Climate 'Study' By Non-Scientist At EPA Is Right's New Cause Celebre

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

Who says it is at staturation? If it was then more CO2 isn't going to increase temps until we hit a tipping point and we get run away green house and turn into Venus. The 800 year lag does mean that varying CO2 levels will not be a good indicator of future temps. That is the whole point. If that theory is correct then looking at CO2 levels makes no sense. It is other factors that cause our global temps to change. The sun is the main one, water vapor and methane are two others. This is my whole point. CO2 isn't something we should worry about. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and a very minor contributor to the general temp of the planet.

The article you yourself posted a link to earlier today.

As for arguing that an 800 year cycle is nothing to be concerned about pertaining to CO2 levels... it is quite irresponsible. Again- lets review the difference between temperature shifts due to climate factors and weather factors. Both have very different time scales.

The same article you posted claims CO2 is unmistakably a greenhouse gas- and in one fell swoop (several, actually), discredits it as such when it is quite admissible and clear that not only is it one, but that the complete story behind its action (and that of other factors) is still incomplete. Rushing to conclusions right now is very irresponsible and in science, one should always consider ALL contributing factors until they have been ruled out.

CO2 has not been ruled out by a long shot, and chemically, physically, and even biologically... a mountain of evidence indicates that on a planetary scale it does indicate its role in climate change. Much more so than data that may minimize its role in such events and much more than in its misinterpretation.

Alright, I misread what you said. If the reflectivity factor of CO2 is at saturation then how do we explain the rise in temps over the last few decades before it leveled off? Quite simple, the other factors I have been talking about. Methane, water vapor but most important, the sun. Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many. When compaired to methane it is a very small contributor to the overall temp of the planet. When put up against the sun it is even less important. There are many other factors that haven't been taken into account with the man made theory. The variations in the earths orbit and spin of its axis are a few that pop into mind. The idea that CO2 alone is driving our temps is just as irresponsible and nothing more than fear mongering. CO2 isn't the huge problem it is made out to be. The changes are natural and will happen regardles what man does.

I wouldn't rush to claim that the molecular ability of CO2 to give off heat is at saturation. A few serious posts back I remind you that the planet has light/dark cycles where that CO2 is supposed to release more of that energy outwards into space.

Since the atmospheric CO2 levels are smaller compared to inert gases, there is therefore room for more. The more there is, the more energy capacity, thusly... the atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT at saturation for energy content and release (reflection) because it is a dynamic process.

At least we're 'on the same page' that CO2 is a greenhouse gas- its a start.

Yes, there ARE natural factors that create cyclic changes in atmospheric temperature. And YES, CO2 contributes to this. Yet another reason to NOT equate natural 800-year cycles of CO2/temperature with an absence of man-made CO2-caused GW- its two different things.

Besides, the only ones politicizing the debate are those that do not understand the science anyway.

[GaryC 7]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

Who says it is at staturation? If it was then more CO2 isn't going to increase temps until we hit a tipping point and we get run away green house and turn into Venus. The 800 year lag does mean that varying CO2 levels will not be a good indicator of future temps. That is the whole point. If that theory is correct then looking at CO2 levels makes no sense. It is other factors that cause our global temps to change. The sun is the main one, water vapor and methane are two others. This is my whole point. CO2 isn't something we should worry about. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and a very minor contributor to the general temp of the planet.

The article you yourself posted a link to earlier today.

As for arguing that an 800 year cycle is nothing to be concerned about pertaining to CO2 levels... it is quite irresponsible. Again- lets review the difference between temperature shifts due to climate factors and weather factors. Both have very different time scales.

The same article you posted claims CO2 is unmistakably a greenhouse gas- and in one fell swoop (several, actually), discredits it as such when it is quite admissible and clear that not only is it one, but that the complete story behind its action (and that of other factors) is still incomplete. Rushing to conclusions right now is very irresponsible and in science, one should always consider ALL contributing factors until they have been ruled out.

CO2 has not been ruled out by a long shot, and chemically, physically, and even biologically... a mountain of evidence indicates that on a planetary scale it does indicate its role in climate change. Much more so than data that may minimize its role in such events and much more than in its misinterpretation.

Alright, I misread what you said. If the reflectivity factor of CO2 is at saturation then how do we explain the rise in temps over the last few decades before it leveled off? Quite simple, the other factors I have been talking about. Methane, water vapor but most important, the sun. Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many. When compaired to methane it is a very small contributor to the overall temp of the planet. When put up against the sun it is even less important. There are many other factors that haven't been taken into account with the man made theory. The variations in the earths orbit and spin of its axis are a few that pop into mind. The idea that CO2 alone is driving our temps is just as irresponsible and nothing more than fear mongering. CO2 isn't the huge problem it is made out to be. The changes are natural and will happen regardles what man does.

I wouldn't rush to claim that the molecular ability of CO2 to give off heat is at saturation. A few serious posts back I remind you that the planet has light/dark cycles where that CO2 is supposed to release more of that energy outwards into space.

Since the atmospheric CO2 levels are smaller compared to inert gases, there is therefore room for more. The more there is, the more energy capacity, thusly... the atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT at saturation for energy content and release (reflection) because it is a dynamic process.

At least we're 'on the same page' that CO2 is a greenhouse gas- its a start.

Yes, there ARE natural factors that create cyclic changes in atmospheric temperature. And YES, CO2 contributes to this. Yet another reason to NOT equate natural 800-year cycles of CO2/temperature with an absence of man-made CO2-caused GW- its two different things.

Besides, the only ones politicizing the debate are those that do not understand the science anyway.

It is debatable whether we are at saturation or not. I leave that to those that study such things. However, in every theory supporting man made GW I have not seen any mention of the outside factors that could and will effect our climate. Show me a study that advances man made GW that takes into account the sun variations, orbital variations, contributions from methane, water vapor, ect.. I haven't seen any. All I see is the sharp focus on CO2 and ignoring all other possible fators. I have been shooting you studies and articles that explain my reasons for doubting man in the equation, show me studies that take everything into consideration that still say man made CO2 is what is making our planet warmer. I have done my best to convince you and seemed to have failed. Now it is your turn. Show me something that will change my mind.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

Who says it is at staturation? If it was then more CO2 isn't going to increase temps until we hit a tipping point and we get run away green house and turn into Venus. The 800 year lag does mean that varying CO2 levels will not be a good indicator of future temps. That is the whole point. If that theory is correct then looking at CO2 levels makes no sense. It is other factors that cause our global temps to change. The sun is the main one, water vapor and methane are two others. This is my whole point. CO2 isn't something we should worry about. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and a very minor contributor to the general temp of the planet.

The article you yourself posted a link to earlier today.

As for arguing that an 800 year cycle is nothing to be concerned about pertaining to CO2 levels... it is quite irresponsible. Again- lets review the difference between temperature shifts due to climate factors and weather factors. Both have very different time scales.

The same article you posted claims CO2 is unmistakably a greenhouse gas- and in one fell swoop (several, actually), discredits it as such when it is quite admissible and clear that not only is it one, but that the complete story behind its action (and that of other factors) is still incomplete. Rushing to conclusions right now is very irresponsible and in science, one should always consider ALL contributing factors until they have been ruled out.

CO2 has not been ruled out by a long shot, and chemically, physically, and even biologically... a mountain of evidence indicates that on a planetary scale it does indicate its role in climate change. Much more so than data that may minimize its role in such events and much more than in its misinterpretation.

Alright, I misread what you said. If the reflectivity factor of CO2 is at saturation then how do we explain the rise in temps over the last few decades before it leveled off? Quite simple, the other factors I have been talking about. Methane, water vapor but most important, the sun. Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many. When compaired to methane it is a very small contributor to the overall temp of the planet. When put up against the sun it is even less important. There are many other factors that haven't been taken into account with the man made theory. The variations in the earths orbit and spin of its axis are a few that pop into mind. The idea that CO2 alone is driving our temps is just as irresponsible and nothing more than fear mongering. CO2 isn't the huge problem it is made out to be. The changes are natural and will happen regardles what man does.

I wouldn't rush to claim that the molecular ability of CO2 to give off heat is at saturation. A few serious posts back I remind you that the planet has light/dark cycles where that CO2 is supposed to release more of that energy outwards into space.

Since the atmospheric CO2 levels are smaller compared to inert gases, there is therefore room for more. The more there is, the more energy capacity, thusly... the atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT at saturation for energy content and release (reflection) because it is a dynamic process.

At least we're 'on the same page' that CO2 is a greenhouse gas- its a start.

Yes, there ARE natural factors that create cyclic changes in atmospheric temperature. And YES, CO2 contributes to this. Yet another reason to NOT equate natural 800-year cycles of CO2/temperature with an absence of man-made CO2-caused GW- its two different things.

Besides, the only ones politicizing the debate are those that do not understand the science anyway.

It is debatable whether we are at saturation or not. I leave that to those that study such things. However, in every theory supporting man made GW I have not seen any mention of the outside factors that could and will effect our climate. Show me a study that advances man made GW that takes into account the sun variations, orbital variations, contributions from methane, water vapor, ect.. I haven't seen any. All I see is the sharp focus on CO2 and ignoring all other possible fators. I have been shooting you studies and articles that explain my reasons for doubting man in the equation, show me studies that take everything into consideration that still say man made CO2 is what is making our planet warmer. I have done my best to convince you and seemed to have failed. Now it is your turn. Show me something that will change my mind.

I understand where you're coming from, but all I can do for you is help you understand some of the science behind these concepts. Your mind is either set as it is or it can eventually come to grips with the scientific concepts.

From what I can understand about the many models that exist to explain the phenomenon, we can reduce it to the following:

In science, variables are exposed to experimental controls such that by this reductionist approach, questions about individual contributions to complicated phenomena can be answered as best and convincingly as possible. Are there alternative methodologies to account for other factors simultaneously? Sure there are. How can these factors be addressed in parallel? Usually- by computational approaches that I can't even begin to understand beyond the logic that goes into them.

The focus on CO2 as a major cause of MAN-made global warming stems from easy to understand places that we don't need to list here. What you call ignoring other factors is an experimental simplification that can be reversed and can even be found by doing simple lit searches (try Google Scholar: greenhouse gases for non-CO2 source material) Many of the other known causes have rather static sources. CO2 doesn't, and due to it being a product of mass industry and mass consumer culture... is the reason its such a hot-button topic.

And the article you posted argues that the net energy effect is at saturation... so if this is a scientist's perspective... I can definitely see why a non-scientist would be misled.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary,

If you are interested in looking for actual climate research, try RealClimate.

RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology by a group of climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. It aims to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion is intended to be restricted to scientific topics and to avoid political or economic implications of the science.

The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, though they exercise no control over the content. The contributing scientists are not paid for their time.

....

The creation of RealClimate was noticed by the academic journals Science and Nature.^[2][3]

In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:^[4]

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring." In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.

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

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary,

If you are interested in looking for actual climate research, try RealClimate.

RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology by a group of climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. It aims to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion is intended to be restricted to scientific topics and to avoid political or economic implications of the science.

The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, though they exercise no control over the content. The contributing scientists are not paid for their time.

....

The creation of RealClimate was noticed by the academic journals Science and Nature.^[2][3]

In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:^[4]

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring." In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.

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

Bet you have that one bookmarked don't you?

In honesty... its a pretty darn complete site.

[GaryC 7]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

Who says it is at staturation? If it was then more CO2 isn't going to increase temps until we hit a tipping point and we get run away green house and turn into Venus. The 800 year lag does mean that varying CO2 levels will not be a good indicator of future temps. That is the whole point. If that theory is correct then looking at CO2 levels makes no sense. It is other factors that cause our global temps to change. The sun is the main one, water vapor and methane are two others. This is my whole point. CO2 isn't something we should worry about. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and a very minor contributor to the general temp of the planet.

The article you yourself posted a link to earlier today.

As for arguing that an 800 year cycle is nothing to be concerned about pertaining to CO2 levels... it is quite irresponsible. Again- lets review the difference between temperature shifts due to climate factors and weather factors. Both have very different time scales.

The same article you posted claims CO2 is unmistakably a greenhouse gas- and in one fell swoop (several, actually), discredits it as such when it is quite admissible and clear that not only is it one, but that the complete story behind its action (and that of other factors) is still incomplete. Rushing to conclusions right now is very irresponsible and in science, one should always consider ALL contributing factors until they have been ruled out.

CO2 has not been ruled out by a long shot, and chemically, physically, and even biologically... a mountain of evidence indicates that on a planetary scale it does indicate its role in climate change. Much more so than data that may minimize its role in such events and much more than in its misinterpretation.

Alright, I misread what you said. If the reflectivity factor of CO2 is at saturation then how do we explain the rise in temps over the last few decades before it leveled off? Quite simple, the other factors I have been talking about. Methane, water vapor but most important, the sun. Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many. When compaired to methane it is a very small contributor to the overall temp of the planet. When put up against the sun it is even less important. There are many other factors that haven't been taken into account with the man made theory. The variations in the earths orbit and spin of its axis are a few that pop into mind. The idea that CO2 alone is driving our temps is just as irresponsible and nothing more than fear mongering. CO2 isn't the huge problem it is made out to be. The changes are natural and will happen regardles what man does.

I wouldn't rush to claim that the molecular ability of CO2 to give off heat is at saturation. A few serious posts back I remind you that the planet has light/dark cycles where that CO2 is supposed to release more of that energy outwards into space.

Since the atmospheric CO2 levels are smaller compared to inert gases, there is therefore room for more. The more there is, the more energy capacity, thusly... the atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT at saturation for energy content and release (reflection) because it is a dynamic process.

At least we're 'on the same page' that CO2 is a greenhouse gas- its a start.

Yes, there ARE natural factors that create cyclic changes in atmospheric temperature. And YES, CO2 contributes to this. Yet another reason to NOT equate natural 800-year cycles of CO2/temperature with an absence of man-made CO2-caused GW- its two different things.

Besides, the only ones politicizing the debate are those that do not understand the science anyway.

It is debatable whether we are at saturation or not. I leave that to those that study such things. However, in every theory supporting man made GW I have not seen any mention of the outside factors that could and will effect our climate. Show me a study that advances man made GW that takes into account the sun variations, orbital variations, contributions from methane, water vapor, ect.. I haven't seen any. All I see is the sharp focus on CO2 and ignoring all other possible fators. I have been shooting you studies and articles that explain my reasons for doubting man in the equation, show me studies that take everything into consideration that still say man made CO2 is what is making our planet warmer. I have done my best to convince you and seemed to have failed. Now it is your turn. Show me something that will change my mind.

I understand where you're coming from, but all I can do for you is help you understand some of the science behind these concepts. Your mind is either set as it is or it can eventually come to grips with the scientific concepts.

From what I can understand about the many models that exist to explain the phenomenon, we can reduce it to the following:

In science, variables are exposed to experimental controls such that by this reductionist approach, questions about individual contributions to complicated phenomena can be answered as best and convincingly as possible. Are there alternative methodologies to account for other factors simultaneously? Sure there are. How can these factors be addressed in parallel? Usually- by computational approaches that I can't even begin to understand beyond the logic that goes into them.

The focus on CO2 as a major cause of MAN-made global warming stems from easy to understand places that we don't need to list here. What you call ignoring other factors is an experimental simplification that can be reversed and can even be found by doing simple lit searches (try Google Scholar: greenhouse gases for non-CO2 source material) Many of the other known causes have rather static sources. CO2 doesn't, and due to it being a product of mass industry and mass consumer culture... is the reason its such a hot-button topic.

And the article you posted argues that the net energy effect is at saturation... so if this is a scientist's perspective... I can definitely see why a non-scientist would be misled.

You don't understand what I asked for. Sure I can look up studies and see the pro-man made arguments. IMO I don't see any that cover all the variables I spoke of. Without taking everything into account you are not left with a valid argument. I am not saying there is any one study that proves mans contribution to GW is wrong but there are enough of them that poke holes on your sides theory that makes me think that the whole theory hasn't been thought out enough. If man made GW is a done deal, and there is no reason for people like me to question it then there must be a definitive study somewhere that takes all known variables into account. If there is I would like to see it. I have gone to the site that Steven posted. It has all the usual CO2 arguments there but I have yet to see anything that puts the lid on the argument. Mostly what I see is the doom and gloom predictions of what will happen if we don't do anything. This isn't proof, it is scare mongering. Please, you seem settled in your views. As a scientist you must have seen something that convinced you of the role of man in climate change. Unless of course you have just played follow the leader and going along with the "consensus" without looking into it yourself.

[mawilson 2,133]

Whether it's real or not, adapting to climate change would be much less expensive than trying to mitigate it.

Much like Don Quixote fighting windmills - what a waste of time and resources trying to stop the inevitable!

[GaryC 7]

Gary,

If you are interested in looking for actual climate research, try RealClimate.

RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology by a group of climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. It aims to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion is intended to be restricted to scientific topics and to avoid political or economic implications of the science.

The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, though they exercise no control over the content. The contributing scientists are not paid for their time.

....

The creation of RealClimate was noticed by the academic journals Science and Nature.^[2][3]

In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:^[4]

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring." In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.

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

If you are interested in real climate research from the other perspective I invite you to look at this site.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

Who says it is at staturation? If it was then more CO2 isn't going to increase temps until we hit a tipping point and we get run away green house and turn into Venus. The 800 year lag does mean that varying CO2 levels will not be a good indicator of future temps. That is the whole point. If that theory is correct then looking at CO2 levels makes no sense. It is other factors that cause our global temps to change. The sun is the main one, water vapor and methane are two others. This is my whole point. CO2 isn't something we should worry about. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and a very minor contributor to the general temp of the planet.

The article you yourself posted a link to earlier today.

As for arguing that an 800 year cycle is nothing to be concerned about pertaining to CO2 levels... it is quite irresponsible. Again- lets review the difference between temperature shifts due to climate factors and weather factors. Both have very different time scales.

The same article you posted claims CO2 is unmistakably a greenhouse gas- and in one fell swoop (several, actually), discredits it as such when it is quite admissible and clear that not only is it one, but that the complete story behind its action (and that of other factors) is still incomplete. Rushing to conclusions right now is very irresponsible and in science, one should always consider ALL contributing factors until they have been ruled out.

CO2 has not been ruled out by a long shot, and chemically, physically, and even biologically... a mountain of evidence indicates that on a planetary scale it does indicate its role in climate change. Much more so than data that may minimize its role in such events and much more than in its misinterpretation.

Alright, I misread what you said. If the reflectivity factor of CO2 is at saturation then how do we explain the rise in temps over the last few decades before it leveled off? Quite simple, the other factors I have been talking about. Methane, water vapor but most important, the sun. Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many. When compaired to methane it is a very small contributor to the overall temp of the planet. When put up against the sun it is even less important. There are many other factors that haven't been taken into account with the man made theory. The variations in the earths orbit and spin of its axis are a few that pop into mind. The idea that CO2 alone is driving our temps is just as irresponsible and nothing more than fear mongering. CO2 isn't the huge problem it is made out to be. The changes are natural and will happen regardles what man does.

I wouldn't rush to claim that the molecular ability of CO2 to give off heat is at saturation. A few serious posts back I remind you that the planet has light/dark cycles where that CO2 is supposed to release more of that energy outwards into space.

Since the atmospheric CO2 levels are smaller compared to inert gases, there is therefore room for more. The more there is, the more energy capacity, thusly... the atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT at saturation for energy content and release (reflection) because it is a dynamic process.

At least we're 'on the same page' that CO2 is a greenhouse gas- its a start.

Yes, there ARE natural factors that create cyclic changes in atmospheric temperature. And YES, CO2 contributes to this. Yet another reason to NOT equate natural 800-year cycles of CO2/temperature with an absence of man-made CO2-caused GW- its two different things.

Besides, the only ones politicizing the debate are those that do not understand the science anyway.

It is debatable whether we are at saturation or not. I leave that to those that study such things. However, in every theory supporting man made GW I have not seen any mention of the outside factors that could and will effect our climate. Show me a study that advances man made GW that takes into account the sun variations, orbital variations, contributions from methane, water vapor, ect.. I haven't seen any. All I see is the sharp focus on CO2 and ignoring all other possible fators. I have been shooting you studies and articles that explain my reasons for doubting man in the equation, show me studies that take everything into consideration that still say man made CO2 is what is making our planet warmer. I have done my best to convince you and seemed to have failed. Now it is your turn. Show me something that will change my mind.

I understand where you're coming from, but all I can do for you is help you understand some of the science behind these concepts. Your mind is either set as it is or it can eventually come to grips with the scientific concepts.

From what I can understand about the many models that exist to explain the phenomenon, we can reduce it to the following:

In science, variables are exposed to experimental controls such that by this reductionist approach, questions about individual contributions to complicated phenomena can be answered as best and convincingly as possible. Are there alternative methodologies to account for other factors simultaneously? Sure there are. How can these factors be addressed in parallel? Usually- by computational approaches that I can't even begin to understand beyond the logic that goes into them.

The focus on CO2 as a major cause of MAN-made global warming stems from easy to understand places that we don't need to list here. What you call ignoring other factors is an experimental simplification that can be reversed and can even be found by doing simple lit searches (try Google Scholar: greenhouse gases for non-CO2 source material) Many of the other known causes have rather static sources. CO2 doesn't, and due to it being a product of mass industry and mass consumer culture... is the reason its such a hot-button topic.

And the article you posted argues that the net energy effect is at saturation... so if this is a scientist's perspective... I can definitely see why a non-scientist would be misled.

You don't understand what I asked for. Sure I can look up studies and see the pro-man made arguments. IMO I don't see any that cover all the variables I spoke of. Without taking everything into account you are not left with a valid argument. I am not saying there is any one study that proves mans contribution to GW is wrong but there are enough of them that poke holes on your sides theory that makes me think that the whole theory hasn't been thought out enough. If man made GW is a done deal, and there is no reason for people like me to question it then there must be a definitive study somewhere that takes all known variables into account. If there is I would like to see it. I have gone to the site that Steven posted. It has all the usual CO2 arguments there but I have yet to see anything that puts the lid on the argument. Mostly what I see is the doom and gloom predictions of what will happen if we don't do anything. This isn't proof, it is scare mongering. Please, you seem settled in your views. As a scientist you must have seen something that convinced you of the role of man in climate change. Unless of course you have just played follow the leader and going along with the "consensus" without looking into it yourself.

What's a valid argument again? What you state?

Gary... if scientific literature dealt with tell all research, there wouldn't be a need for the countless amount of researchers. In fact, simple accomplishments take time and dedication. That lid you seem to want to convince you is a collection of data that apparently you and a select few group of people, mostly from a very known and limited political agenda, tend to follow.

What you may confuse as holes in a particular theory are misinterpretations about what the science states, hence my very vocal opposition to your statements. I seem settled in my basic science, yes. And I have conducted enough experiments in my career as a scientist to have the knowledge that certain chemical characteristics- with CO2 as a component of many experimental systems ranging from teaching physical science to students to conducting experiments into the effects of CO2 on living systems, are much more important than what is mentioned in simple assessments about the entire phenomena studied.

As for what you define as following leaders... its called building on scientific knowledge. Decent scientists know to challenge flaws in all collected data- and the very fact that the peer review system exists is proof enough that there is a vetting system that draws upon past knowledge in order to ensure proper presentation of data. If you can't understand how that system works then we can cover that too. Don't take it too hard if you can't tell the difference between building upon prior knowledge and accepting prior knowledge as fact (which is what you do in rejecting well-accepted theories by actual scientists) just because *you* can't localize a tell-all research article that disproves what you want to accept as scientific fact- mainly... pretty much the rejection of something via the acceptance of something altogether independent.

And that ain't science.

Whether it's real or not, adapting to climate change would be much less expensive than trying to mitigate it.

Much like Don Quixote fighting windmills - what a waste of time and resources trying to stop the inevitable!

Mitigating it is where we're actually at now anyways.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary,

If you are interested in looking for actual climate research, try RealClimate.

RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology by a group of climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. It aims to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion is intended to be restricted to scientific topics and to avoid political or economic implications of the science.

The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, though they exercise no control over the content. The contributing scientists are not paid for their time.

....

The creation of RealClimate was noticed by the academic journals Science and Nature.^[2][3]

In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:^[4]

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring." In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.

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

If you are interested in real climate research from the other perspective I invite you to look at this site.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

Follow the money is all I have to say about these folks.

We're talking about actual science... vs...

you get the picture. I hope.

[GaryC 7]

Gary,

If you are interested in looking for actual climate research, try RealClimate.

RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology by a group of climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. It aims to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion is intended to be restricted to scientific topics and to avoid political or economic implications of the science.

The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, though they exercise no control over the content. The contributing scientists are not paid for their time.

....

The creation of RealClimate was noticed by the academic journals Science and Nature.^[2][3]

In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:^[4]

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring." In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.

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

If you are interested in real climate research from the other perspective I invite you to look at this site.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

Follow the money is all I have to say about these folks.

We're talking about actual science... vs...

you get the picture. I hope.

Follow the money, sure lets do that.

Following the Big Green Money Trail

You don’t need to be schooled in economics to understand the Big Green money trail, but it certainly helps. But even without a background in economics and finance, we can still pull together the pieces of the puzzle and gain some understanding as to what is actually going on behind the scenes.

I am beginning to believe that Al Gore is the most dangerous man in America – if not the world. Why? Because he has a massive amount of power and influence, he has the backing of the general public because he plays on their emotions, he has the backing of the media and Hollywood and there is a massive amount of money in play here.

But just how much is Al Gore playing with here? Well, let’s put aside his already well-known exploits (carbon offsets, $100,000 speaking fees, books, movies, Nobel prizes, etc) and look at some of his “other” projects.

Al Gore is the chairman of “Generation Investment Management” which is an investment company with the goal of “[encouraging] businesses around the world to be more responsible, ethical, and sustainable.” They currently manage about $1 Billion from institutional investors including several European pension funds. Their investment interests include business with interest in “climate change, poverty and development, ecosystem services and biodiversity, water scarcity, pandemics, demographics and migration, and urbanization.”

What is of interest here is the fact that Al Gore chairs a firm that makes money on the performance of their investments and invests in things that benefit from Al Gore’s environmental hysteria. In other words, Al Gore makes money when these investments perform well; and these investments perform well when Al Gore goes out and cheerleads for environmentalism and sustainability. But let’s take a closer look at where Generation has it’s money and how it is that they have outperformed market benchmarks lately:

Autodesk: $23,086,000

This was a mystery until I found their “sustainability” initiative section. “We provide technology, education, and support for programs that inform and promote innovations addressing current and future sustainable design challenges.” In other words, green design and engineering.

Blackbaud, Inc: $19,558,000

“Blackbaud is the leading global provider of software and related services designed specifically for nonprofit organizations.” Enough said.

Donaldson, Inc: $10,920,000

Specializes in filtration equipment. Currently design and sell “clean diesel” emissions systems.

General Electric: $29,475,000

GE owns NBC/MSNBC. GE is well positioned to make huge money off the Green movement. For an overview, check out GE’s “Ecomagination” site.

Greenhill & Co: $21,970,000

This one was a bit of a mystery until I discovered that Greenhill runs a venture capital fund that invested in YellowJacket which is involved in energy trading. The goal of the venture investment? “Firm Aims to Accelerate Growth in Energy Trading Marketplace”

Johnson Controls: $47,609,000

“Johnson Controls, a global leader in developing energy-efficient and sustainable solutions, is working at the forefront, developing batteries that will power current—and future generation high efficiency, lower carbon footprint vehicles.” Need I say more?

Metabolix: $6,672,000

Produces “natural”sustainable plastics including a “50-50 joint venture with Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), to commercialize the production of Mirel™ natural plastics.”

There are others, but these are some of the investments that really stick out. Others are just companies that are dedicated to being “sustainable” or “environmentally friendly.” Either way, as the green machine moves forward, the investments will grow.

But the money trail doesn’t just end there. Mr. Gore and Generation have teamed up with powerhouse Silicon Valley venture capital firm, KPCB (where Gore has recently become a partner) and have begun pushing the “Greentech” initiative. As they put it, “Greentech could be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century.” And not only is it the largest economic opportunity, but Mr. Gore seems to be on the receiving end once again.

But just what are they pushing? Biofuel technology, solar and geothermal energy, fuel cells… The usual array of green hype products. All industries that benefit from Gore’s environmental alarmism and green push.

What is of real interest here, though, is his “superficial charity.” As reported, Gore will be donating his [undisclosed] salary from KPCG to the Alliance for Climate Protection (which he coincidentally happens to chair anyway). Isn’t that nice of him? However, what most people don’t realize is the potential wealth that he stands to gain from being a partner (carried interest) which is actually taxed at a lower rate than a salary to boot. According to Fortune, Albert will not be giving this sum away. However, the size of that benefit is directly proportional to the success of Big Green, which means that it would be highly advantageous of Mr. Gore to continue with the global warming hysteria and keep pushing the green movement.

Money. It’s all about the green stuff, and I’m not talking environmentalism. The global warming, climate change, alarmist environmental surge is nothing more than a tool to make money… And who’s at the helm of this money-making machine? Mr. Al Gore, the person who coincidentally happens to be spearheading the entire movement.

Even if you choose to believe that climate change and global warming are indeed happening, it’s undeniable that the current movement has less to do with environmentalism than it has to do with money. Even environmentalists are starting to back away from the movement a bit, realizing that some of the biggest money players stand to do more environmental harm than good.

But this is the way of Big Green. While they may look good on the surface, and appeal to everybody’s hearts as big do-gooders, you need to read between the lines. Once you see what they’re all about (greedy, money-grubbing businesspeople), the allure of green fades.

http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/11/...en-money-trail/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gary's been bitchslapping you hippies since this morning, y'all are either gluttons for punishment or.... yaou fvckin like it. Perverts.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Randomizer

[HAL 9000 96]

AJ is so right. There really is no comparison. Science is no match for wanting to believe what we want to believe.

Clearly... what can climate scientists blog about that when Mr. Meyer clearly has them all by the ballz.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Clearly... what can climate scientists blog about that when Mr. Meyer clearly has them all by the ballz.

I just hope you don't like the feeling too much.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am waiting for the big thaw. So is Texas. They all seem to think once all the ice melts, Alaska will just be another chain of islands, and Texas will be the biggest state again.