Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think the first part of Mr. Gunter's calculation is relevant. It doesn't matter what part of the atmosphere isn't green-house gasses (nitrogen, oxygen, &c), whatever part of it is, that part is responsible for about 33°C of warming. Up to 2.6°C of that is caused by CO2 vapour (see below).

In the second part, Mr. Gunter does do a decent job of explaining just how little of the green-house gasses are Canadian-made CO2 vapour, though I think he should have included the effectiveness of CO2 vapour to compute the contribution to the green-house gas effect, which is less than the contribution to the green-house gas volume, because CO2 vapour is not as effective at trapping heat at the other green-house gases: CO2 only accounts for 8.4% of the green-house gas effect. Perhaps his editors drew the line on that degree of complexity.

As y'all know, I've been making a similar argument for the last few months here at SDA. But there is an additional consideration that I'm starting to realize is even more important. The miniscularity arguments that Mr. Gunter and I have been making assume proportional change in temperature with variations in CO2 vapour concentration. But is that reasonable?

The question is: how much of an effect will a change in the portion of CO2 vapour have in terms of change to temperature. In other words, we're interested in the first derivative of temperature with respect to concentration, dT/dc, over the range of concentrations covering the current values and reasonable variances thereto.

Lars Kamél, from the Department of Astronomy and Space Physics at the University of Uppsala, writes that: "The main reason why CO2 can only have a small impact on the climate of the world is called saturation. This is a phenomenon well known from theory and observations of spectral lines in stellar atmospheres. An atom or a molecule does not absorb light and other electromagnetic radiation at all wavelengths. It only absorbs in narrow regions in the electromagnetic spectrum. Every atom or molecule has its own characteristic sequence of spectral lines.

"Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has exactly one important spectral line in the infrared part of the spectrum. This line is clearly saturated. If you increase the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, not much will happen. The amount of infrared radiation, that is, heat, that will be absorbed changes only by a minimal and insignificant amount. Only if we increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by orders of magnitude, will there be a noticeable change."

As Mr. Borrello wrote (private correspondence): "According to the atmospheric transmission data (H.W. Yates and J. H. Taylor, "Infrared Transmission of the Atmosphere," U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, NRL Report 5453, 1960) carbon dioxide has a very strong absorption band between 13.5 and 15.5 microns wavelength. Earth radiates as a blackbody with a mean surface temperature near 300°K and has a peak energy wavelength at 10 microns. Earth's radiation energy in the 13.5 to 15.5 band is 8.4% of Earth's total blackbody radiation.

"Since CO2 absorbs all radiation in this band it absorbs and reradiates 8.4% of the total energy within 200 meters of the surface. Adding more CO2 does not increase this effect because it is at its maximum. Using the absorptivity function (Beer's Law) for a gas, CO2 would only begin to lose this impact if CO2 concentration dropped below a few parts per million. It has been above 200 ppm for over a million years according to geophysicists. Thus I claim the heat retention as a percentage of Earth's total radiation by CO2 is constant". (Emphasis mine.)

What we have here is a double-whammy. Not only is the man-made CO2 vapour concentration contribution to the green-house gas effect minuscule, changes in concentration don't have significant effect either.

Now compare this to the fear-mongering in the UN and the mass-market media. The IPCC says a change of a few degrees over the next hundred years will result in species being wiped out, crime rising, starvation killing hundreds of millions, disease becoming rampant, islands disappearing beneath the waves, and deserts consuming entire continents.

Funny how that didn't happen the last time the earth's atmosphere was a few degrees warmer. And the UN says that we must act now. Why? Even their models don't say that all their conjectured warming will happen in the next 10 years. If the warming over the next ten years is only a few tenths of a degree, why can't we wait a decade or two until we have a better understanding of the science and technology involved?

So we find ourselves thinking along the lines sketched by Mr. Gunter when he wrote: "Just why would the UN release these teaser summaries before its actual scientific findings are available? It could it be that the science is becoming less alarming as scientists learn more, so the UN wants to maximize the public hysteria."

Here's a two-dimensional analogy you can use to help understand the saturation effect. Say you have a flashlight that can shoot single photons with an energy of 13.5 to 15.5 microns (the absorption band for CO2). Let that be the Sun (yeah, yeah). Now say you lay this flashlight above a billiards table (let that space be Earth's atmosphere) at cushion height above the felt (the Earth). When you fire off a photon in a random direction parallel to the felt, it will hit a cushion, or analogically, escape to space, the final frontier (modulo gravity and nuclear effects, which as far as we know aren't relevant to our discussion).

Right, now say you start adding billiard balls to the table. Let the billiard balls be CO2 molecules. At first, as you add more billiard balls the chances that your photon will hit one of them, instead of hitting a cushion, go up.

Yet the amount by which the chances go up decreases for each additional billiard ball, because it becomes more and more likely that the photon will hit a billiard ball which is already there, rather than the added ball. Past some point, adding billiard balls no longer has an effect, because the photons never hit the cushion, because there are already too many billiard balls in the way.

Past some point, adding CO2 molecules won't catch any more 13.5 to 15.5 micron photons, because there are already more than enough such molecules to capture all such photons. The interesting thing is: Earth is long past that point.

I like when people get "mathy" as some call it.

Makes it feel like science instead of oprah.

Come on, we all know this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with facts anymore... It's a moral issue. You are either a moral (good) believer in Climate Change or you are an immoral (evil) unbeliever.

Choose your side. The Inquisition will be along shortly.

Vitruvius, et al: Please explain to laymen.
...-

Ottawa changes mind about factoring in forests as carbon sinks - for now

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fb1ac035-87ce-45f7-b970-ce71869df48b&k=76161

My side is the "Denier" side - unfortunately, I have come to the realization that my children and my grandchildren are being indoctrinated with the Gospel According to Gore - after all,if it is on Oprah, it must be true.

Sigh......

When we speak of "agenda journalism",

how could coverage of man made "global warming" not epitomize this?

- It's a particular agenda,
- That's covered ad nauseum,
- With only the perspective of the agenda included,
- when there are numerous other perspectives out there.

One agenda,

One perspective,

Our mainstream media at its finest.

Do you believe in climate change ??

Yes of course, just like I believe in water wet.

I worked for a guy named Fred. He was right all the time too, right Fred?

Many thanks for your explanations, Vitruvius. Both of them - excellent.

So why is the UN in apoocalyptic mode? Why is the UN threatening the world with a hellfire (religious) end? Why is the UN dealing with this issue by inciting hysteria, emotional breakdowns - rather than reason and science?

Why is the UN insisting that 'we do something now'? And why is this 'something' set up so that it pits the industrial nations against the starting-to-industrialize nations? Why are these latter nations totally and completely exempt from Kyoto, from emissions standards, from pollution standards?

And why is the key strategy of Kyotoism, not the lowering of emissions for which we don't have the technology, not the research and development of such technologies - but, but, but a payment of fines?

These 'fines', hidden within the phrase 'buying carbon credits' (BCC=BS)are a transference of huge sums of money from the industrial nations to the industrializing nations. Remember - these latter are exempt from emissions and pollution standards. On the surface, the money is to be spent building 'pure' new industrial complexes. Heh. We don't even have the technology to do that, so - how could they? And we all know what happens with monies sent to the UN and these 'developing countries'.

That money will be used, not merely to line the pockets of the UN, but the pockets of the corrupt in these countries - and what's left will be used to build cheap, polluting, emitting factories. Tons of them.

Kyoto is a money laundering scheme. Rather like the most recent one of the UN - called Oil-For-Fraud.
Now, it's Air-For-Fraud. That's the modus operandus of the UN. Fraud and hot air rhetoric.

Another great post BTW Vit.

So we establish that because CO2's heat capture ability is subproportional to its volume and its volume is miniscule making the IR absorbtion capability less than miniscule what have we left to deduce:

1) Why where GW CO2 alarmists allowed to reach the shock proportions in popular media completely unchallenged? Is there no definitive science body that can clamp a lid on faulty science being used in political fear mongering crusades.

2) If the CO2 GHG science is abscent to trigger the alarm that makes this a political movement not a scientific one. The most practical question we can ask is what is the motive behind politics that use science as a fear tactic?

3) If the volumetric proportion of CO2 to retained heat is virtually insignificant, what major factors control the atmospere? Lets get this question answered truthfully and definitively so there is no room for fear mongers to use climate change as a political tool.

With Gunther's article we see baby steps taken in injecting reason into the public debate...but it is a long grind ahead to remove the fear the MSM has sown.

ET said: "So why is the UN in apoocalyptic mode? Why is the UN threatening the world with a hellfire (religious) end? Why is the UN dealing with this issue by inciting hysteria, emotional breakdowns - rather than reason and science?"

I think you answered your own question ET , but to be more specific than simply citing Kyoto's global tax, revenue and regulatory regime as the sole cause...let's step back and look at GW/Kyoto hysteria in perspective...what elese have we been deluged with to get us into paranoid mode for which the UN provides answers?...and exactly what IS the UN today?

We have the UN selling "global life insurance" policies to alarmed consumers in sovereign nations in the form of global governance...global governance has always sought ways to defuse the sovereingty of the individual and the nation-state to empower and enrich its oligarchs...like insurance salesmen, they inflate the danger level or actural risk of global calamity to the consumer disproportionatly to the actuarial data to sell that "insurance"...or in this case sell global bureaucracy and install global governance ( or a 4th and paramont level of government) as an "insurance" policy against individual sovereign goverment's percieved inability to act in unison against fabricated "global" boogey men.

As an example it was the UN that bought into Paul Hellier's lunatic rantings about having to be prepared to cope with "extraterrestial aggressors".

My Quote of the year:

" A new world order must be created in order to combat global warming." (Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister Canadidate)

As the snow piles up here again on April 10, and I see these lunatics screaming climate change end of the world, I can't help to think of the amount of money that has been wasted so far on" the big lie". When I see the Bare land at the south end of Calgary where there was supposed to be a hospital years ago and I see the Alberta Govt. planning a big climate change meeting in the middle of a blizzard I can't help but wonder is there any sanity left in this world. These pathetic left wing idiots that lead this big lie should be catologued and brought to justice in the years to come.

Al Gore's Oscar winning film is being shown in several schools locally, both elementary and high schools. A local college student told me it was also shown to students at the college, as FACT, in every case.

"it was also shown to students at the college, as FACT, in every case."

Ah, for those three monkeys on a tree branch. Little did we know it growing up those monkeys would one day become the mindset of post-Y2K leaders.

Sgt Schultz would be proud.

This article is a few years old, but the section on "carbon taxes" was instructive:

INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY:

WHO IS
MAURICE STRONG?
The adventures of Maurice Strong & Co. illustrate the fact that
nowadays you don't have to be a household name to wield global power.
________________________________________
By Ronald Bailey Published in The National Review September 1, 1997
Mr. Bailey is a freelance journalist and television producer in Washington, D.C. He is author of Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martin's) and The True State of the Planet (Free Press).

"The survival of civilization in something like its present form might depend significantly on the efforts of a single man," declared The New Yorker. The New York Times hailed that man as the "Custodian of the Planet." He is perpetually on the short list of candidates for Secretary General of the United Nations. This lofty eminence? Maurice Strong, of course. Never heard of him?

[Deleted - ED]

reminder - don't paste full articles in the comments.

I think a lot of this hysteria can be traced to the Patrick Moore break with Greenpeace. Moore argues that, just when Greenpeace science was breaking into the mainstream, it was rejected in favour of junk science and shrillness.

Why, because Greenpeace, and radical environmentalism generally, is more about ideology than clean air and water. For Greenpeace to be mainstream, they had to be allied (in their view), with the "man," the greedy, decadent and (most importantly) capitalist, oil moneyed West.

This was the time when the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union, came crashing down. The anticapitalists came into the environmental movement because their socialist hero (USSR) lost out to capitalism and democracy.

So, a new form of hardcore socialism, antiglobalism, came to the fore. This is the most dangerous movement on earth today because it allies itself with anarchists (hard left), Islamists (hard right), and has shed any notion of social justice.

This movement is responsible for the DDT ban and prevention of modernization in Africa, with resultant massive suffering.

It doesn't matter that junk science is employed in defence of AGW and Kyoto. Their agenda is not really environmental, it's political.

Contemporary socialism's goals are clear - stop the capitalist at all costs, literally. If your entire population is much poorer, so what? If personal freedom is curtailed or eliminated, so what? If people are intimidated, consigned to "re-education" or murdered, so what?

There is a higher cause - socialism (actually anti-capitalism), which in its current form is inherently antisocial. Winess the behaviour of masked hoodlums at anti-globalization and anti-Israel rallies.

Out of this came Kyoto. They took an unproven theory, said AGW could happen in future, changed that to "it's happening now," and have since ramped it up to "it's a crisis." From that now comes the moral imperative of stopping anyone who questions their dogma.

What does that mean for Canada, with 2% of manmade CO2 emissions? If the CPC were to question the science, two negatives would result. First, they would be labelled "deniers" who don't care about the environment, who take orders from Dubya. Second, the true costs of Kyoto would not be weighed against the dubious benefits. Dionsky would love such a debate.

No, Harper is right to focus on "clean air" and let the opposition focus on Kyoto. Explain to Canadians during election campaign (they are basically turned off the politics channel between elections) that Canada and West must develop the green technologies right here, rather than sending credits elsewhere, in the hope that China will develop clean technology. That is a pipe dream, if the modern West hasn't developed them, how can modernizing world (an excellent point raised by previous poster)?

It does no good to attack junk science, except in context of high cost and little benefit to Canada. That is the winning political argument. Fighting the so-called science will give the opposition the ammunition they seek.

Vitruvius,

I enjoyed your comment but I’d like to point out an issue that left me wondering in your discussion. I will readily admit to not being an expert on this subject, so am hoping you can help me out here. You indicate that the concentrations of CO2 near the earth’s surface are at saturation level in the first 200 m of the atmosphere (which I can neither confirm nor deny). I would point out, however, that as you increase the concentration at ground level you necessarily increase the concentration further up. Thus as atmospheric CO2 increases so will the depth of the saturation zone.

As you know, not all sunlight coming into the atmosphere hits the earth. As a consequence if you enhance the CO2 you raise the altitude where CO2 completely absorbs the available energy. If I am not mistaken this will result in an increase in retention of energy (or heat) which would enhance the greenhouse effect.

In a secondary note, I really like your analogy with the billiard balls (I will remember that one) I will note that depending on the audience it will either get smiles or groans. I’m sure my former environmental science profs would scold me for using it as the analogy badly overestimates the particle density.

Regards,

Blair

I thought the thing with CO2 was that it had a "butterfly effect" on the atmosphere in that it caused a minor increase in warming which caused more water vapor to get into the atmosphere and thus greatly magnified the warming effect (water vapor being much better at capturing heat). I think this is why a tiny increase in an already tiny amount of CO2 can cause a disproportionate warming effect. It seems plausible that humans are responsible for part of the warming in the atmosphere. This isn't to say that I agree with the UN, or the Goreacle that the sky is falling.

Really, why the hell is a warmer world a bad thing? Most of the world's land is in the north, and a warmer world and more CO2 means more arable land doesn't it? Sure there may be losers in places like Bangladesh and the Maldives, but how does giving Canadian tax dollars (in the form of emissions credits)to Germany and Russia help the global south?

Why not just 'go with it'? What exactly is wrong with accepting a warming world, and using a fraction of these kyoto billions to helping poorer countries adapt as well?

Y2Kyotophiles like to say "follow the money" when talking about "heretical" scientists who have not had a big slug of the Kyoto KoolAid. Follow the money, indeed!

"There is a lot of science that is left to be done," says Gordon McBean, chair of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which like many Canadian climate programs is fighting for its survival.
McBean says there is a need to refine understanding of "dangerous" thresholds and tipping points in the climate system and to better predict how rising temperatures will impact everything from Canadian ski resorts to storm sewer systems.
"One of the biggest findings (of the UN report) is that these (impacts) can be mitigated, can be reduced, can be delayed by action to reduce greenhouse gases, and that's got to be the first, the second, and the third priority," Baird said in an interview with CanWest News Service.
"At some point, it's sort of like the planet's on fire, we've got to throw water on it. We don't need to research it, we need to act."
McBean said yesterday "that is a sadly misinformed argument and I'd be happy to set him straight." He adds other senior scientists would also welcome a meeting with Baird, who he says has steered clear of the climate research community since becoming minister in January.
McBean says Baird seems to be taking a short-term view of a long-term problem: "The only question he seems to be asking is: 'Do we have enough science to justify reducing emissions' - and the science been clear on that for 15 years."
Emissions reductions are needed and long overdue, McBean says. The key question Baird doesn't seem to be asking, he says, is whether there is enough science to address climate change in Canada for the rest of this century in terms of adaptation and emissions reductions. The answer, McBean says, is no.
His non-profit foundation has received $110 million in federal grants in the past seven years - $60 million in 2000 and $50 million in 2003 - to finance peer-reviewed climate studies at Canadian universities.
A request made last year for $250 million over 10 years to expand the foundation's work has been meet with silence from the Conservative government, McBean says.
He says his repeated requests to meet with the minister have been declined.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=1cad43fa-8852-4370-be67-f7a5e27eb5b0

AL GORES carbon footprint must be so big it would make BIGFOOT blush

Let me put simplify the math and put the so-called science of Global Warming into layman's terms.....

By comparison, the volume of C02 that is supposedly killing planet earth is less than that of a single fart released into a sellout crowd at the Toronto Skydome.

Global Warming: Silent But Deadly!

Blair: Vitruvius may have scratched the felt a bit with the billiards analogy. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases, like water vapor and CO2, absorbing ir being radiated by the Earth -- not the sun.
This topic was addressed by JET previously:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005844.html

albatross, your mommy is calling you for dinner. If you wash your hands first she'll let you play Nintendo until bed time. Be a good boy now and STFU while the adults talk.

Blair comments on Vitruvius's analogy, Vitruvius comments on Gunter's analogy and Tennekes comments on IPCC's computer-modeled analogy.

The problem with analogies is that they are not real ... you always give up something (exactness) or you make assumptions (guesses). Most of the time that is OK ... but I tend to judge consensus scientists that know 100% they have the science correct (based on an analogy computer-model) a tad more harshly.

An interesting read
engr-sci.org/history/climate/co2.htm

John Luft.. 1:53 above

This Part:

Emissions reductions are needed and long overdue, McBean says. The key question Baird doesn't seem to be asking, he says, is whether there is enough science to address climate change in Canada for the rest of this century in terms of adaptation and emissions reductions. The answer, McBean says, is no.

His non-profit foundation has received $110 million in federal grants in the past seven years - $60 million in 2000 and $50 million in 2003 - to finance peer-reviewed climate studies at Canadian universities.

A request made last year for $250 million over 10 years to expand the foundation's work has been meet with silence from the Conservative government, McBean says.

No wonder McBean says..**More studies needed!**

So, environment Minister Baird said ..

**At some point, it's sort of like the planet's on fire, we've got to throw water on it. We don't need to research it, we need to act.**

Baird however, is in a catch 22.

Any act he proposes will bring an outcry of loud public protest.

Loud promotion of a switch to clean electro-motion away from the ICEngine will bring louder public demontrations by Unions and workers. Belinda and Magna will be purple with rage.

A move away from oil will cause smoldering giants Chevron and Exxon to to bleed us dry for gas in a last fling of profit taking.

Ever wonder how gas prices can go up when modern auto efficiency is three to four times better now than it was six years ago?

Baird has got to wonder how to bring in box cars of tax money when people are fueling up with 8 to 16 cents of charge instead of $35 to $45 of gas. How then to fix roads and plow snow?

Politics; Not always as easy as it looks. = TG

TonyGuitar: " ... Baird however, is in a catch 22."

I get no sense of a dilemma. Why does anyone need to research something that is 100% certain?

McBean doesn't seem to understand that you don't go to the fashion designer for production (I suspect most of these "scientists" thought they could ride the gravy train forever). Does anyone really think now is the time to plan storm sewers for 2100?

The available blackbody radiation does not saturate the CO2. The CO2 absorbs the available energy to extinction. Increases in atmospheric CO2 just lowers the height at which extinction takes place.

Since Infrared transmission of the atmosphere was done by the military we can assume they were working on laser tranmission through the atmosphere

I understand, Ural, that the photons that are being absorbed by CO2 are being emitted by the Earth, not the Sun, that's why I noted the "yeah, yeah" in my analogy. Think of it more as a jump-shot rather than as scratching the felt ;-)

And yes, Blair, on a small table with large balls the analogy is crude, but as you decrease the size of the balls and vastly increase their number, the effect converges. Remember, there are about 6.02214199×10²³ molecules per mole of vapour (Avogadro's number) and one mole of CO2 vapour only weighs about 44 grams. So when we're talking about the hundreds of giga-tonnes of atmospheric CO2 vapour, we're talking about on the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2. That's a lot of billiard balls.

The reason that all the 13.5 to 15.5 micron photons are absorbed within a short distance from the Earth's surface is that, as Ural mentioned, it is the Earth's blackbody radiation that contributes to green-house gas warming, not the inbound solar radiation. Once such a photon leaves the surface of the earth, if the concentration of CO2 vapour is (as currently) in the hundreds of parts per million, it doesn't take much distance before the photon is absorbed. So, as TruthSayer mentions, increases in atmospheric CO2 just lower the height by which complete absorption takes place.

In retrospect I realize that I should have mentioned my gratitude to J.E.T. and Tenebris for providing the sources upon which I am basing my understanding: thanks, guys. Y'all can indeed find a good discussion of this subject, by T. J. Nelson, at: brneurosci.org/co2.html

As Robert mentions, I too used to think that maybe, possibly, we could be close to some sort of positive feed-back tipping point, where relatively small increases in CO2 concentration could cause a run-away increase in temperature. Now that I understand the Beer-Lambert law and the saturation effect better, I don't think that any more.

I now think that we can increase the atmospheric CO2 vapour concentration by multiple factors of ten without that having much effect on temperature. And given that humans only produce a small fraction of the CO2 concentration, it would take a huge increase in human-produced CO2, hundreds of times more than we are currently producing, for there to be any significant effect.

Oops, the "Ural"s in my previous comment should be "Ramon"s. Sorry about that.

Vitruvius: " ... the "Ural"s in my previous comment should be "Ramon"s"

I didn't say those things? Pity ... I sounded good.

Vitruvius: "...small table with large balls the analogy is crude..."

I'm more familar with the "contents of a toddler's toybox" analogy. When we have our garage sale this spring I'm pretty sure that no photons from any source will make it through that pile on the driveway. The toybox is definitely way oversaturated.

1 bottle in 2,400. My god. That's such a small amount. Why, there's absolutely no way, ever, in any shape or form that such a small change could bring about such a dramatic effect. It's not like anywhere else in nature, does the potential for some dramatic action exist, where small changes somehow cross a threshold. Thank god for math people like yourself who can put such complex things into perspective.

On the other hand...

youknowwhat.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potentials

Are you telling me that not one organic chemist, or just plain old chemists, reads SDA on a regular basis. No one who understands how, in nature, and science (ewwww) sometimes 1 in 2,400 is a huge, big deal.

As you note, Mithrandir, even small changes in concentrations can be significant in an action potential or similar threshold context. That's why the saturation effect is so important: it, along with the hydrosphere's and the biosphere's other CO2 damping functions, suggest that there is no action potential or threshold effect in play here.

Vitruvius,

If you could look into the odds of a possible run-away globe encompassing nuclear reaction likely to be triggered by either amateur Iranian testing [inevitable], or a little Iranian fracas, [possible], that may be more immediately gripping.

The Nuclear chain reaction thing was a considered risk in the early 60s, but is no longer a talking point it seems.

I*d look into it, but the last time I got involved with tipping points, all hell broke loose. = TG

Vit, my only point in coming here was to mock the absolutely idiotic notion that because something is small it is therefore insignificant. That was the idea being pushed by the useless idiot making the bottle analogy. "It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet."

The insanely complex interactions that must or may occur as a result of this rise in human caused CO2, human caused reduction in CO2 sinks, and the various other crap totally out of our control is irrelevant to my point: That someone who says 'this is irrelevant because it is small' is a either a moron, or just plays one in newspapers. Either way, it doesn't deserve serious attention or discussion.

Your point is a good illustration: A very small rise in human produced Co2 that occurs at the same time as a dramatic reduction in the earths Co2 sink capacity would result in dramatic changes. While that same rise that occurred in the context of an increase in the earth s' natural co2 sinks would be of no consequence. Either way, my original point stands: the article, and probably its author, is stupid.

Um, wait a minute, Mithrandir. My point is most certainly not that "A very small rise in human produced CO2 that occurs at the same time as a dramatic reduction in the earths CO2 sink capacity would result in dramatic changes", my point is that even quite a large rise in human produced CO2 is not significant, because of (1) the saturation effect, and (2) the minuscule contribution that human-produced atmospheric CO2 vapor makes to the overall green-house gas warming effect.

You are completely correct, Mithrandir, that under some sorts of circumstances we can see action potentials and phase transitions and chaotic dynamics and things like that, but that doesn't mean those sorts of circumstances are in effect in the case of the green-house gas effects caused by human-produced atmospheric CO2 vapour. And if those circumstances are not in effect, then the small amount of human-produced atmospheric CO2 vapour is significant in understanding the lack of effect that will be had by changing the rate of that production.

While Mr. Gunter is constrained by the customs of the sorts of newspaper columns he writes, I do not consider your ad hominem attacks on him to be reasonable. Mr. Gunter's statement to the effect that "It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet" is true.

"Mr. Gunter's statement to the effect that "It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet" is true."

It is simply irrelevant that Mr. Gunter's imagination fails him when he tries to figure out whether the work of hundreds of dedicated scientists is correct. I suspect that he can't imagine how many hadrons are produced in a single electron-positron collision in an accelerator either. Science has long passed the boundaries where we can "imagine" the answers. That's what math and computer models are for.

And no one is claiming that the planet will end because it heats up a few degrees. What has been conclusively proven is that this temperature change is happening and that it is going faster than we thought. Careful analysis has also shown that it will not stop anytime soon.

But that won't be the end of the world. It will make some parts of the world uninhabitable, whereas others will become actually better to live in. The point is that humans (and animals) will need to adapt to rapid changes in the environment. This is by no means impossible, but it will cost a whole lot of money, and will cause a whole lot of friction - to say the least.

How we react to this reality can be debated, and I suspect that most people don't believe the scientists because they don't like the debate that follows from it - not because they understand the science enough to find fault with it. I think that encouraging green technologies makes perfect sense, but there is no need for the US to participate in this - the EU and Japan will happily take the patents and other fringe benefits of rapid technological development. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is simply the Appollo project of our time. The goal may be useless (where's that moon base we were promised?), but its side effects will be huge. But even if you don't believe that climate change is real (despite all the evidence to the contrary) or you don't believe that the climate will continue changing (despite the scientific consensus on the matter) or even if you just don't believe that cutting greenhouse gasses will help (again despite the scientific consensus on the matter), it isn't hard to see the benefit in accepting the challenge.

It is hard to see any benefit from Canada slashing its CO2 output by 40% over the next few years, as has been proposed by Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It is hard to see any benefit from spending billions of Canadian taxpayer's dollars chasing a chimera.

Every dollar spent on reducing CO2 emissions is a dollar that could have been spent on climate change preparedness. Global warming, global cooling are all part of life on planet earth.

The Soloman Island just rose 10 feet out of the sea due to the latest tsunami producing earthquake. Did this raise or lower the level of the ocean, inquiring minds need to know.

How long will it take the general public to get their minds around the concept that CO2 is already doing all the warming it can (given an assumed constant solar input)

On the surface it looks like this extinction/saturation blackbody CO2 fact has been out there for over 40 years. Looks highly suspicious given that we are only just starting to talk about it now. Someone in the IPCC has a lot of explaining to do.

Vit: "My point is most certainly not that [blah blah blah]...my point is that [blah blah blah]". That's what I thought your billiard ball example was getting at Vitruvius, but I was certain I misread you, so I took what I thought was a more charitable reading. But ok, if the argument you're trying to make is that no amount of human C02 will ever have an effect, I'll leave you to it.

"[praise]..., but that doesn't mean those sorts of circumstances are in effect..."

I know. Like I said, my own intent with that example was to show how utterly stupid it is to argue that humans can't cause changes because our contribution is so small relative to all the other natural causes. For it to be anything other than utterly stupid, you'd have to fall back to some other kind of argument, like relying on the "saturation effect".

"[excuses]...I do not consider your ad hominem attacks on him to be reasonable. Mr. Gunter's statement to the effect that "It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet" is true."

Don't misuse the ad hominem retort. I wasn't arguing that his reasoning is faulty because he's stupid, I was arguing that he is stupid because his reasoning is. My comment could be called rude, inapropriate, insulting, childish, but reserve ad hominem for those who use rude, insulting and childish remarks to try to win the argument. I'd already won the argument (he wrote: when x then y,; I showed that when x then y or z), and then I proceed to try and hurt his feelings. Totally different.

ps.
I meant to comment on a different kind of argument fallacy within the statement: "It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet" is true.", but I see another poster above has beat me to it.

I think the issue here is that we are talking about heating, not nuclear fission. Consider another analogy. The CO2 is like salt dissolved in a pot of water, making up the 1:2400 th of the pot. Now, if through some magic, we can energize only the salt, not the surrounding water, how much does the salt have to rise in temperature to raise the temperature of the surrounding water by 1 degree. A lot!! Especially when you consider that the specific heat of water vapor is 10x Co2.

Thats why Mr. Gunters point is NOT a fallacy at all.

In Jack Vance's universe, the IPCC's are often referred to as 'weasels' as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_(Vance)

I did not say, Mithrandir, that human-produced atmospheric CO2 vapour has no effect, rather, I said that I don't think that it is significant (please try not to misquote me). If we increase CO2 output in the process of producing a much-improved quality of life for an ever-increasing portion of the human population, and that only increases the temperature by a degree or two, then I don't think that temperature increase is significant, from the human axiological perspective.

Regarding your comment to the effect that "my own intent with that example was to show how utterly stupid it is to argue that humans can't cause changes because our contribution is so small relative to all the other natural causes. For it to be anything other than utterly stupid, you'd have to fall back to some other kind of argument, like relying on the 'saturation effect'", I mostly agree with you.

Except that Mr. Gunter's question (it was not an argument) is not "utterly stupid", as you claim, indeed, is a good question, even though as you imply we are looking for good answers, not just good questions. That's why I added my comments on the saturation effect to this discussion, to show the double-whammy we are dealing with here. That Mr. Gunter did not include that argument does not mean that he is, as you claim, "stupid because his reasoning is", because he didn't reason that minuscularity implies no effect, he simply asked a question on how it can be. Perhaps you should have written a letter to the National Post attempting to answer his question.

Moreover, we've all made mistakes in reasoning from time to time. That doesn't mean we're all stupid. Even if his reasoning is in error in this case, that doesn't mean he's stupid. And that is why your comment was, I think, ad hominem and unreasonable. Here's a tip: whenever you find yourself spraying the word "stupid" around, you are addressing the man, not the issue being debated. Trying changing the word to "wrong", and see if that doesn't help make your argument more reasonable.

Vit: "...I did not say...that human-produced atmospheric CO2 vapour has no effect...I said that I don't think that it is significant."

Sorry Vit, like i said, I wasn't all that concerned about your own response, I was trying to keep things focussed on what I thought was a stupid argument.

"If we increase CO2 output...blah blah blah...then I don't think that temperature increase is significant, from the human axiological perspective."

Agreed.

"Regarding your comment [Mith's brilliant comment] I mostly agree with you. Except that Mr. Gunter's question (it was not an argument) is not "utterly stupid", as you claim, indeed, is a good question, [blather...]That's why I added my comments on the saturation effect to this discussion, to show the double-whammy we are dealing with here. That Mr. Gunter did not include that argument does not mean that he is, as you claim, "stupid because his reasoning is", because he didn't reason that minuscularity implies no effect,

You're saying his article isn't about how human's cant' affect the biosphere because we're so small and our shit is so tiny is really a nuanced piece that is taking into account your own rather detailed -- if obscure -- refereces and such? Wow. Ok.

Well, if that were the case then I would indeed take back my "this dude is an idiot" comments.

"Moreover, we've all made mistakes in reasoning from time to time. That doesn't mean we're all stupid. Even if his reasoning is in error in this case, that doesn't mean he's stupid. And that is why your comment was, I think, ad hominem and unreasonable. Here's a tip: whenever you find yourself spraying the word "stupid" around, you are addressing the man, not the issue being debated. Trying changing the word to "wrong", and see if that doesn't help make your argument more reasonable."

I wasn't trying to be reasonable. I know that just because some asshole makes some mistake onece, doesn' make him a retard. I get that. But are you telling me that you'd be ok with putting that piece of shit out in your name? As it appears now? C'mon. You'd fuckin's die of embarrassenment before that happeneded. This dude sucks. He's dumb. I'm sorry. Not everyone is able to read and synthesize like you Vit, some people just get the titles.

Maybe this guys isn't as dumb as I'm sayin'... hell, probably not, but if he can't be bothered to qualify th3e conditions under which his statements are true, why should I?

Cheers,

It seems to me, Mithrandir, that we actually agree on quite a lot. And given that you said earlier that "my only point in coming here was to mock", have now added that "I wasn't trying to be reasonable", and have now resorted to profanity, which taken together create a large impedance mismatch with my styles of dialectic, rhetoric, and wit, perhaps we should just leave it at that.

The one post (by dmorris) here that really stood out for me is the one pointing out that schoolchildren are being made to watch Gore's film and accept it "as fact".

My reaction would be exactly as if I had heard "Intelligent Design" was being taught in my child's school: they'd hear from my lawyer. If nothing could be done to halt this kind of "instruction", it'd be home schooling time. I advise anyone in this situation to do the same.

Hey i saw a picture of JOHN TRAVOLTA in READERS DIGEST sitting in the cockpit of a 707 and then theres AL GORE and RED TED TURNER and of course mr BAD BO MARICE STRONG and wussietard wacko DAVID PUKIE SUZUKI and the rest of the eco-wacko crowd of hypotcrits