visible particulates and actually it never has been. We're producing quite a nice and diverse soup for our fragile atmosphere. Mercury particulates, CFCs, nitrous oxide and many more goodies are being vomited into the air - by us. You and me. Either directly or indirectly, via heavy industry. And via the products we use.

When do you think we will STOP destroying the ecosystem? When we're extinct? Or do you think we'll have the foresight to stop it beforehand - prior to Nature shutting us down for good?

Nobody is in favor of destroying ecosystems or in favor of pollution. China has already surpassed the US in greenhouse gas emissions, by the way. Jakarta has so many 2 cycle motorbikes their contribution in greenhouse gas equivalents is calculated at 6 billion SUVs.

The more basic question is why do we disagree on the fundamentals. You think CO2 is a vile pollutant, I don't. I think it has some greenhouse effect, a fraction of what the IPCC models it to have.

I am sure that you would agree that we would not want to try to solve the wrong problem, and that we would not want to solve the right problem with ineffective means.

Is that correct?

 

[CapelDodger]

Right. Pollution is a Communist problem. Right. So if we travel to Taipei, Taiwan, we'll not find a blanket of smog...

Oh. That's right. We will.

Nice .

It seems the light shines on both systems, Communist and Capitalist. It's surely not coincidental that neither theory-group/ideology takes account of the physical world except in terms of technology and resources. Otherwise they're purely anthropocentric determinism. (Like Theology or Philosophy, which generate their own version of smog.)

As such, they contain no vestige of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Which is to miss one of the fundamental laws that govern life as it has always been lived. A disastrous flaw.

 

[CapelDodger]

We really should discuss the real world more.​

Absolutely, we should. Not the fantasy worlds of AGW; in which

• man's infernal combustion engines and industrial dooms major cities underwater after an 80 foot sea level rise
• trillions of dollars of taxes are demanded for urgent (ineffective) action based on arguments of fear on false premises
• there is no consensus in the scientific literature.
• worse case scenarios of highly questionable computer models are used to produce newspaper and media headlines

Yes, we need to discuss the real world.

That's your fantasy of what AGW predicts. The empirical world is following the course actually predicted by the theory.

You keep touching on the "real world" as an introduction and then veering wildly away to the past or some made-up consequences in the distant future.

For a rational explanation of how the natural 1,500 year cycle can cause things like the recent warming, and the recent melting of arctic ice, here is an interesting 10 minute video clip (and transcript) of Singer and Avery being interviewed on TV.

I think you're confusing "interesting" and "comforting". I'm not going to waste ten minutes on Singer telling me how a natural 1500 year cycle (plus or minus 500) that he truly believes in (and you appear to have been convinced of) can cause stuff that Singer was adamant wouldn't happen in the first place. He's only gone looking for an explanation after the event. AGW, on the other hand, predicted it.

After the event, Singer's quest, corporate whore that he is, is to keep the question "open". He provides the same sort of service for the tobacco industry. Want an explanation for why mercury in the water-supply might be harmless? Singer's the go-to guy.

If you ever find there's mercury in your water-supply, you'll find what Singer has to say about it comforting, I've no doubt of that.

 

[CapelDodger]

When do you think we will STOP destroying the ecosystem? When we're extinct? Or do you think we'll have the foresight to stop it beforehand - prior to Nature shutting us down for good?

My firm opinion is that the post-tribulation society will have added a few valuable lessons to the ones it's learned already. I'm also of the opinion that our generations will be held in contempt. That's the way of it with History.

Human progress - scientific and social - has continued through many tribulations, and I doubt this one will be any different. It's the biggest yet, but then they always are. Which is good evidence of a very long upward trend.

The world this society emerges in will be a lot simpler than the one we grew up in. It's the first mass-extinction we've experienced, but we can handle it. The gene-lines that have latched onto ours will have a new advantage, they'll be connected, capische ? Grasses, biddable herd-animals, the potato family, farmable sea-food. Dogs, if I have any say in the matter. Cats if I don't. Horses definitely, which is good.

What I don't see in the future is HomSap allowing another ice-age. Ever. What could possibly be the point? Performance Art? Climate and CO2 will stabilise at a time when there's a craving for stability. The "creative destruction" club will have been well clubbed by then. In future, the planet will be governed. By light or heavy touch remains to be seen.

HomSap has arrived. Time to get over getting over ourselves. We are a force of nature.

 

[a_unique_person]

What Hypothesis?
The OP initial post of this thread was "Has anyone actually proved that CO2 causes global warming (going from memory, it may have slightly differed).

It was then asserted that Arrhenius in the last century asserted the "greenhouse effect", and I corrected that to reflect the "Callendar Effect". But had this been proven in any fashion? Plass 1957 seems to have been a cite, but why nothing more recent? Laboratory spectrographic measurements of the absorption of CO2 tend to prove the hypothesis that CO2 acts in the upper troposphere to form a "hot spot". But there have been no actual atmospheric experiements that acquired data from the various layers of the atmosphere, which in turn were then able to calculate the effect of CO2 and prove or disprove the initial question of OP.

The history of the greenhouse effect.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1939, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of both carbon dioxide and temperature had been rising, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. For related theoretical issues, see the essay on Simple Models of Climate. )

What experiments?
Ground based temperature measurements have traditionally been done with a thermometer that shows min and max. This doesn't work for determining GW because you need to know the rate of rise of the temperature when the sun comes out and begins the warming process. And you need that rate of rise for the layers of the atmosphere. Then it is possible to integrate the warming of the layers of air over an entire daily cycle. That must be done not globally, but in a local area.

CO2 is going to do exactly what is does in the lab that it does in the atmosphere. It can't suddenly decide to not absorb radiation of a particular frequency. We know the earth will heat up, the heat cannot just suddenly disappear down a black hole. This is where the models come in. Since we know the earth will rise, to what extent will it rise, and what will the effects be around the world. That is a lot more difficult to do with models, but we do get a better idea of what the effect will be than to just say it can't be done.

Satellite and ground measurements of the atmosphere do not show the trends that would be expected under the theory of CO2 warming in the tropics, which is the most important area of this effect.

Wrong, they do. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

A dozen autonomous Predator aircraft (I'm using these as an example that people are familiar with but there are better UAVs for this, including some that are effectively disposable) flying at 1000 meter intervals from 1,000 meters above sea level to 11,000 meters above sea level -

• clear sky and reasonably calm weather conditions
• equatorial region
• over open water

Data logging temperature for several 12-20 hour periods would provide the required data set. Releasing that data set to the entire climate community would be quite interesting, and advance the discussion considerably. From the measured hotspot in the troposphere, the resulting amount of actual "greenhouse effect" could be calculated. Note that word actual.

Other experiments may be possible, this comes to mind offhand.

The CO2 hypothesis as I used the words refers to the theory that manmade CO2 emissions have caused the recent warming of the planet, and (IPCC) will have the effect of causing 2.5-6 C warming within the next theory. Generally, the CO2 hypothesis holds that man's output of CO2 is the only (Alarmist), or the major, factor in warming (IPCC).

Does that answer your question? By the way, I am quite fine with being proved wrong in any of this and will correct anything that is found that is inaccurate or unduly biased, unlike numerous other posters here who have a True Religion.

It is interesting that the denialists condemn the AGW research for being a gravy train that has been created purely for greedy scientists, then demand even more money be spent on very expensive research.

 

[CapelDodger]

Jakarta has so many 2 cycle motorbikes their contribution in greenhouse gas equivalents is calculated at 6 billion SUVs.

You're still sold on that idea? Look at it. It's terribly silly isn't it? I thought I pointed that out a while back. Six billion SUV's? Scooters in Jakarta?

What you probably read was that Jakarta's motos create more pollution than the SUV's. Which is quite likely. Particulates are pollution. Cheap two-strokes are a bugger for particulates. And most SUV's have catalytic converters. They were imposed by gummint to get rid of the smog.

The ones sold in Indonesia probably don't have them. What's the point with all those two-strokes around anyway?

Seriously, can Jakarta's two-stroke owners be spending as much on oil-based fuel as six billion average SUV drivers? Oil is a mainstay of the Indonesian economy, but those Indonesians that see any of the money drive SUV's. The price of fuel and SUV's is determined on a global market.

Scepticism should be applied generally, not just to alarming matters. IMO, comforting reports demand the greatest scepticism. Apart from anything else it tends to minimise embarrassment.

Six billion SUV's? Jakarta? That didn't give you pause?

 

[CapelDodger]

It is interesting that the denialists condemn the AGW research for being a gravy train that has been created purely for greedy scientists, then demand even more money be spent on very expensive research.

The fending-off policy of "more research is required" has had the unintended consequence of such research being funded. (OK, some Earth-observing satellites have been dropped in favour of founding a New New Orleans on Mars by 2100CE, but real research has been done .) All of which has confirmed and honed the existing conclusion. The passage of time has contributed more data. No surprises have emerged.

Nothing substantial has been done about AGW or is even in prospect, so no surprises there either. But waddaya gonna do? HomSap is what it is.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nobody is in favor of destroying ecosystems or in favor of pollution.

Truism. It's done to favour the bank-account.

China has already surpassed the US in greenhouse gas emissions, by the way.

No scientific relevance.

Jakarta has so many 2 cycle motorbikes their contribution in greenhouse gas equivalents is calculated at 6 billion SUVs.

Silly. Believe that, believe anything.

The more basic question is why do we disagree on the fundamentals. You think CO2 is a vile pollutant, I don't.

Your use of "vile" is a clue. You constantly attribute extreme emotive terms to people who don't use them themselves. CO2-load and AGW are not emotional matters. AGW is one unintended consequence of the other. They exist dispassionately.

[

I think it has some greenhouse effect, a fraction of what the IPCC models it to have.

I've no doubt you find that thought comforting.

I am sure that you would agree that we would not want to try to solve the wrong problem ...

Singer's latest position, one you seem so eager to embrace, allows of no solution. It's a cycle. There's no mechanism we can influence. It's a cycle. Nothing to be done about cycles. Cycles just happen. Statistics prove it. Nine times out of ten, anyway.

... and that we would not want to solve the right problem with ineffective means.

Inefffective means do not solve problems. That comes with the territory. Any solution is better than none, even if it isn't - in hindsight - the optimum.

Everything about your position argues for inactivity. Either nothing can be done - the Singer Song - or nothing should be done anyway until all the figures are in and all suggested schemes properly mulled-over, long-listed, short-listed, negotiated, tripped-up by events, re-negotiated, agreed, ignored ... and none of it under the auspices of the UN, perish the thought.

Nothing's going to be done about AGW, let's face it. Buy the ticket, take the ride. Russia's decision-makers live a very good life on the flow of fossil fuels, and are licking their lips over the Arctic melt and Peak Oil. Global warming? They just can't seem to care.

If it brings drought and a change of heart in the Ukraine, so much the better. Belarus is a shoo-in, after which the Polish Question comes back into play.

Poor bloody Poles. Russia on one side, Western Europe on the other. Biggest Polish export over the long-term? Poles. Good call, IMO.

Is that correct?

 

[CapelDodger]

Naturally (a foreign word to AGW), a 'new and improved' hypothesis will spring forth explaining why that observational evidence doesn't support AGW either.

Observations on the ground reveal the anti-AGW camp conjuring up new hypotheses to explain the real world. Science has been confirmed by events. And will continue to be.

Umm, Russia has already laid claim to the North Pole. So you're right, Bush screwed up

I could make some glib comment on Bush's capacity to find a pole on a globe, but naturally I won't. Too cheap.

Bush and the decision-makers he's poster-boy for think the Middle East is where it's all at because it has been for so long. Meanwhile, Russians chuckle into their beards.

China's pollution problem only shines the light on the failed system of Communism.

I've read that Californian air is so clean these days that China's pollution can be detected in it. Regulation and enforcement can work. California's air-quality was a joke back when I were a lad.

Ah yes, the "tipping point". There's no evidence to support your claim, but it has become the hallmark of gullible warming theory.

The thing about "tipping points" is that the evidence is retrospecive. Evidence is like that. There are often predictions and warnings beforehand, but by definition if they're heeded the tipping-point isn't reached. Which makes said predictions alarmist ...

"Gullible warming theory", eh? That's the spirit.

After that long speech, you still did not provide one speck of evidence supporting the hypothesis of CO2 being the main driver of climate.

The increase in CO2 is the main driver in the current warming. Which is surely the important issue.

CO2 hasn't been a driver of climate in the past any more than water-vapour is at present. CO2 has typically been a positive feedback, as water-vapour continues to be. This time around, CO2 isn't reacting to climate change by other means, it's being injected directly into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. This time around climate is responding to the CO2 increase. An unintended consequence, but a consequence nonetheless.

 

[mhaze]

You're still sold on that idea? Look at it. It's terribly silly isn't it? I thought I pointed that out a while back. Six billion SUV's? Scooters in Jakarta?

.............. Scepticism should be applied generally, not just to alarming matters. IMO, comforting reports demand the greatest scepticism. Apart from anything else it tends to minimise embarrassment.

Six billion SUV's? Jakarta? That didn't give you pause?

Yes, it did. When I looked it up the issue was vaporization into the atmosphere of the generally rich fuel mixture, eg, unburned fuel into the atmosphere. And the phrase was "greenhouse gas equivalents" , you know, the way (which I don't agree with by the way) they add up the pollutants into some kind of "equivalence of carbon dioxide".

All evils lead to CO2, so to speak.

So, yes, we discussed it, yes, it sounded bizzaro, yes, a bit more research was done, and yes....it looked like they sort of had it right. Now....it's such a great little bit of spin...how can one not use it? I particularly like it because it puts into some perspective that the USA is not the greatest evil on the planet as far as this subject goes.

Why, it's as good as the Northwest Passage, New York under water, in my humble opinion. But the lonely polar bear on the little chunk of ice, that takes the cake.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, it did. When I looked it up the issue was vaporization into the atmosphere of the generally rich fuel mixture, eg, unburned fuel into the atmosphere. And the phrase was "greenhouse gas equivalents" , you know, the way (which I don't agree with by the way) they add up the pollutants into some kind of "equivalence of carbon dioxide".

All evils lead to CO2, so to speak.

So, yes, we discussed it, yes, it sounded bizzaro, yes, a bit more research was done, and yes....it looked like they sort of had it right. Now....it's such a great little bit of spin...how can one not use it? I particularly like it because it puts into some perspective that the USA is not the greatest evil on the planet as far as this subject goes.

Why, it's as good as the Northwest Passage, New York under water, in my humble opinion. But the lonely polar bear on the little chunk of ice, that takes the cake.

No, the IPCC clearly spells out what the greenhouse gases are and never makes the claim it is the only one. It is the only one that is, however, doubling in content.

The spin is all in your mind.

 

[a_unique_person]

Link to http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect