Of course what would an expert in paleoclimatology know about anything relating to today's climate. Especially when he is a geologist.

The AGW proponents that hang around here claim that historical infrences do not count, because 'this time is different'.

Get ready for a couple of them to cut to the front of the line to get their T-shirts that say:

"Ya, but... this time is different".

But why not quote a little more? From the link you provided:

'Stott's new study suggests the rise in greenhouse gas likely was a result of warming. It may have accelerated the meltdown, he says, but was not its main cause.

He cautioned that the study does not discount the role of CO2.

"I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn't affect climate," he said. "It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change." '

Let's hear it again: "I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn't affect climate."

Doesn't quite sound like the end of AGW, does it?

ra: Nice Try! It still doesn't change the fact that if true, the study destroys a major plank of AGW. Of Course the researcher paid lip-service to AGW theory, as he's in no position to say anything else but that. He is simply respecting fields of research that are not his.

So I ask ... do you honestly think that your observation in any way changes the fact that AGW just took another hit.

"do you honestly think that your observation in any way changes the fact that AGW just took another hit."

Depends on whether you think AGW is/ever was as simple as "CO2 goes up, temperature goes up."

"but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change." '

Let's hear it again: "the important point is"

Paul: I am not aware of any major plank that this destroys. Which one are you referring to?

Regards,
John

"If the United States had participated in Kyoto and it had been fully implemented, according to economist Bjorn Lomborg in his new book, "Cool It," it would have cost the developed world about $9 trillion to lower the global temperature by about .3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. That would have put off predicted warming by the end of the century by about five years."
Rest here
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/warming__wisdom.htm

The idea isn't a new one, it's long been held that rising temperatures will lead to rises in CO2 as well as methane.

This is the same kind of simplistic gotcha argument that creationists use when having a go at evolution.

Posted by: Yoop at September 29, 2007 2:28 PM

Yoop if you were indeed an expert in paleoclimate and a geologist you would know the connection between CaCO3 and CO2 concentration in atmosphere dating back to those 600 million years of the chart you posted yesterday.
Are you trying to tell me that today’s atmosphere is exactly the same as it was 600 million years bp. or that climate patterns are exactly the same as they were 600 million years ago, or even that the ocean’s circulation patterns are the same as they were 600 million years age? Are you even trying to tell me that the planet’s eccentricity/obliquity/precession is the same as it was the same as it was 100 thousand years ago let alone 600 million?

So yes things are different today than they were at the beginning of the Palaeozoic and that is why scientist look mainly at recent past climates (geologically speaking) rather than 600 million years. Yoop if you were indeed an expert in paleoclimate and a geologist you wouldn't even consider bringing up climates older than a couple of millions years to compare today's climate.

You forgot to put legs on that straw man Yoop, he doesn’t stand up as an argument.

The Plank: Increases in CO2 precede warming ... according to the "models". Problem is, the geological record doesn't support the digital model. Skeptics argue that CO2 increase is a result of warming ... and they are building their case. By the way, the article misquotes the icecore record, which determines as well, that CO2 increases follow climate warming. Furthermore, nobody has said that this new study destroys AGW theory, but rather it erodes it.

CO2 is omly one of the so called greenhouse gases, but even though it is one of the major ones after water vapour, it is still only about three per cent, where water vapour is the other ninety seven per cent. As far as I can tell none of the computer models on which the AGW proponents base their cataclysmic forecasts factor in known cyclical variations in the heat output of the sun. Neither do they factor in variances in solar irradiation reaching the earth due to known variations in the earth's elliptical orbits around the sun and wobbles in the axis on which the earth rotates. These ecentricities with varying and long term cyclic patterns of as long as 100,000 years effect the irradiation received by earth and are felt differently on the north and south hemispheres. How on earth ( pardon the apropos pun) can these models be depended on when they deliberately ignore the most likely causes of climate variations?

Bob Wood: I disagree with your 3% number. Also in regards to your comments about climate models I would encourage you to take a look at this.

Regards,
John

Bob Wood at September 29, 2007 6:12 PM
"As far as I can tell none of the computer models on which the AGW proponents base their cataclysmic forecasts factor in known cyclical variations in the heat output of the sun. Neither do they factor in variances in solar irradiation reaching the earth due to known variations in the earth's elliptical orbits around the sun and wobbles in the axis on which the earth rotates..."

Oh they certainly do Bob, just look at the IPCC AR4.
Ok, look at past climates within the Holocene and you will see temperatures that were much higher than they are today. Go back 410kya, 340kya, 230kya and as recent as 7.5kya and you will see global temperatures as much as 4 degrees warmer than today. The reason for the warmth then is not the same reason we are seeing the warmth today. Then it was the earth-sun relationship, but today it's (mostly) human emissions of greenhouse gases. Left to it's own without these anthropogenic emissions, by all rights when we look at the earth and how it is effected by the sun's insolation, we should be entering an ice age. Instead we are getting warmer at a great rate.

Paul, that is a straw plank ;-). The current hypothesis is that warming precedes CO2 release. How else would you explain the timing with the Milankovitch cycles? The problem with milankovitch cycles is that they do not cause a large amount of change in the radiation reaching the earth, but do change how it is distributed. Hence the need for an amplifying effect.

Regards,
John

"The Pollyanna of global warming"

An intersting article found in the Globe and Mail today.
theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/LAC.20070929.BKCOOL29/TPStory/Environment

"Then it was the earth-sun relationship, but today it's (mostly) human emissions of greenhouse gases."

That has to one of the most stupid statements I has heard yet from a global warming cultist's.

What happened did the sun join a union and go on strike.

"That has to one of the most stupid statements I has heard yet from a global warming cultist's."

Well now there's a hit and run if I ever saw one. Can expand on that a bit?

Posted by: albatros39a at September 29, 2007 5:25 PM

"Yoop if you were indeed an expert in paleoclimate and a geologist..."

?!!!??

"Yoop if you were indeed an expert in paleoclimate and a geologist ..."

???!!!?

And your expertise is in what? Specifically, what might be your field or research experience in the Pliestocene?

(I'll see you 40, and, ah-h-h-h, raise you another 5 to boot)

What happened to the earth-sun relationship? did it just end when humans invented the automoble? last time I looking the sun was still there.

Alan: I don't mean to speak for Albatros, but I would interpret his comment to refer to the orbital mechanics that go into Milankovitch cycles. I will only add that as we go back millions of years in time other climate drivers become more important. For example, one of the greatest drivers is continental drift. Also consider that the solar output has increased a great deal over the last billion years.

Regards,
John

[Posted by: alan at September 29, 2007 7:35 PM ]

"That has to one of the most stupid statements I has heard yet from a global warming cultist's.

What happened did the sun join a union and go on strike."

Alan,

You have to understand. "This time is different". No less than The National Geographic Magazine has actually said it that way. "This time is different."

Yoop at September 29, 2007 7:43 PM
You're dodging the question Yoop. The question was, are today’s climate mechanisms the same today as they were 600 million years ago as depicted in your "Junkscience" graph that you posted yesterday? Are the gases the same as they were? Have biologics ever transformed the surface or atmosphere of the planet in any way? Are the continents the same as they were? Are the oceans the same as they were?
It only requires a yes or no answer Yoop. Any geologist should instantly know the answer to this question without trying to avoid it.

Oh and remember, based on your junkscience link we are primarily talking about conditions since the Palaeozoic, not the Pleistocene.

"What happened to the earth-sun relationship? did it just end when humans invented the automoble? last time I looking the sun was still there.

Posted by: alan at September 29, 2007 7:47 PM"

I already addressed that Alan, as I said we should be slowly sliding into an ice age, but we are instead we are quickly getting warmer. Obviously other factors besides the influence of the sun's insolation are at work here.

AGW is being taken apart one little bit at a time by serious scientists ... not by us here. We just echo those who know better; or are in a position to make educated arguments. And, to that end, those who are skeptics are not cranks and losers, but serious qualified individuals who are finding error after error after error in the science that the IPCC has used to come to its conclusions.

Now, here's my challenge to the AGW crowd, as I've issued it at my blog many times. Since AGW is such a pressing and all encompassing issue, the IPCC owes us a clear digital trackback to who, what, where, when, and how it came to it's conclusions. That means that I should be able to follow-up on every single tidbit of research that went into it's conclusions; including who did what. I should also be able to find serious rebuttal to those who find errors in AGW science. I should be able to find this on the IPCC website, or associated websites … not have to google my way fruitlessly around the world.

Yet, one can't even find the CV of most of the IPCC contributors ... your average scientist or layperson can't even go to the IPCC website and discover who the “people” behind this myth are. This makes the IPCC methodology incredibly suspect ... for an organization that is asking that modern humanity to take the most drastic measures in it's history to correct what it claims will be a sure catastrophe ... yet can't even produce a digital trackback to it’s data, is scandalous.

Anybody with a shred of skepticism should have red flags popping all over ... hell, your average blog has more accountability built in. There is no excuse for this ... none; and all my AGW friends who visit Celestial Junk have never been able to meet my challenge in this because as far as I know, the IPCC has clearly erased or refused to make available a way of tracking its contributors and sources in an efficient way. Some we know; others we don't; and some we assume.

I remain a skeptic on this account alone ... I know when I've been fed a load of crap ... and the IPCC, the way it conducts itself and controls information, screams warning to all who care to think. The scientific community is a leader in digital transference of information, so there is absolutely no excuse.

"Ok, look at past climates within the Holocene"
Posted by: albatros39a at September 29, 2007 7:20 PM

Correction, it should read "before the Holocene"

Paul, there is nobody behind any myths. The scientists behind the science however...

Paul, it's all right here-
ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf
and the references are at the end of each chapter of the IPCC AR4 for everyone to see. Nothing is being hidden.

To paraphrase scripture, To argue with a fool makes one more foolish than the fool.

Alb: before you post something, please check it over ... been there, done that. I asked for CVs.; I've had some very sincere people look for what I ask for ... and come up empty.

So Alb and friends, for starters, tell me:

Which research sources did the IPCC use as it’s primary sources and how were they weighted?

Which sources were rejected, and why?

Which sources were used for minor consideration, and why?

What scientific based counter evidence/research/rebuttal was used when the IPCC encountered peer review that did not agree with conclusions?

And finally, please provide a CV for all the major contributors to the IPCC consensus and a list of the names of the 2500 scientists the world over who apparently signed on.

Thanks!

So alba if we are entering an ice age and cold is a lot worse for us than warmth.....I fail to see the problem.

So it has no shifted from, well maybe the warming isnt as much as we predicted but thats only because it was supposed to be colder.

Sorry, no credibility. Not one, I repeat not one AGW model has been correct in its prediction. So we should believe that big hanging lougie as well.

I am sorry, I like eveidence and predictive models. I dont see any so I dont think we need to run around like chickens.

The model is proven....as I have saod in the past there are only a couple of facts

1) C02 is significantly higher than 1940 but not as high as other times in the past
2) Mankind is largely responsible for the increase in CO2

After that....we have lots of debate on Sea Surface temperatures, air termperatures, hurricanses, sea ice, ice caps and glaciers.

Settled Science it aint. I am not saying it wont ultimatley be proven but the worst mistake the AGW group have made is say that the fat lady has sung and it is all proven.

Not proven, Kyoto has holes in it big enough to put a few hundred chinese coal plants in it and some of the core hypotheses are falling apart.

When will there be some acknowledgement that there is more study required because we just dont know.

Alb: Your list has about 1224 names, with no way of knowing who actually did the research and who were just bureaucrats writing reports. It's a completely useless tool, other than to fall short of 2500 names. The list is window dressing.

"So alba if we are entering an ice age and cold is a lot worse for us than warmth.....I fail to see the problem."

You've never heard the phrase "tipping point" before?
(Oh patience Alby, patience)

“So it has no shifted from, well maybe the warming isnt as much as we predicted but thats only because it was supposed to be colder.”

No Stephan, it’s still getting warmer and possibly if we don’t fix the problem, dangerously warmer.

Alby,

As I have stated in many past post, the climate of the earth has been in a near constant evolution and change since the early Archean. Much has changed since, and through, that time. But there are good coorelations to today's climate buried in much of the geologic history. There in even proof of an ice age in the Archean (yes, I had actually visited and examined the exposure that proved that before it was changed by mining).

To ignore that history, and what the geochemical data indicates, and to *off-handedly* claim that it is simply evident to all that "this time is different" is to ignore a lot of good science. That scientific consensus exist regarding AGW is a myth.

I see a lot of AGW proponents make the claim that that time was different, and this time is different than all that has gone before it.

That has not been proven, and I am, personally, highly suspect of any scientist that makes the claim that all that is needed has been proven, and the science of AGW is settled.

BTW, I have stuck my nose, my shovel, my geochemical tools, and about 2,500 drill holes into Pleistocene sediments and debris all over the Canadian shield for over 45 years. My backyard is full of the crud. Don't pretend that you are going to educate me on the field relationships of the Pliestocene.

So, what changed at the end of the Pleistocene that made that big slab of ice disappear so QUICKLY? What mechanism was at work then that isn't at work now?

Paul, you may have a valid point, the IPCC documents could be more interactive to make it easier to trace, but I think they do make this tracing possible in paper to a certain extent. For example I just happen to have Chapter 3 of the AR4 in front of me and it lists the Coordinating Lead Authors, the Lead Authors, the Contributing Authors and the Review Editors. So you can see who wrote it. Also, Annex II has a list of all the authors for that Chapter.

They also reference where they get the information from, for example, this paragraph is from Section 3.2.1.

As a result, coverage has been improved substantially before 1920, especially over the Pacific, with further modest improvements up to 1950 (Worley et al., 2005; Rayner et al., 2006). Improvements have also been made in the bias reduction of satellite-based infrared (Reynolds et al., 2002) and microwave (Reynolds et al., 2004; Chelton and Wentz, 2005) retrievals of SST for the 1980s onwards.

So all the work is referenced. As you might imagine this is a lot of references and we have 17 pages of references with almost 1,000 works cited. So the information seems to be traceable.

In regards to looking at those who find errors in the science, it does look at this to a certain extent. For example it references some of Svensmark work on cosmic rays. (Incidentally, it also has a nifty index which I used to look up cosmic rays.)

What it won't do is to look at issues that have not made it into peer review. Thus you won't see the tired old argument that we only produce 3% of the CO2 or that CO2 is already saturated or any one of a number of similar statements.

However, I confess that I have not looked at the process of the IPCC this way before. I have reached my opinion by looking at the science involved and especially examining the statements that challenge it.

In this regards, I don't really care who said something as long as they can back it up and the science hangs together. That is what matters in the end.

Regards,
John

Yoop uniformitarianism may work well in geology but it only goes so far in climatology.

You imply here that thing have not changed in 600 million years.

"Get ready for a couple of them to cut to the front of the line to get their T-shirts that say:

"Ya, but... this time is different". -Yoop at September 29, 2007 2:28 PM

Now you say that "As I have stated in many past post, the climate of the earth has been in a near constant evolution and change since the early Achaean. Much has changed since..." So Yoop, now you are saying things change. Right, then why are you posting graphs showing temperature and CO2 concentration that cover earth time back to the Cambrian as if it had some relevance in today’s climate?

What caused the end of the last ice age you ask? The insolation hitting the planet’s surface increased, and it didn’t happen suddenly, it took 6000 years. Ok 6000 years in geologic time is sudden, but in this case it’s plenty of time to get the job done.

2) Mankind is largely responsible for the increase in CO2

Sigh.... Stephen, did you read my bank account argument on the other thread? Can you make an argument that would see us not being responsible for ALL the current rise in CO2 (there Yoop, I used current rise - happy)?

I would also add a third certainty to your list - adding CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Regards,
John

John: Consider the claims made by the IPCC. Consider it's budget. Consider that this is the single biggest issue facing the world today ... an issue led and championed by the IPCC.

Now consider the level of trackback available to anyone wanting to examine the process. It's archaic. Given the IPCCs budget ... you get my drift.

Paul, I agree it could (and probably should) be made better, but my points are:

1) The kind of trackback you want exists.
2) The archaic condition of the report in no way invalidates the science that is being produced.

Regards,
John

John: Agreed, it in no way invalidates the science, but it certianly makes it more difficult to invalidate it as well. It's like putting a filter in front of the facts.

You and I both know that the modern world is full of capable people in an incredible diversity of fields who could "possibly" shred some of evidence or the process itself or at least find problems (the recent temp data for NA is an example). The more people you open it up to, the more room for errors or omissions or fraud to be uncovered ... that's why the "filter" concerns me.

Furthermore, I find the lack of serious rebuttle to the skeptics disturbing. They are simply dismissed ... it reminds me of ninteenth century science, where challenges to established but false norms weren't even considered or cast off with glib argument (ie: He works for Big Oil). I can't even find serious counter arguement to some of the "skeptics" serious complaints.

This looks more like politics to me, instead of science.

Albatross,

Care to explain how/why the phenomenah which has caused the Earth to warm and cool over the Earth's history,

ceases to exist now?

It was the Sun (or other non-human causes), which cause the Earth's warming cycles over and over and over again, but THIS TIME its humans, and almost exclusively so.

Like the sun is, what, no longer that massive firey ball that's the sole source of heat in the solar system.

Forget the "thousand cuts" of new studies, of which many, many are more rigourously scientific than the ideologically driven global warming drivel, forget all that for the moment,

the theory doesn't even pass the basic logic test.

The theory doesn't even attempt to DISCOUNT the most obvious cause of temperature rise (again, that firey ball hundreds of thousands of times the size of earth), but looks past it.

In fact it looks past any other plausible cause, and starts with the conclusion and works to only prove that singular theory.

And after looking past other plausible (and in the case of the Sun, likely) scenarios, the door is then slammed shut, the sceintific method of enquiry is closed, and other studies which seek to gain knowlege, are castigated, smeared and belitted.

No, this so called science based theory is nothing of the sort.

Sorry Albatross, but the "cuts" will continue, until this theory, like many other disproven theories in mankind's history, is finally laid to rest.

CO2 in the atmosphere 'traps' all of the electromagnetic radiation in the 13.5 to 15.5 micron band.

This is 8.4% of the Earth's black body radiation.

To the rest of the spectrum CO2 is transparent.

The probability of radiation being 'trapped' by CO2 molecules is a function of the frequency of molecules (concentration) and the distance travelled. At 20ppmv this distance is in the order of 5000m. At the present CO2 concentration (~385ppmv) almost all of the 13.5 to 15.5 micron wave-length EM energy (IR or heat) is attenuated within 200m of the radiating body. This makes the atmosphere slightly warmer near the ground especially at night.

Since a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ‘traps’ all of the heat in the 13.5 to 15.5 micron band, and essentially none of other wavelengths, changes in CO2 concentration can have very little influence on the improperly designated ‘greenhouse effect’ of the gas.

The atmosphere developed some 4 billion years ago. It consisted largely of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, the latter making up ~20% of the total. About 2 billion years ago blue-green algae evolved in the oceans. They consumed carbon dioxide and exhaled oxygen. Gradually the oxygen content of the atmosphere increased to the ~21% we now enjoy. Carbon dioxide concentrations gradually came down, in part due to extensive development of limestones (~440kg CO2 per tonne) during the Palaeozoic.

Since the early Precambrian we have evidence of glacial periods – diamictites - lithified glacial tills. These deposits are separated by about 200 million years, which suggests a glacial period once each 226 million year orbit of the Solar System through the Milky Way Galaxy. If one considers that the CO2 in the Precambrian atmosphere was generally several percent, reaching 7000ppm in Cambrian Time, and still there were glacial periods, it seems CO2 did not contribute significantly more than it does today – and cannot be expected to, based on its Electromagnetic energy absorption characteristics.

Major climate forcings originate externally to the Earth (e.g. the Sun) and some major influences are external even to the Solar System.

In this regard one can find an interesting paper that deals with the waltz of the planets and the influences on the Sun’s energy out-put at http: //www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html

Re: biff at September 29, 2007 11:06 PM

"Care to explain how/why the phenomenah which has caused the Earth to warm and cool over the Earth's history, ceases to exist now?..."

Biff, Biff, Biff, Biff, Biff, it didn't "cease to exist", I already answered that question at 7:20 PM. Look up.

Soooo, that massive firey ball of gas up in the sky,

that causes me to feel warm when it is out, and cooler when it is gone (behind clouds, buildings trees whatnot),

that makes my skin burn when I don't wear UV 250,

that overheats my car in mid-July, but keeps me slightly warm when my car heater busts in January,

that made my retinas burn when I was seven (even though my big brother Timothy promised nothing would happen if I lookes straight at it),

that makes the white stuff on my driveway melt in the spring (I believe the the technical term is "snow"... though the "s" may be silent),

that makes my neighborhood pool (which is so bloody cold it induces extreme shrinkage - if you know what I mean) when it's first filled in June, nice and comfy by mid August,

that gave my great Aunt, Beatrice, heat sroke last year (sweet ladie that Beatrice),

may actually have something to do with.....well......our warming?????

Gee, who'd of thunk it.

Woops, I see that Albatross, posted after Jet.

I guess the Sun isn't the culprit for that warming thing after all.

I feel so stupid.

It is points such as this that are shredding the Kyoto Kult;

[Since a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ‘traps’ all of the heat in the 13.5 to 15.5 micron band, and essentially none of other wavelengths, changes in CO2 concentration can have very little influence on the improperly designated ‘greenhouse effect’ of the gas.] JET

The AGW debate is evolving;

The Kult is loosing scientific ground by the day.

The Kult is now desparately preaching with the only thing it has left; "ya but, this time it is different."

Some (Jane Stewart) have long ago admitted the science is phooney but will fall back on the 'our religion is no worse than your religion' argument.

Many blogs are turning up the heat on the Kult. The media is slow or just does not want to give up the best scam story in history.

Anonymous trolls may be used by well financed groups to 'muddy the water' in a desparate attempt to stave off the inevitable.

The big-guns[sic] of the Kult will continue to hide from a debate they know they will loose.

Bjorn Lomborg, Parick Moore and others have huge credibility in all this.

Albert Gore, David Suzuki and others have little credibility left. It is the reason they will not debate.

"What caused the end of the last ice age you ask? The insolation hitting the planet’s surface increased, and it didn’t happen suddenly, it took 6000 years. Ok 6000 years in geologic time is sudden, but in this case it’s plenty of time to get the job done.

Posted by: albatros39a at September 29, 2007 9:32 PM "

There you have it folks! Alby is afraid his type can't adopt to a changing climate,like species have done for millions of years. But then if I had his logic,GorSuziki would probably scare the crap out of me to with their blathering. 6000 years???? Saaaayyyyyy. Isn't that around the time the earth has been here,according to creationists? Ummmm. One cult siding with another Kult?

Ron, this is a battle for hearts, not minds. Those who wish to push an agenda which is based on shaky "facts" will always play the emotion card because fear can cause brains to stop functioning properly.

The people steadfastly sticking to "the sky is falling, again" meme are a graphic example of psychological projection when they accuse "deniers" of being luddites, uneducated or unscientific.

Global warming is, like yoga, a "gateway belief" which logically leads to harder beliefs such as depopulation, which is a nice euphemism for genocide and mass murder, left-wing/communist style. I don't know why greens don't get called on this crypto-malthusian crap more often.

I don't know why greens don't get called on this

Could it possibly be because of this (excerpt below)?

"definitely fewer than one hundred people, and maybe as few as twenty people, actually decided what constituted national news in the United States"

[Posted by: albatros39a at September 29, 2007 9:32 PM]

"You imply here that thing have not changed in 600 million years.

"Get ready for a couple of them to cut to the front of the line to get their T-shirts that say:

"Ya, but... this time is different". -Yoop at September 29, 2007 2:28 PM"

The implication is not as you interpret it. I say that things have been changing constantly since the Archean, and they are changing today, yet you are ready to say that this present change is *different* from any part of the prior changes. Hence the "Ya, but... this time is different.

So. Prove it.

"Now you say that "As I have stated in many past post, the climate of the earth has been in a near constant evolution and change since the early Achaean. Much has changed since..." So Yoop, now you are saying things change. Right, then why are you posting graphs showing temperature and CO2 concentration that cover earth time back to the Cambrian as if it had some relevance in today’s climate?"

Please prove there is no relevance.

"What caused the end of the last ice age you ask? The insolation hitting the planet’s surface increased, and it didn’t happen suddenly, it took 6000 years. Ok 6000 years in geologic time is sudden, but in this case it’s plenty of time to get the job done."

Interesting point. That last big ice cube retreated approximately 1200 miles in 6,000 years. That would be an average recession rate of about 1,000 feet per year. That is much faster than the average recession rates observed for most of the glaciers today. (Not counting the ones that are actually advancing) So, I guess the average recession rate has actually slowed during this part of the present interglacial period.

AGW is a cult, based on psychological rather than scientific axioms.

These axioms are few; they are simple; they are common to most psychological utopian cults.

The axioms are that humans are Sinners; that because of their sinful behaviour, an Apocalyptic end to them and their work(the planet) is imminent; that Redemption can be achieved by a vow of poverty and a return to 'nature' (rejection of progress and capitalism); and Prostration to a Higher Power (Big Govt).

This pyschological aberration has been abrogated by the socialist/communist UN, which is marketing this psychological cult, as a tactic of an enormous money laundering scheme. The tactic is to insist that the industrial nations of the world reduce their industrial progress, and pay massive amounts of money - not as loans but as Sin Money - to the so-called 'developing countries' so that they, heh, can industrialize.

So, the West pays China to put up one new coal plant a week. Neat.

If AGW were a valid scientific agenda and not a handmaiden of a money transference agenda, then, there would be no UN money transference agenda. No Sin Money would be allowed. The focus would be on practical, incremental tactics all over the world. And, if it were a valid science, dissent and debate would be required rather than denigrated and condemned; ie, there would be no 'sides' in the issue. Furthermore, if it were valid science, it would never consider a reduction to one cause (human CO2) as a valid conclusion in a complex system.

AT some point, too, the AGW hysterics will have to admit that the globe isn't warming as even their temperature curves show it hasn't warmed since 1998.

John Cross,

JET @ 11:45 posits very interesting points. What say you?

Re post #2:

r a, what you have quoted there is a scientist desperately trying to avoid being cut off from further research grants. He is saying:

"Of course, this study, which shows that CO2 increases after temperature increases, doesn't disprove that the CO2 increase produced the temperature increase"

It looks like Amanda is repositioning. Getting ready to say: "Well, AGW isn't just CO2".

Watch the hysterics reposition along these lines, clinging on desperately by their finger nails to AGW.

Well, is it even AGW? Or any warming? Look at the temperature charts produced by these people. it hasn't warmed since 1998 apparently.

FPaul: you said "Furthermore, I find the lack of serious rebuttle to the skeptics disturbing. They are simply dismissed ... it reminds me of ninteenth century science, where challenges to established but false norms weren't even considered or cast off with glib argument (ie: He works for Big Oil). I can't even find serious counter arguement to some of the "skeptics" serious complaints."

Which serious complaints are you talking about? In my time of studying the issue, there have been a number of very interesting disagreements that have taken place. When this happens (for example the tropospheric cooling issue) it is examined in great detail. That one lasted several years before it was resolved.

Regards,
John

Serious complaints, john cross, are the use of mechanical reductionism. This is exemplified in your claim that anthropogenic actions are the primary cause of CO2 and that this CO2 is the primary cause of current global warming.

Serious complaints include the political 'solution' to this allegation, which rejects (1) an acknowledgment of the universe as a complex adaptive system and reduces it to a mechanical system that can be controlled by Big Govt, and (2) no tactics of reducing global CO2 but instead, tactics of transfering massive amounts of money - to industrialize.

If the "greenhouse" comparison were valid we would all live in greenhouses. The fact we don't says all that needs to be said about the supposed effect of C02 inhibiting longwave radiation.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

John,

Nothing for JET? I find it interesting that you in your latest post mention an issue being "resolved". In my experience, issues re AGW are only considered resolved when a semi plausible explantion for the particular outlier in question can be put forth which doesn't get in the way of the "settled" science, i.e. orthodoxy. As a layperson who's background is economics, not science per se, I judge this science by it's predictive powers, which makes it worthless. I do note that the doom mongers are finally having the good sense to push the apocalypse out 50-100 years, as I can remember the dire 10 year warnings of the late nineties, yet I'm not dead. The only climactic risk I run living in Atlantic Canada is exposure to the mind numbing cold of our winters.

et: hey, it was Paul who used the term. Complain to him if you don't like it. I feel that I understood the context that he used it in so I replied.

But it is obvious that you still don't understand my previous argument. Where did I say "that anthropogenic actions are the primary cause of CO2". And please don't pull a Yoop and make sure you quote me in context.

Grithater: Sure, we can pursue it if you like. You say that you are an economist so I am not sure what your math background is (generally I find economists have pretty good math backgrounds). To begin with are you familiar with Levy skew AS distributions?

I have a busy day ahead - taking my daughter to ballet audition. I will catch up later tonight so please be patient if I don't reply right away.

However, in the mean time, do you see the logic of my Bank account analogy and if not, why not?

Regards,
John

"Serious complaints include the political 'solution' to this allegation, which rejects (1) an acknowledgment of the universe as a complex adaptive system and reduces it to a mechanical system that can be controlled by Big Govt, and (2) no tactics of reducing global CO2 but instead, tactics of transfering massive amounts of money - to industrialize.

Posted by: ET at September 30, 2007 7:46 AM "

My dear ET. I do wish you would stop trying to make sense to these unwilling to learn Kultists!(John Cross excepted :) ).
I myself still patiently (after 10 years) await an answer to my question of how paying China billions of dollars for CO2 emmisions all ready PRODUCED,reduces said emmissions! Or are all the Kultists now going into deep denial as China builds 1 dirty coal-fired plant a week, and the pyramid scheme is starting to unravel?

john cross - you are slithering, a form of inserting ambiguity and deviation.

You know perfectly well that my statement that you claim that 'anthropogenic actions are the primary cause of CO2' refers to your statement of 'anthropogenic actions are responsible for all the recent rise in CO2' (Cross; Sept 27.11:11).

And refers as well to your statement that "we are responsible for 100% of the current rise in CO2".

You know perfectly well that my statement refers to your 'all/100%...current/recent..rise in CO2".

AND you know perfectly well that your claim is that this rise is the primary cause of 'global warming'. You have consistently rejected suggestions of other causes and insisted on the primacy of AGW.

Don't try to deviate from your claims by nitpicking statements. The fact is, you are promoting a perspective of AGW. A lot of us are criticizing your perspective (I'll wait for your answers to JET and grit).

I, myself, am criticizing your perspective on the grounds of its reductionism of a complex adaptive system to a mechanical system. And, on the grounds of its movement into dogma and rejection of science - which MUST be open. Your insistence that AGW is 'well-established' and 'beyond doubt unless someone can produce extraordinary evidence' is unscientific.

I am further criticizing your reductionism because it has been moved, by the UN and various others into a cult, and used as a front to transfer massive amounts of money from the industrial to the industrializing nations. So that they can industrialize. Nothing to do with dealing with pollution and emissions.

If you are so concerned about GW, I'm surprised that you have so little to say about both the cult and the money laundering.

Alby, my dear troll.

There is no such thing as "dangerously warmer". There is climate. It changes. Verrrrry slowly, warmer or colder.

I see some of you are talking about the life giving gas as comprising 3%. I thought it was .03 % or am I wrong. Realistically it seems rather insignificant if CO2 were to rise to the alarming level of .04% (that's raising from 3 to 4 in 10,000 parts, what aout the other 9,996 parts)
Besides if the world were to warm up a degree or two I don't buy the Gore and Suzuki catostrophic scare tactics that things will be worse. In fact there will be more farmland, for food instead of early frosts etc. Mankind excelled during the warming period of the 1200 and 1300 hundreds, all the worlds great cathedrals, castles etc were built during this fertile period despite limited technology. They used to grow graps in England during this period, maybe we'll see a fine British wine again.

"I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn't affect climate."

In totalitarian academia, it's called job protection.

"The idea isn't a new one, it's long been held that rising temperatures will lead to rises in CO2 as well as methane."

Not according to Gore's hockey stick graph. But of course, facsists want it both ways. It's now climate change, not global warming. CO2 is now the cause and result of warming. And "this time it's different."

A rational person can only conclude that the Kyoto Kult has mugged the environment to their own socialist ends. As a result, there are important facts (not theories) about the degradation of our planet and environment that are now ignored.

As a result, wealth is cynically being transfered to fix a fictional boogeyman (in reality to create a socialist, economic utopia), while the public is kept in the dark about horrible realities that are directly effecting them, their loved ones, in fact, all life on the planet.

Modern history's biggest fraud must be exposed and the ringleaders brought to justice.

Rather than 'the sound of settled science,' perhaps it's best titled, 'the sound of forced socialism.'

What the AGW scaremongers are ignoring is that climate change is normal; we've gone from various degrees of cold to various degrees of warm, during the span of both nonhuman and human existence on this planet.

They are also utterly ignoring the nature of the biological realm, which is, a complex rather than mechanical system. A system that is mechanical can only act-react as that same system; it has no capacity to change HOW it acts-reacts. A system that is complex, as are all biological systems, can change how it acts-reacts. Birds will develop different beaks; seeds/plants will grow in different areas, will grow larger/smaller; animals will change their diet; they'll evolve new subspecies and species.

So, biological systems will adapt to warmer or colder temperatures. They have an adaptive capacity; that's why they are 'complex' rather than 'mechanical'.

The apocalyptic scenario is only valid for mechanical non-adaptive systems. An example would be an electrical system that is overloaded and the fuse blows. That's a mechanical system.

But the AGW ideology, which is a mechanical ideology, is also very imporantly a psychological neurosis, which sets up human as Sinners, whose behaviour inevitably leads to apocalpytic catastrophe, unless they Repent, give up their evil (industrial) ways, and give all their goods to the poor (China, India, etc, etc).

ET, the true joke in all this is its just Christianity with a name change. Put Gaia up at the top of the pantheon and you've got Greenyism. All the sins and remedies stay pretty much the same. I will say I think the Catholics have much cooler saints though. Saint Algore the first android vice president, very uncool.

I do love watching Alby defend his catechism though. Every time some pesky contrary evidence is cited he goes all haywire. Normally I don't enjoy that kind of thing, but Alby's such a toxic little mutant I make an exception for him.

And now I'm going to do my part to speed Global Warming by driving my truck for the pure hell of it. Ta ta Alby.

To all global warming hysterics, this question:

Do you want it colder?

(Sorry, wrong thread).

The Goracle charged $500 per ticket in Vancouver and Victoria to listen to his hot air.

The usefull idiot's are so easily fleeced.

phantom - it's apocalyptic religion - which can be found in various sects in Christianity, as well as in Islam. The axioms are all the same.

Man is a sinner (this is different from the 'good' definition of Christian sin which simply and correctly means, a fallible material version of an infallible non-material Form, ie, Platonism or Aristotle/Godel). This Sinner is Basic Evil.

Man can only cleanse himself of this Sin by Redemption.
Redemption requires divesting oneself of all wealth, goods acquired through work or other, etc and becoming 'non-material'. [Back to the Pure non-material Form!!] You can do this by sending massive amounts to China. Or buying carbon credits. You'll redeem yourself this way.

If man does not do this, the apocalypse will result and all will burn in its hell. [Note that the final end in all these cults is HEAT].

If you resist, you are a Heretic. You MUST believe.

And who informs you that you are a Sinner and must Repent? The bureaucrats of a metaphysical Authority. Otherwise known as the UN, acting in the name of the metaphysical NATURE.
Heh. What a farce.

The framework and axioms are so obvious, they are such a basic format of the Man As Sinner To Be Redeemed from the Fires of Hell - that one wonders whether the logical and reasoning capacity of the AGW crowd has melted.

Correction, the Goracle only charged the students in Victoria $200.

I see a lot of bloggers can't see the trees for the forest (I think that's how saying goes).

The proponents and opponents of AGW are not going to agree, we need a better idea. Whether or not we warm the earth with CO2, an ecological disaster awaits us with development in China and India. On the other side of the coin, how long can we expect Africa to toil under wind and solar power when they have natural resources to exploit.

Can the climate criminal and Kyoto cult complainers agree on this - we must develop non-fossil fuel technologies. If we argue how many angels can fit on the head on a pin, surely that is counterproductive to that goal.

At some point, we're going to have to come together on this issue, as Patrick Moore points out, much of environmental science is now mainstream. Rather than use Kyoto to buy carbon credits to be used for God knows what, let's use that money and energy to actually work together. Yes, I know ET, how utopian of me. My point is essentially this - let's work together on the areas we agree, rather than just agree to disagree.

More likely we're going to run around in circles on this one with a result something like 15 years of inaction on AGW/clean technology file.

Now there's a winning election issue.

JOhn,

If you want to keep arguing about small points and miss the bigger one go ahead.

I say largely because makind doesnt produce ALL the CO2 in the world, so it would be a mistake, and impossible to prove the responsibility piece of your argument. Mind you it fits in with the general argument that naything Mankind does in "unnatural" and everything else is natural. Man is seperate from the ebvironment etc etc.

The point you keep missing is even with conceding these points there still is a big unproven.

Alba....tipping point....so lets go back in history and look at times when there was significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere.....if thats the case why did we not turn into Venus at that stage? Why has there been no runaway warming in the past?

Patience Alba patience.....people keep pointing out threads on your oh so carefully knitted sweater!

Once again, all I am saying is there is no QED in this yet. It isnt proven and there is lots of doubt.

As for the continued warming.....ulm, dont think thats the case, certainly not this year in this part of the world, whatever happened to the Global part of Global warming....

I would love to believe this is the case but it just isnt proven.

May I again recommend "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer?

He deals in a quite politically incorrect direct and intellectually honest manner with the aspects of mass movements. We are seeing nothing new. Hoffer summed it all up in his 178 pages of insight - in 1952. See his comments on Sinners - Section 42, pg 53 - 55.

His analysis of doctrine: (Section 57, pg 80) Quote: "The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude." ... "It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but must rather to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength."

Perhaps we have an explanation for some of the arguments appearing in this thread.

AWG is a mass movement and shows all the symptoms of such group insanities.

Interesting, is it not, that many have unlimited time and energy to defend their ignorance, but none for curing the problem?

shamrock - I agree with you. We have to move out of fossil fuels. We do this by technological means. The human society has gone through a number of phases of energy usage.

First - just their own manual labour.

Then, by domestication of animals - which required the existence of such animals (not found in most of Africa and N. America). And various technological steps were taken to enable man to use this energy source: the harness, the horseshoe, the wheel, the carriage, the stirrup etc.

Then, various mechanical technologies were developed to harness both manual and animal labour (the grinding wheel turned by an animal).

Then, the movt to wind and water power.
Then, the switch to fossil fuels. First, coal and gas.
Now - oil. Nuclear.

By the way - it's 'can't see the forest for the trees' (can't see the bigger picture because they focus on the small stuff).

I don't think that an ecological disaster awaits us in India and China; they'll clean up their act- particularly when it affects their economy.

The problem in Africa is tribalism and an economy still embedded in primitive peasant agriculture, not 'wind or water power'.

So- I agree, we have to move out of fossil fuels and into another source of energy. It will bring its own 'downside'. But, just as in the eras when we moved into wind and water power - it takes time to develop the technology. And the same when we moved into early fossil fuels; it takes time to develop the technology - and also, time to see the problems with that new energy source. It will take time to develop new energy sources.

The problem with the UN Kyotoism is that it has NOTHING to do with the env't; it's a money laundering scheme to take money from the industrial nations - as well as decreasing their industrial capacity - and give it to the 'developing' nations. Nothing to do with the envt.

Agree, stephen, John is arging the small points; he's fixated on CO2 and AGW.
JET - I haven't read Hoffer, but he sounds 'spot on'.

While the G&M still blindly buys into the Gore/Suzuki Kult, it's readers, yes it's very own readers, have seen the light.

The Globe puts out a BS article on Gore's Victoria, BC visit but the Globe's commenters ridiculed both the visit and the article.

Almost without exception, the first 51 commenters called BS.

There has been a transition. Three years ago it would have been a Gore love-in.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070929.walgore0929/CommentStory/National/home

One more comment on the infamous bank account argument

$100 goes into my bank account

$50 goes out for mortgage
$25 goes out for entertainment
$10 goes out for food
$15 for clothing
$ 8 for heating

I am negative on $8 in the hole. So which expenditure is responsible for the hole. One in particular or all of them? Or is it the governments responsibility because I actually earn $200 but they took half?

The point is that there are multiple drains on the system. So assigning "responsibility" to anyone of them is difficult if not impossible.

So to the CO2 analogy there are multiple contributors. You make an arbitrary choice by saying man is responsible for ALL of the increase. The number of cows has increased dramatically, is it their fault, or our falt for industrialising, is it autos, what about the increase caused by volcanoes.

The assignment of responsibility is difficult until you get to duscussing things that are discretionary, which is what I think you are trying to say. Mankind has a choice on his output, to a greater or lesser degree.

Yeah to some extent.

So your point about Man is responsible for ALL of it is a value judgement. Especially if increases in temp, however caused are causing less solubility of CO2 in oceans....anyway weird discussion on assigning a responsibility as opposed to really just worrying about effect.

et: yesterday I asked for clarification and you responded by accusing me of trying to introduce ambiguity. Today I responded based on what you wrote and you now accuse me of “slithering”. It is obvious that you are not interested in looking at my points.

RL to provide clarification, the 3% refers to the anthropogenic contribution of all the CO2 released in one year. The 0.0385% is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Oh, by the way, there are currently over 400 vineyards in the UK with some excellent award winning wines being made there.

Regards,
John

Intermission: It's Toon Time.
...-

Is Hollywood Really Going Green? Critics Say No
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904635/posts

Commenter # 1:

"Kooks, weasels, fools and hypocrites."
...-

Stephen:

I agree it is a small point, but I am arguing it because I am now curious. To me it is obvious that 2+2=4, yet you and others are saying that 2+2=4.1 and I just can’t see it.

Anyway, to take your household budget example, what we need to do is to look at the effect that the different components would have on the total. For example we could look at the effect of entertainment costs. If you were to not spend the $25 on entertainment, instead of being overdrawn by $8 you would have $17 left.

That is all I am saying. We produce more CO2 than ends up in the atmosphere. If we were not around to contribute this amount (i.e. we did not spend the $25 on entertainment) would the concentration still rise?

JET: The fact that there is CO2 saturation in the range you mention does not mean that adding more won’t cause warming. Pressure broadening brings in the side bands which are not saturated.

But there is another side to the warming caused by CO2 which has nothing to do with saturation. Lets say that the earth’s atmosphere is separated into layers based on their CO2 content (i.e. so much CO2 per layer). As we go up through the layers we eventually reach a point where the radiation from CO2 can escape into space.

Now, if we look at what is happening in the layers below we can see that the bottom one is warming the earth a fair bit. However the next layer also provides energy to warm the earth (albeit it somewhat less than the first since the first is in the way). The same for the third and so on.

Now, we need to look at properties of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not uniform and will be warmer at the bottom with temperature decreasing as we go up. Layer 1 is generally the warmest. Layer 2 is cooler than the bottom layer and so on. This means that the downward radiation from layer 2 is being emitted by a layer that is cooler than the bottom layer. The same for layer 3 which will be cooler than 2 - and its turtles all the way up.

Now, for simplicity sake, lets say that the layers act like blackbodies (they don’t but the effect is close enough for this simple look). Thus they radiate in proportion to their temperature.
To this system we add more CO2. What this will do in effect is to add more CO2 to the layers which will now take up less vertical space (i.e. less space to get the same amount of CO2 – remember our layers are based on CO2, not elevation). In effect this moves all the layers lower. Lower layers will radiate at higher temperatures. Higher temperatures mean more IR radiation. This in turn means more IR striking the earth’s surface.

The effect is small which is why a doubling of CO2 will result in only between a 1 and 2 C rise.

It is interesting to the historians that, the argument that the CO2 is saturated in regards to IR is an old argument and represents the consensus about 100 years ago.

I have also heard the argument made based on the top of the atmosphere (i.e. adding more CO2 would shift the point where IR can escape into space to a higher/colder level).

Regards,
John

Those of you who have open minds about the so-called manmade global warming may want to read this interview with Freeman Dyson (if you don't who he is, you are scientifically illiterate). He has done climate research – it does NOT support the true believers.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/29/freeman_dyson/index.html

no, john, I've looked at your points and constantly said that you have a problem.

Your outline of the 'cause' of warming, (and you confine it to human caused CO2), is mechanical and reductionist. That is an invalid analysis for a non-mechanical complex system.

That's the crux of your problem. You refuse to acknowledge the existence of and the operation of the biotic realm, ie, the operation of a complex adaptive system. [Abiotic systems are also complex but operate with far less flexibility to transform their morphologies and interactions than the biotic realm - so, we can focus on the biotic and examine how it deals with climate changes.]

And no- there's no apocalyptic scenario in a complex adaptive system. Apocalyptic events happen only in mechanical systems - when all the lights blow. Or in fiction - as in the Kyoto Cult.

Your problem, apart from your ambiguity, is your view of climate as a mechanical system.

So JC, what are you suggesting ?? That now is the first time that the climate has been warm enough to grow grapes in the UK ? Ever ??

Roman times I believe. But, oh no. It is a tactic of muddy trolls ---- lobe it in without telling the whole story.

Snake oil works also. 0.0001 % of the time. By coincidence. ET is right --- you have a problem.

Join the others at the G&M as even those commenters have pulled the plug on Kyotoism.

The Globe just sang the praises of Gore in Victoria. Part of his preach conveniently forgets the facts of Kate's post here.

But, before the Globe pulled it, almost every one of the globe's own 51 commenters ridiculed the article. Very telling, JC.

John Cross,

Re your 9:41 comments on Co2 radiation band saturation.

Your points seem to come from an RC blogspot from a few months ago.

Are these points just longhand for ΔF = αln(C/C0)?
If so, why not just say so, and save bandwidth.

Arrhenius's formula by defintion, obviously don't allow for 100% saturation, just a decreasing effect for more C02 added.

Regards,
Dave C

ET,

A question, if I might, that your comments have made me think about.

Would not the treating of climate as a mechanical system grow from the attempts to model the system? *Mechanical* linkages and linear reactions would simplify the modeling, would it not. You push here, it moves there, in a predictive fashion. I push with 1x force on this end, it moves 2x on the other end. I add this, it will react in x + y fashion. I take away this, it will react in x - y fashion.

In contrast, in an adaptive system with a large number of variables, all in some large or small state of constant flux, the modeling would become extremely problematic. For instance, in such a model, where 10 values are inserted for 10 variables, a predicted change results. Now, which input variable caused the change? Or, what percent of each input variable contributed to the change?

Weather and climate are not static systems. Nor are they mono-variable. So, has the attempts at modeling of such non-static, muti-variable systems ultimately (by necessity) resulted in a *mechanical* approach, and *mechanical* results?

I would be interested in what the modelers and programmers that frequent sda have to offer regarding such approaches and results.

Climate Models

Junk In > Junk Out

Global Warming or whatever the proponents of same are calling it now, is the new gay marriage, Vietnam, racism, abortion, or whatever other leftist cause celebre has been amplified regardless of facts, in the past.

It was hatched by a hard core socialist (M. Strong) and is promoted by a sympathetic media. If anyone with a computer can find evidence that would seem to bring into serious question the claims of the AGW crowd, you would think that there would be a lot less concensus in the media, were it as unbiased as it claims to be.

At its core it is based on feelings with some nice, incomplete (and sometimes outright false) statistical window dressing, with the ultimate intent of wealth redistribution.

Prior to the age of internet, when this scam was hatched by Strong, it is easy to see what the architects of the Kyoto Protocol decided the modus operendi would be.

Create the scare in the synchophantic Lib media, keep a tight hold on the information that is disseminated, call out anyone who disagrees as a heretic, and use the repeated, repeated and repeated (by same media) dogma as justification that AGW is true, as well as a justification to implement the broader aspects (Carbon Tax) of the M. Strong brainchild.

Thats where the unforseeable creation and growth of the internet have thrown this thing off the rails and why the media, and the proponents of AGW are looking like complete idiots now. It was not forseen that the left would lose its hammerlock on information dissemination - and lose it in an exponential fashion.

Yet the left and the media stay the course. Usually when the con is exposed, the con man packs up and moves on. There must be a lto invested in this scam to make so many continue to pimp this issue when it is cleary costing them credibility (and dollars)

The other blindside that the left recieved was that conservatives figured out how to fight fire with fire.

In the past the the left would find issues that they knew were opposite of basic conservative values. They would get them percolated to the top of public awareness with the above mentioned compliant Lib media, and then bait conservatives into a public debate. Media would then promote the Lib viewpoint as "progressive" and the Conservative rebutall as backward, hateful, angry, hidden agenda, scary etc, etc, etc.

It was supposed to be the same way this time, except Conservatives realized that the best way to fight this was not with reason - for their message would not reach the public - but to actually embrace the issue with a vigour beyond that of the Libs.

That strategy has absolutly confounded the Libs and the Lib media.

They clearly have no idea where to go, so all they can do is go back to the old template and continue to promote AGW as a fact, demonize the "deniers" and fire tired rhetoric at the Conservatives, despite the fact that it is clear to more and more curious people (thanks to the internet) that AGW is anything but certain - and more to the point just a big lie.

This was supposed to be the new stick Liberals were going to beat conservatives with for the next few years guaranteeing their continued wielding of power in Canada, but M. Strongs protege Paul Martin dropped the ball, and replacement M. Dion is the new accidental quarterback.

Bottom line is that the earth has been around for 4 Billion plus years before man made and appearance and will be around long after man makes his dissapearance. It is an object in space like millions of others and one day it will come to its end as well. There have been cataclysmic occurances far beyond what man could ever do in the past, and the earth is still here.

The earth does not care what form or shape it takes, so any action that is based on saving the earth is ridiculous.

If the action is to save life on earth, well life seems to have survived the last few glacial periods and tropical warmings without Liberal-far left intervention so why should this time be any different?

I tip my hat to those who continue to rebut the ongoing lies by AGW profiteers and promoters.

yoop- I don't think that the action of treating climate as a mechanical system is due to modeling attempts. Certainly, modeling itself is 'kind of mechanical', but, the problem isn't the act of modeling. But the type of model.

A complex adaptive system has an internal process of learning, which enables it to pick up information from the envt and actually change its own compositional nature.

A mechanical system has no internal process of learning. It may be able to pick up information from the envt; it can't change its own nature. It relies on an external agent to make any changes. Therefore, a mechanical system is reduced to being an 'aggregate of particular units'. The external agent will oversee the nature and operation of these units.

You can see in the outline of AGW (caused by man's CO2) and its assumed remedy (stop human CO2) that this view sees the earth as a mechanical system, controlled by an external agent. In this case, the external agent is man.

A complex system, however, operates by that internal control system - a very important part of its composition. How do you model a complex system? You posit a self-organized process of learning and information gathering within the system.

Then, you have to examine how this learning and adaptive system works. How do native mussels change their own form to inhibit an invasive crab from eating them? They thicken their shells. So, this is a self-organized learning process that deals with environmental change (the crab).

Science is focusing a lot on these self-organized learning capacities - exploring how the organism gathers information about its envt, how it decides to change its composition, etc.

My concern with the notion of AGW is both its reductionism to a single cause, its view of climate as mechanical, its rejection of climate as complex and therefore adaptive - and, the concomitant take-over of this mechanical model by Kyotoism, which is a money laundering cult.

The atmosphere is not uniform and will be warmer at the bottom with temperature decreasing as we go up. Layer 1 is generally the warmest. Layer 2 is cooler than the bottom layer and so on. This means that the downward radiation from layer 2 is being emitted by a layer that is cooler than the bottom layer. The same for layer 3 which will be cooler than 2 - and its turtles all the way up.

Huh? First I've heard that a cooler body can heat a warmer body.

Dave C: Thanks for a direct and polite question. It is becoming a rarity these days!

I recall the RC post you are thinking about (called a Saturated Gassy Argument or something like it), but no I did not take it from there, my approach is quite different. They like to look at things from the top of the atmosphere as opposed to the bottom. I think the bottom is easier to understand.

Which leads to my next point related to Arrhenius's formula. First, I find that people are generally unconvinced by a formula and I try to interpret what the formula says or means. I think that is even more important in cases like this when we are dealing with empirical formulas. There is a lot that we know now that Arrhenius did not. So while it might seem to have wasted bandwidth, it probably would have saved in the end since it would cut down on the comments asking “what does that have to do with anything”? ;-)

Regards,
John

ol hoss: everything at a temperature above absolute zero emits energy. If a body is in the way of this energy it will receive it and thus some warming will be imparted. A cooler body (call it body A) can't warm up another body to a temperature higher than body A's which is the case I think you were referring to.

Regards,
John

[Posted by: ET at October 1, 2007 9:16 AM]

"Certainly, modeling itself is 'kind of mechanical', but, the problem isn't the act of modeling. But the type of model."

I think that is what I was getting at. The type of models used do not, and probably never could,accurately include and portray the adaptive nature of the climate, or nature, or the earth.

Models were needed to *understand* such a large and complex system. Hence models were created.

But the models had to be reduced to treating the climate in a more mechanical way for the input of variables (that could be measured and provided), and more linear results (that could be recognized and interpreted).
[That is as much a question as it is a statement]

It follows then, that if one were to work with such models, and accept the results, for a long enough period, one would tend to begin to believe that the system being modeled (the climate) and it's variables were indeed a *mechanical* system.

Since no one can explain the variables that drive an adaptive system, there is no accurate or meaningful way to identify and code the necessary variables. Hence the reduction to what is understood: *mechanical* models and *mechanical* thinking.

Chicken or egg?

ol hoss: everything at a temperature above absolute zero emits energy. If a body is in the way of this energy it will receive it and thus some warming will be imparted.

How is this "energy" magically turned into added heat for a body already warmer than than "body A"?

Hard to believe supposedly educated people can believe the equivalent of water running uphill.

What you describe is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.

Ward, 12:34AM, you said it all !!

And notice there are no Kult heavy weights[sic] trying to defend the indefenceable. All they do is supply muddy trolls.

Ward was also the first, that I know of, to predict(a few weeks ago) that the media would conduct a concerted (Reuters, AP, CP) effort to take down Dion. Not useful to the AGW social plan any more. Blogs knew it all along.

Perhaps we are near the time the MSM will take down Kyoto itself. Could be the biggest career bloodbath the world has ever seen. If only the schools would have allowed some access to Patrick Moore the last couple of decades. Not just wall to wall Suzuki.

ol hoss, to quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, objects lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared heat is regained by absorbing the heat of surrounding objects. For example, a human being, roughly 2 square meter in area, and about 307 kelvins in temperature, continuously radiates about 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, in a room of 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. Clothes (having poorer thermal conductivity than human skin, therefore reducing the speed of heat loss from the human body to surrounding environment) reduce this loss still further.

Ron, ward - I don't think that the AGW theory and the Kyoto money laundering can be completely traced to the 'sinister agenda' of one man (Strong) or one political party's equally sinister agenda. They are now, indeed, all linked, but causally, I think things are more complex.

The ideology of Man as Sinner by his acts, to be redeemed by giving up material goods, or face a fiery apocalyptic end is an ancient mythic tale of primitive societies and found also in monotheistic religions. So, the AGW theory with its apocalyptic scenarios is a common psychological tale of human fear. Such tales will always be around and various issues will be emerge over time as examples of Man as Sinner and the required redemption. Right now, it's CO2.

What has happened this time, is that the tale has been used within a political economic agenda of the left. Under the agenda of the socialist UN, the tale has been used to hide and cover a massive money transference scheme.

The agenda here is to lessen the industrial (and therefore political) powers of the west. And, increase that of the UN's babies, the 'developing' and 'undeveloped' nations. The tactic has been, not to hand over money as loans which must be repaid. But as Sin Money. Neat.

Then, there's the agenda of the socialist left in all parts of the West. The left - in the West (does it really exist anywhere else?) has an agenda of Big Govt Rule. Most people on the left are in govt jobs (teachers, health care, govt, unions) and rely on the govt for their income. They promote big govt and are against private enterprise. So, Kyotoism, which is a big govt process, fits right in with their agenda of socialist control over everything and in particular, their antagonism towards private industrial enterprise.

I think socialism will always be around; many people like to be part of that bureaucracy that governs everyone. It's interesting but socialists always talk about 'freedom' when in reality they are as opposed to freedom as any totalitarian dictator.

So- there are three issues that contribute to the mainstream focus on AGW, Kyotoism, Big Govt Control. They aren't necessarily linked but they have become connected because each uses the other for their own agendas.

However, there still remain those people who focus on AGW -->global warming not for any of the above three reasons but because they think in a linear and reductionist mechanical manner. I'd put John Cross in this set.

However, the energy lost by emitting infrared heat is regained by absorbing the heat of surrounding objects. For example, a human being, roughly 2 square meter in area, and about 307 kelvins in temperature, continuously radiates about 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, in a room of 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

That's nonsense. The body "receives back" exactly nothing until the body's temp. is lower than it's surroundings.

A cooler body cannot heat a warmer body, period.

Sorry to play the devil's advocate on you ET, and I'm the first to admit I'm no scientist, with very little grounding in this issue. What concerns me about your argument is this: there are plenty of examples where human activity has overwhelmed adaptive capability. Witness dead lakes, acid rain, runaway pollution, destruction of animal ecosystems. Some of these are on a fairly large scale, though not to the extent postulated by AGW supporters. Just asking; I'm really trying to get a handle on this thing, though I will always argue we should be focussing our efforts on alternative fuels, rather than arguing about AGW.

ol hoss, feeding a troll who quotes wikipedia is a waste of your time and pixels. I have occasionally found Cross's evangelism good for a laugh; but he gets close to albatros39a in the way he does not read posts/comments he “responds” to, and he slides around the rest. I skip over albatros39a’s comments, and I will be doing the same with John Cross.

Shamrock, “acid” rain was a farce, just like AGW; and “runaway” pollution only happens in backward, developing countries (e.g., China). The air quality in Canada and the USA (the EVIIIL USA) has been improving for generations; the USA now has more forest area than it did 100 years ago. And, the polar bears are thriving, there are FIVE times as many now as there was in the 1950’s.

Google Maurice Strong. Nobody, but nobody goes as far back as he does in this whole Kyoto scam. His roots are everywhere. A real life 'where's Waldo'.

Strong has been at the UN for a very long time and Kyoto came directly from that org.

Strong has been a long time proponent of all that Kyoto represents; population control, man bad, religious cults, champagne socialists imposing taxes on the sheep, end of the world, ....

Wierdos jumped on the band wagon (Suzuki Foundation, lattes, ect), but I maintain it was the guy from Oak Lake Manitoba that got it all rolling. He had the money and influence (Power Corp) to pull it off.

shamrock - a complex adaptive system works over time. Your very good examples ignore that adaptation takes time.

Think of how we first mined and used coal; that was disastrous to the envt, to the humans, to the animals - all covered and drenched in coal duts. Over time, coal mining cleaned up its act. Same with other examples. Over time, we cleaned up the causes of 'acid rain'.

China, right now, is like 19th century UK - with its coal plants. It will clean it up. But it takes time - and pressure from both external voices and its own population to make them do it.

My point is that biological systems adapt; they may adapt in a manner that enables that species to survive; they may adapt by the demise of one or more species and the emergence of others. But a complex adapative system is constantly 'busy' gathering information about its surroundings, and adapting to those surroundings. The world isn't a static place.

Human societies adapt also. At the beginning of the century, we moved out of heavy use of coal. Right now, we are adapting to our reliance on oil, and are searching out new energy sources. This will take time both in the research for the energy and the engineering of the new technologies to use that new energy source.

ron in kelowna - I see your point, but my own view of history is that it is rarely moveable by one person only. Other systems have to be ready to be moved by that person.

ol hoss: Lets try this one more time. Do you agree all real bodies (above absolute zero) emit thermal radiation?

Say we have a warm body. It will happily sit and emit thermal radiation into space. Now, lets place a warmer (hot) body beside it. The warmer body will emit radiation and act to warm up the cooler one (I think we agree on this). But what happens to the radiation from the cooler one. Does the cooler one stop emitting because a warmer one is beside it. Or does the warmer one stop absorbing because the radiation is being emitted by a cooler one (and if so how does it know the temperature of the body that emits it).

John

Agreed. Mo found a naive following. If not him, perhaps someone else would have come along.

The thing about Mo though, he had influence in a world body. An organization of bureaucrats, just itching for an excuse to rule the world.

And he had money. And he could use that 'Canada's place in the world' line that PMPM sickened us with. Canada did have surplus good will in the world and Mo spent it.

He may have pulled it off had the Internet not come along.

I have to admit, I was unaware of the scam until someone mentioned that Kyoto was a hoax, back in about 2000. This person had a very good track record. I googled Maurice --- avalanche !!

Before that time, the media had me, to some extent, convinced that AGW was a catastrophe. But it puzzled me why a degree warmer in Canada would be all bad.

Then along came the blogs and blew the MSM's cover.

As Kate stated at the beginning of this post "Little by little the "concensus" that Anthropogenic Global Warming exists is being broken."

Or does the warmer one stop absorbing because the radiation is being emitted by a cooler one (and if so how does it know the temperature of the body that emits it).

LOL, like Terrence said, you're good for a laugh.

"Human societies adapt also."
Sometimes they adapt by leaving the environment that is no longer capable of support their civilization, like the Anasazi, or destroy their environment leading to their extinction as so many other societies have in the past. So what next for us modern humans ET seeing we can't simply move over the next valley, Mars or extinction?

ol hoss: Hummm, I take it you have realized your error. Good enough.

Regards,
John

albatross - so far, human beings haven't become extinct. And societies don't become 'extinct'; what happens is that social structures change.

Human societies, as a mode of structural organization of a population, do reach a 'carrying capacity' and the whole infrastructure of the society must essentially collapse and a new structure is developed. That's the basis of growth since the earliest modes of social organization.

The 'carrying capacity' is primarily based on population size, and technological capacity to extract and use energy. This is also dependent on the ecological realities of the area. You can't grow wheat in the arctic!

Think about the medieval era in Europe, which had a particular social, political, economic, legal organization. It reached its 'carrying capacity' about the end of the 10th c..and, over the next four centuries, collapsed - as the next societal structure, a market economy based around the nation-state emerged during this same four centuries. It had completely different social, political, economic and legal structures.

The big irrigation societies all around the world (Inca, Aztec, Mayan, Egyptian..) all collapsed. But the people didn't disappear!! Instead, a different mode of economic, social etc life developed.

The nation-state (and colonies) collapsed within the two world wars - and what we are now seeing is the emergence of a global networked economy, made up of economically and societally linked popoulations BUT - with a focus on regionalism rather than nationalism. Strange combination- globalism and regionalism.

Again, social organization is dependent on popoulation sizes, energy availability and technology to extract and use that energy, and an adaptation to the local biome.

Our modern world is more and more an electronic world - we are undergoing rapid changes in information devt....quite a fascinating era.

So - your apocalyptic scenario is completely invalid.

If the science is settled, will we stop funding the Andrew Weavers of this world?

No, human beings have not gone extinct as a species, but populations of human beings have. I'll use one of the examples found in Jared Diamond's book “Collapse” when he talks of the people of Pitcairn Island. Not the people of the HMS Bounty, but the Polynesians who first occupied the island and were gone by the time the crew of the Bounty first set foot in Pitcairn. At better example could be Easter Island, though not completely extinct when found, they were a tiny fraction of their peak population and starving. The Easter Islanders had destroyed the carrying capacity of the island and like us had nowhere to escape to.
We can change our economic or social structures and we can even advance our technologies to suit the local environment, but eventually our planet will reach it's maximum carrying capacity and we will reach the end of our technological capabilities. Human population will either reach the earth’s carrying capacity as our technology can no longer keep up, or we will end up reducing it’s carrying capacity when we ruin the earth’s environment.
This may be a good time to repost this link
theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/LAC.20070929.BKCOOL29/TPStory/Environment

You first alby :)

ron in kelowna at October 1, 2007 11:52 PM
No matter how much you no doubt would enjoy that, it wouldn't make it all better.
The global population can be reduced ethically though birth control. Oh, and keep the Pope along with his minions quiet for a few decades.

Again, albatross - you are quite wrong. The fact that the populations of Pitcairn Island and Easter Island went 'extinct' had no effect - none- on the human species' robust capacity to continue as a species.

Kindly note that both your examples are isolate niches where the population was unable to leave; and unable to develop new technologies.

You have to consider the 'whole forest' and not one tree.

You don't understand biological dynamics. When a population reaches the carrying capacity of a particular environmental area - several things can happen to enable continuance. The first and simplest are two tactics: biological and social.

There may be wars of conquest, to obtain more resources. At the same time, within diminishing energy (food, resources) supplies, the population base will DROP.
This may be due to wars, disease, nutrition or simply the awareness of an inability to raise large families.
Finally, the technology will change.

No, biological systems, and humans are biological never exceed for more than a generation, the carrying capacity of their envt. They necessarily adapt - or, indeed, they go extinct. But, the human species, of all species, is the sole one with the capacity to adapt with a rapidity unknown in the other species.

It has a mind; so, rather than wait for a biological capacity to grow wings, we design airplanes. Rather than wait for wheat to produce more and larger grains, we select and domesticate the wild wheat to produce more food; we select and domesticate animals to provide food and energy. And so on.

You are thinking in a mechanical manner - that the human species will simply keep populating and increasing..way beyond resources. No. Remember the old families of 11 children? Now, families have one or two children in the west. There is an adaptive response that you are ignoring.

Equally, with regard to technology, there is NO limit to Mind, and its capacity to innovate.

So, don't worry and keep those apocalyptic scenarios at bay!!

Again ET, neither the earth nor the human mind is infinite.
Presently the glaciers are melting around the planet, the temperature is rising, CO2 is increasing still, and in the southern ocean there are now signs that some of the waters there have now become saturated with CO2. I'm not sure if you are aware of the significance when one of the coldest oceans becomes saturated or not, but it's one of those tipping points you've been hearing about.
With all of the evidence around the world telling us there is something wrong in the atmosphere, Bush and Harper announce they want to start the Volunteer Carbon Cutter's Club to. Volunteering to cut CO2 simply mean, we'll leave it for the other guy to fix the problem since we're too busy making money to bother with the future of the planet. It appears the human mind is indeed finite after all.

The difference between infinity and finitness has absolutely nothing to do with this situation, albatros. You are also, I think, incorrectly defining both. Finiteness doesn't mean 'static' and 'infinite' doesn't mean 'change'.

What you are missing, totally, is the notion of complex adaptation. So what if the polar icecaps in one part of the world are melting - while increasing their thickness elsewhere? This has happened before and will happen again.

What you don't understand, with your linear, one-way thinking, is that the complex system is adaptive; it will change its morphological nature according to its envt. You totally ignore this; you operate in a static mode - where something either exists 'as it always was' or 'dies'. That's not the way the real, natural world operates.

The real world is a complex system, and has an internal capacity to adapt. You completely and totally, in your static world, ignore the world's inherent - and very necessary - capacity for adaptation.

Again, adaptation has NOTHING to do with the concept of 'infinity'!

Et apart from incoming solar radiation the earth is a closed system, the resources available to exploit are finite, and the ability to adapt, especially when handicapped with a growing population is also has an end. Baring a major meteoric impact there is no new input of resources on this earth. I'm amazed at the ability of followers of Lomborgian stupidity to one hand to shrug of warning from scientists about pending global threats, and then on the other hand telling us that science will make sure we will see a future for humanity. It’s astonishing how selective a denialist can be when they don’t hear what they want to hear.
www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/play.html?pg=5

Albatross:

So why is this latest armegeddon scenario any different than prior ones such as the population bomb, global cooling or the running out of oil and other natural resources in the 1980's etc?

The left simply does not have a good enough track record for me to buy into their latest sky is falling predictions, particularly when there is so much evidence that is contrary to what is being peddled.

albatross - what amazes me about you is your mechanical reductionism. You simply don't understand the evolutionary capacities of a CAS, a complex adaptive system.

At one time, there were no mammals, fish, birds and plants on this earth; now there are. Where do you think they came from - outer space? At one time, there were only a few species on this planet; now, there are multi-millions. How did that happen within your view of a finite and closed world - which you envisage as something akin to a supermarket that is 'closing' and whose products and stock of items are finite and may eventually be completely sold out. That's not the way the world operates - it isn't a supermarket!

At one time a group could only support about 1,000 people by its technology; now, it can support millions in that very same spatial area. How did that happen?

I happen to think that Lomborg is right and suggest, not that you 'cool it' but that you try to get some understanding of complexity. At the moment, you are, like john cross, a mechanical reductionist.

I'm not shrugging off warnings from scientists; I'm shrugging off warnings from apocalpytic mechanical reductionists. There's lots of science that denies these apocalyptic doomsayers. I can equally say the same of you - that you are a denialist who rejects what you don't want to hear.

But, rather than transform this debate into religious dogma by saying that anyone who disagrees with me is a 'denialist/heretic'- as you are doing, I'm saying that the earth is not a linear mechanical system; it is a CAS and a CAS is highly adaptive. And that you don't understand complex systems. They aren't mechanical systems; the planet is not a closed supermarket.

"There's lots of science that denies these apocalyptic doomsayers"

We have yet to see any science from the denialists. Lomborg is not a scientist, and he's been discredited more ways than one. Anyone who follows that clown will be one of the lemmings off the cliff.

Tell me ET, what is your understand of what I said above, that there is evidence the cold southern oceans are showing signs of CO2 saturation. What in your mind are the implications of that?
Would that be a possitive or negative feedback? Is it a big deal in your mind?

albatros - your logic is faulty.

You are saying that IF you deny AGW (and an apocalyptic future) THEN, you are not a scientist. You must realize that's logically invalid, because by that proposition, you have removed AGW from scientific discourse!

There are a lot of scientists who reject AGW and they are genuine scientists, in all the fields that are relevant - including climatology, eaerth sciences, geology, atmospheric sciences etc. Don't fall into that fallacy that if you reject AGW, then you are not a scientist.

The change in the Southern Ocean's ability to absorb CO2 is only a variable in the CAS - and you simply don't understand that a CAS is dynamic and adapts! In your view, everything must be kept static and unchanging; if it changes, then you view this as catastrophic. But the planet/universe is not a mechanical but a complex system.

Therefore, if there are higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, this doesn't mean the fiery apocalyptic end of Sinful Mankind. It simply means that the biological realities of our planet will change; these realities will use that extra CO2 rather than crumble before it in a fiery hell.

Stop thinking of the world as a mechanical static thing; it isn't; it's complex.

"You are saying that IF you deny AGW (and an apocalyptic future) THEN, you are not a scientist." --No, that's a straw man argument. I'm saying Lomborg isn't a scientist, he's a statistition that doesn't have a clue about the science he’s writing about. sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

I'd like you to show me a genuine article written by one of those genuine scientists you are referring to. Preferably a genuine climatologist if you please. One that hasn't been discredited like Tim Ball would be nice. The title of the article, the author, the journal it appeared in. The date would be nice too.

"The change in the Southern Ocean's ability to absorb CO2 is only a variable in the CAS - and..... planet will change; these realities will use that extra CO2 rather than crumble before it in a fiery hell."

Oh my, your knowledge of this is astoundingly limited, isn't it? The fact is the ocean is a key factor in climate change, both when it warms and cools. One might say the ocean is the key factor in climate change. When you say “these realities will use the extra CO2 rather than crumble before it in a fiery hell” you don’t realize how incredibly naïve that statement is. CO2 is but one element in photosynthesis, so without an abundance of the other things that plants need like phosphorous, nitrogen and of course water, that extra CO2 does nothing for the plant. It’s like a starving rich man alone in the desert. He has the means to buy food and water, but there is no food or water to buy so he starves to death anyway.

Sure, you are right the earth will find a new equilibrium and eventually in a several hundred to thousands of years the atmosphere will recover from human influence. In fact, humanity itself might actually survive global warming even if it goes well beyond 2 degrees C. and we may actually be able to adapt to a changing world. This won’t happent without major changes to the human race. Like the Globe and Mail article I linked above, if humans are left to their own greed as we are doing now, there will to be a crash in population. Whether that crash is due directly to climate change, food production or whether that crash is as a result of a pandemic who knows, but there is going to be a crash if we leave things as they are. We are those happy fruit flies doing well in the jar as the air starts to turn toxic.
Personally I don't want to look my grandchildren in the eyes and say sorry I did nothing to help your future, you're on you own, deal with it. Starve if you have to but that’s nature. I want to hand them a world that isn't toxic or a threat to their lives. I'm not ready to write off the future of humanity because some redneck doesn't want to cut back on his/her fossil fuel dependency buy purchasing a low emmision vehicle. Humans have walked the earth now in one form or another for about 6.5 millions years and I hope we have just begun as a species and that we are not looking at the end of the road.

Here’s the new release
ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37774

Here’s the journal article in “Science” that it’s reporting
Le Quere, Corinne. “Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change.” Science Vol 316, page 1735 2 June 2007

Nope, albatros - I don't buy your argument.

First- my rejection of your propositional IF-THEN is not a straw man tactic, but a valid rejection. Your IF-THEN is illogical. Read what you wrote.[We have yet to see any science from the denialists]. That effectively means that Someone who denies AGW, is not a scientist!

Second - a minor point, but humans haven't been around for 6.5 million years. Try 200,000 years.

No, I'm not posting all the data. You can google names yourself. Check out people like Roger Pielke, H. Tennekes, Reid Bryson, Ian Clark, Wm Gray..and more. Of course - you'll reject all of them also. Remember your propositional argument you've made - that anyone who denies AGW, is not a scientist!!! [We have yet to see any science from the denialists].

The reason I don't 'think my comments are incredibly naive' is because they aren't. You don't understand CAS - and the adaptive process. You are still thinking in a static mechanical manner. So, if there's lots of CO2 in the atmosphere and the plants that are there can't absorb it, well - the biome will very happily enable MORE plants to develop so that MORE CO2 will be absorbed. The earth is NOT static, as you imply. Or, other organisms in the ocean will develop to absorb that CO2. Google 'salp swarms'.

I don't accept your apocalpytic tear-sodden future. Or your definition of a 'denier' as a 'redneck' or - your laughable statement that the way out of your apocalpytic future is to purchase a 'low emission vehicle'!! Heh.

You should read up on biology and CAS. But- I've said my bit on this matter - and you can continue to enjoy your Sinful Nature as Evil Man and the Apocalpytic Future.

Cheers.

"You can google names yourself."
You made the claim about "genuine scientists" ET, you back it up! I see a lot of opinion, but few facts being backed up.

Now just how long, in you opinion, do you estimate that it will take for these organisms to adapt? Does Lomborg tell you this?

BTW. I'm (admittedly lazily) referring to humans in the generic term including australopithecines. If you want it by definition, humans encompass all species falling in the Homo genus, which includes the oldest known species, H. habilis who appeared 2.5 million years ago not 200kya. H. sapiens first appeared on the scene between 250 and 350kya.

Record sea ice in Antarctica.

RicardoVerde:

No doubt Yoop will be along to correct you and say that it is not a record since it was bigger in the last ice age. ;-)

By the way, record low sea ice in the arctic (since 1975 of course).

Regards,
John