Regards

a. the precise contribution of humans to warming

and

b. whether decreasing CO2 emissions would significantly effect warming

both of these questions have much less certainty than whether the planet is warming or not

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

The "climatologist" Tim Ball for one.........

both of these questions have much less certainty than whether the planet is warming or not
==============
In whose mind are those "the" key issues?  

Notice anything significant about Scorse's arguments (that no response should be undertaken until he and his fellow economists approve?)

Change the topic from global heating to cigarettes to notice the simularity:
============
the key issues are
a. the precise contribution of smoking to health problems

and

b. whether limiting tobacco would significantly affect health

both of these questions have much less certainty than whether cancer is increasing
==============

Perhaps the "key issues" are merely distractors thrown in to keep the discussion from progressing toward actions.

Given the stakes, an argument could be made that the KEY issue--the one that unlocks the problem--is just how aggressively we can get to a 75% reduction in CO2 emissions so that, as we learn more about the scope and scale of the unfolding problem, we don't learn that we made an irrevocable commitment to global heating of 3C or more.

It will always be quite easy to permit increased CO2 emissions if, by some miracle, we find that our reductions have been excessive.  

But if we allow the global heating denialists and the economists to prevent action, then we run the risk of getting the worst of all worlds: unchecked global heating AND the need for even more draconian responses that are even less effective.


The 5% Project

http://gristmill.grist.org/comments/2006/9/19/11408/1106/... )

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

I don't think there is any point discussion policy with people (like James Inhofe) who are still in the early stages of that journey.  Not that those discussion should wait for idiots like him...

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

I think Coby is just getting started. And it's not about convincing Grist readers, it's about informing people on how to talk to others who aren't so well informed...

I applaud Grist's migrating Coby's hard work onto Grist. I think it's a great place for it to gain a higher profile and a wider readership.

Whenever someone pops in a comment like the list of objections we are all so familiar with, there will always be a lot of people who have not heard it before and will pause and think, "hey, yea.  What about that?".  If the only answer they see is "what a load of crap!" or similar, it will only encourage them to trust the wrong person.

So do it for the lurkers, not the lost causes!

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

Meanwhile, like George Bush continuing to read "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes after being told the country is under attack, the economists say "now don't be hasty . . . "  and supposedly THAT's the issue?

This is from the Katrina/Global Heating Link thread right here on Grist
================
Global warming could cost the world's economies up to 20 per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) if urgent action is not taken to stop floods, storms and natural catastrophes.
That stark warning was given to Tony Blair and his cabinet yesterday by Sir Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank economist, and is said to have left cabinet ministers chastened by the magnitude of the threat posed by climate change.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1932727.....
=================


The 5% Project

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.

So, as silly as the arguments are, they are still out there!

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

But I definitely agree with you that it's time for addressing the consequences. That's the only thing that matters.

Coby, jjwfmme:
So what if a small core of nutjobs still insist on denying Global Warming? The majority of Americans don't. 60% (or whatever) are now "concerned" by it. In addition to  a much larger group of people internationally.

I'll admit that Inhofe and his ilk did untold damage with their sabotage campaign, and don't get me started about George Bush... But that's over now, thank God. Haven't you noticed how lonely George W. looks this election? Haven't you noticed the republican defections on this issue? The republican state of California's lawsuit to the car makers?

These are signs--signs that you're failing to read. Inhofe and his crew are being left behind by the great American centre, and you want to stop the boat and turn around because you've got a few things left to say to them? You want to go to the ends of the earth (ie Argentina) chasing down every last nutjob who denies Global Warming?

It's about consequences now, and that's going to be a much fiercer battle. We need every right-thinking person's attention on that--on the future. The fence sitters and laggards will soon be taken care of by the mainstream consensus that's developping right now. And just forget the extremists, they're not worth it.

Inhofe and his crew are being left behind by the great American centre, and you want to stop the boat and turn around because you've got a few things left to say to them?

Who says stop the boat?  Seriously, this is not an either/or situation.

You want to go to the ends of the earth (ie Argentina) chasing down every last nutjob who denies Global Warming?

He came to me, I chase no one.  But it sure is nice to have the right material at hand when such a fellow gets in your face, that's all.  I see people refer to my material from all over the web, gaming sites, fitness discussion forums, IMDB comment threads.  No one is chasing these "nutjobs", they are popping up and pontificating all over the place, and unlike readers of a site like Grist, the readers of these random venues are not familiar with the material.  This is useful for them, and it does not require stopping any boat to provide the required correction.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

It's true that they should not be seen as the ONLY tactic in the climate change debate. Sad to say, the climate change deniers rely heavily on propaganda techniques.  Other tricks come from the advertising and PR industries.  Rational argument alone does not cut it when you're faced with opponents who don't play fair.  One needs different training, different skills.

On the other hand, Coby's point is well taken that in debates, one is often addressing the "undecideds" in the audience.  Debates can be seen as an opportunity to articulate a point of view, rather than to beat an opponent.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Those whose minds are closed are a different story - they will simply rationalize away the information by one way or another.  In order to get through to such people, they need to be whacked with something that will create enough cognitive dissonance that will make cracks in their reality defense mechanisms.  Only then will their minds actually let new information in.

Because there is a big ideological aspect of denial - you know, enviros and liberals are chicken littles who don't understand the economy, or are commie leftists who want to ruin it and to turn the US over to administration by the UN, thus bringing on the apocalypse - my suggestion is to deliberately attack climate change denial from the right side of the political spectrum and business.  Such approaches could include, for example:

• quotes of how Exxon acknowledges that climate change is a serious problem that merits actions even despite uncertainty;
  
• prominent conversions to AGW, such as by libertarian skeptics like Ron Bailey or religious speakers like Pat Robertson;
  
• the Sense of the Senate resolution by a majority of Senators last year, and similar resolution by the House Appropriations committee;
  
• statements by prominent Republicans;
  
• statements by captains of industry/corporate members of PEW/insurers/investor groups, who are hardly looking to destroy industry;
  
• Bush's appointment of Paulson of Nature Conservancy/Goldman as Treasury Secretary;
  
• summaries of the actions taken in all of the states (and usefulness of having a coordinated national approach);
  
• cost benefit analyses and explanations of the problem as one of the failure or property rights and lack of legal mechanisms that allow fossil fuel users to push their costs off onto everyone else (the right thinks lefties don't understand economics).

Regards,
Tom

As far as global warming, caused by increased carbon emissions, goes, the graphs also seem to suggest that somehow we were admitting as much carbon into the atmosphere from 1900-1950 as were from 1950-2000.  I though it was the case that more CO2 emissions were being produced towards the end of the century?

There is no solid evidence that the global climate has changed this much this quickly at any time in the history of civilization.

The early 20th century warming was about as much solar variation driven as GHG driven.  CO2 is not the only factor changing climate.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

Two of the most common comments I hear from people are:

1. Mankind is very resourceful and in time they will find solutions and/or adapt.

2. I don't need to worry about it. It won't be a problem for me. I will be long gone before Global Warming becomes a catastrophic issue.

However I would like to have something more concrete for this. If anyone can thing of better/more countering reasons please pose them.

Thanks,
Devashi

Humans are responsible for this?  Ugh!!  Double Ugh!

In fact, when a bunch of United Statians sit around and argue about how they are going to convince the rest of the "humans" that this is a problem, you look silly, unprepared, and unaware.

"Humans" are not the problem:

The 1 billion people who do not even have adequate housing, food, or opportunties are not causing global warming. (There goes 20%)

Nor are the next 1 billion people who do not even own cars or use very much of the world's resources in their subsistence for a variety of reasons.  (There goes another 20%).

Further: Automobiles do not even produce as much CO2 as coal burning.

Biggest contributor to coal caused CO2 emissions?  Electrical generation. (United States coal burning.)

Biggest cause of coal burning increases in the past decade: computer use.

So you contribute to global warming (you use somewhere between 50 and 150 pounds of coal a week for your energy uses) in order to tell like-minded United States environmentalists that "humans" are the problem and sadly don't understand it.

No wonder this ideology is failing us.  There's no care in thinking this stuff through, no sense of nuance or subtlety.  You don't even know where the problem lies.

Humans?  No.  Institutions.  Structural arrangements that cause well-meaning people (like you) to be active parts of the problem while writing about your frustration with other "humans" who just won't wake up to their contribution...  

In history, we call this painful irony.

Regretfully,
Kip

With regard to the first response, I wish I could believe this, but I can't, and one of the reasons is because there are so many contributors to climate change, and the Earth's ecology, everywhere is being impacted. There's just so much we don't know to think that we can even begin to solve all the problems with technology. Not to mention the fact that technology itself creates negative impacts, like Kip noted above re: computers.

And adapt - humans probably will because we're so resourceful and we can tolerate so much. Even small numbers will be enough to ensure that we don't become extinct. But what kind of life would humans have in a post-climate change world? How much destruction would those alive during the most volatile times have to witness? How much pain and loss? Not only of loved ones but of beauty and comfort and spirit and joy. Loss of our home places, sometimes in actuality, other times to extinctions. Here in New England for example, loss of maples, snow, untold plant and animal species. Think of it. No maple syrup. No snow angels or sledding. No more breathing in clear cold January air, or feeling snow flakes melt on your face while standing in the hush of a winter snow at night . . . All these wonderful things could be, probably will be, gone in 100 years if things continue as they are.

Personally, I don't want to adapt to that world. But I'm not everyone. There are people who don't care and there are people who have such faith in technology that they won't listen. Perhaps examples where technology has failed would help, and there are many. The thing with technology is, it is controlled by fallible human beings. We are not perfect and we are not all-knowing. I have no doubt that technology holds some solutions. And I have no doubt that when/if enough of us put our minds and hearts and spirits into it, we come up with more.

And then there's the unknowable impact of qualities - compassion, gratitude, joy, understanding, increased awareness, for example - and actions like prayer and meditation, ritual and ceremony, all of which have energy and impact in subtle, or not-so-subtle, ways. Past and ongoing research studies demonstrate their real-world impact, especially with regard to healing.

We need it all. The best techology has to offer; law and policy changes; institutional, community, and personal changes; greater compassion for, well, basically everything and everyone; even, dare I say it, prayer, whatever that means to you. Whatever your thing is, do it. There's no reason to offend and there need be no dogma. The point is to offer our best selves to the task, to put that energy out there however works for you.

The cosmos, the universe, and ultimately the Earth and everything and every being here is pretty wonderous; and there's so much we don't know. The more we learn, the more amazing and even impossible at times, it becomes. Personally, I sense that the creative energy and possibility inherent in what we don't know, in the place of mystery and the unknown, may ultimately be what saves us, or, to put it differently it may be the essential "something" that enlivens and empowers our tangible, "real world" responses rendering them more effective. You can think of it like "the sum is more than the total of number of parts" kind of thing, which we've all experienced on some level at some point in our lives.

I guess what I'm saying is that at some point we will have exhausted all reason in trying to convince folks. Human beings aren't always reasonable and we each have our own brand of logic. What's logical to me may not be logical to you. I do believe, though, that eventually reality will speak for itself. Climate change will impact everyone equally -- skeptics and believers alike. But by then, will it be "too late"? That's the real question.

And Kip, yes you're right of course (I'm assuming your statistics are but even without them, your point is well-taken). That's my big, huge frustration. As individuals living in a world that basically denies the need for immediate change, with regard to energy, transportation, agriculture, etc., etc., we will continue to be the problem no matter how much we'd like it to be otherwise, until our country begins addressing these issues at the neighborhood and community level - the level will which enable real change of both actions and relationships. To do this we will need legislative and policy changes at the national and even international levels, along with the transformation of economic policy and accounting procedures and processes. In short, the transformation of our political, social, and economic systems is essential if we are to make changes at the level and scale necessary given the reality we're facing. Not impossible. Just unlikely, if you look at the situation logically - which is why I embrace a more-than-logical worldview.

Kip,

An institution is just a tool, like a saw, used by people to get what they want... more. Without people, institutions are just empty buildings.

What those people in those buildings want is another raise, so they can get a newer car, or move from an apartment to a condo and from there to a starter house so they can remodel it and add to it before they move to a nicer house in a higher class neighborhood, or possibly an island where they can have five acres and a goat yet still commute via a ferry to the city... and on it goes.

This is human nature. It isn't greed, it is how all normal people behave given the opportunity to do so, yourself included, assuming you are normal. We all need our egos stroked, some more than others of course.

Viewing this behavior as greedy and wrong instead of natural and inevitable, is where the environmental movement of the past got it all wrong and the old guard just won't let it go.

The billions of poor you mention are in a bad spot out of bad luck. Give them a good income, or a very successful farm (thriving small business) and they will follow the same pattern. The Chinese peasants are now buying SUVs. This has been true through all of human history. It isn't anything new. Greece, Rome, you name it, people have striven for status. They didn't have cars, they had chariots, slaves, villas, gold. What is new, is the number of people striving to obtain it.

Given unprecedented population size, wealth, and human longevity, the only thing keeping collapse in check is new technology, that provides more for less.

When they choose to limit family size, given them contraceptive technology to help them. When it is time for a shiny new car, give them a better option than the SUV, a car that can be recycled, spews no CO2 and runs on renewable energy. When it is time to buy a new home, give them the option to buy one that also runs on renewable energy. When someone wants to increase their wealth by clearing their rainforest to grow biofuels, give them the option of preserving it with carbon credit funds, so they can buy the renewable car and home provided by new technology channeled in the direction of envrionmental benignness, the new status symbol.

Or not.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

SML, I join Biodiv in appreciating your "more-than-logical worldview," seeing that a purely "logical" one would require us to find obstacles everywhere, which would reduce us to a helpless despair.

Thanks for mentioning prayer.  That, of course, will not be everyone's "cup of tea" (to use Amazing's cute expression).  But in a well-balanced life -- which, it must be admitted at once, not every religionist can be said to have; e.g., I doubt mine is very well-balanced -- , prayer can provide an insight into the world and the lives of the living beings in it, which tends to make the activities of that person who prays more clear-eyed, positive, serene, harmonious, peace-loving and effective.

We can never say enough about beauty.  Your words about winter in New England, soon perhaps a phenomenon that will only persist in some fortunate people's memory, and then will die with them, are most evocative.

I have my eye on a different kind of beauty in danger, which does not often get mentioned in Grist, or in environmentalist circles in general: the gathering doom of the world's great works of art.  Conserving the art that now can be seen in such public institutions as archeological zones, museums and churches requires a great deal of attention, money and popular will.  If, as grim forecasts predict, global warming will more and more prompt a vast movement of peoples, resulting in the destabilization of many governments and societies, then it is hard to see how such institutions are to hang on.  We have already witnessed a disaster that might be an example of what a very-bad-case scenario might look like, though it was not related to global warming: the plundering of the Iraq Museum, following the taking of Baghdad in April, 2003, and the loss of many antiquities of great importance.

One obvious artistic target of global warming, not because of social disruption but rather rising sea-levels, is the miraculously beautiful city of Venice.  Venice is so well-loved by so many people, including very many very rich people, that it is impossible to believe that they would allow it first to become an uninhabitable ghost-town, then to decay beneath the destructive forces of the sea.  On the other hand, the only practical solution seems to be to wall off the entire lagoon, once and for all -- but that would turn the ecosystem of the lagoon into an artificial environment, requiring human maintenance; and Venice, Murano, Burano, Torcello, etc., would be no more alive than pieces in a museum.  So, that solution seems hardly satisfactory.  And then it is compounded by the greater danger that I mentioned, that such maintenance would require social stability and popular will, and in the future they cannot be depended on.

To Kip and Biodiv: You are both right, but it seems you are holding different parts of the same elephant.

Biodiv, you may be right to say that environmentalists have always lost the attention and the respect of the majority of Americans, when they freely accuse "normal" Americans, individually, of such sins as greed.  I would just say that I do not find anything especially "natural," however "normal" it may have become, in the characteristic American lifestyle, which really took off and became more globalized toward the end of the 20th century, characteristized by the competitive, acquisitive materialism of people who greatly value the immediate interests (which anyway they do not necessarily evaluate correctly) of themselves personally and of their own households, and who value little or not at all the "common good," the interests of everyone in their communities and their societies.  Even if it is unfair to condemn individual Americans and Americanists (formed on the pattern of "Hellenist": people who are not Americans but have adopted American ways), nevertheless the society-wide conduct of systemic individualism and materialism may indeed deserve to be condemned with such traditional moral terms as "greed" and "selfishness."  Just because the American life style as you describe it, involving the constant desire for bigger and more impressive properties and movable objects, may be considered "normal," that does not at all mean that it must therefore be considered tolerable.

And by the way, not that there was ever any danger of anyone's making this mistake, but I am certainly NOT "normal."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

That's a pretty funny idea!

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

If you look into it, the biggest 'new' load is the plasma-screen TV, many of which suck down more power than a decent refrigerator.  These goddamn things are being sold like hotcakes.  This summer, the LA Times ran a story on the heatwaves and noted that California was running several tens of megawatts demand higher than in 2001--the PSC traced it to those goddamn TVs.

The 5% Project

I would just say that I do not find anything especially "natural," however "normal" it may have become, in the characteristic American lifestyle, which really took off and became more globalized toward the end of the 20th century, characteristized by the competitive, acquisitive materialism of people who greatly value the immediate interests

This uniquely American acquisitive materialism you allude to is an urban legend right up there with the noble savage. Both are incredibly persistent myths that many environmentalists continue to wrap all potential solutions around. Hanging solutions on a chimera has no hope of success.

The myths got their momentum with the sociology and anthropology leanings of the sixties and seventies. College kids were being taught that nurture was all-dominant. Human nature did not exist. Girls and boys behaved differently only because they were raised differently. We were purely products of culture. Thus, the materialism of America became a cultural phenomenon unique to the culture that spawned it. They were close, but they missed. The relatively huge wealth of a huge middle class was a cultural phenomenon, not the fact that people used it to advertise their status.

Go back in history and look at how all wealthy people behave. Look around the world today. A wealthy Middle Eastern businessman may choose to buy an American Cadillac because he saw one on American television, but if he hadn't, he might just as well have bought a dagger made from the horn of a rhino, or a primo racing camel for a million bucks. A pastorialist African uses the number of cows as a status symbol, but given enough wealth, he might very well buy a Land Rover to keep track of his cows in air-conditioned comfort.

A lot of research has happened in the intervening thirty or forty years. The God you worship, clothes you wear, food you eat, and things you buy vary from culture to culture, but human nature remains a constant. Increase a human beings wealth and watch what he or she does with it. Look around the world which is experiencing unprecedented spread of wealth. Note that everyone uses it in pretty much the same way, what they buy depends on their culture, but buy stuff they will. Nobody gives it all away to those with less, not even flawless perfect human beings like you and me.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I think that all of Coby's arguments are useful, but really only for someone whose mind is actually open.  

Those whose minds are closed are a different story - they will simply rationalize away the information by one way or another.  In order to get through to such people, they need to be whacked with something that will create enough cognitive dissonance that will make cracks in their reality defense mechanisms.  Only then will their minds actually let new information in."

I couldn't agree more Tom, I think that you hit the nail right on the head.  I don't believe, however, that that line of reasoning applys merely to global warming skeptics.  I wonder how many people who visit this site actually have an open mind.  The very title "how to talk to a global warming skeptic" smacks of closemindedness.  Don't get me wrong, I am glad this site is here and i appreciate Coby's efforts to organize all this data, but I think the real value of the site lies here in the comment section.  The initial arguement usually presents skewed data and defended in a manner riddled with logical fallacies (sorry Coby, this is not intended to be a personal attack and I hope you won't be offended if I call it as I see it).  I do not intend to delve into a description of those fallacies as that would require me to create a site of comparable size to this one (something I am unwilling to do and it would be of little benefit besides creating bitterness and more closemindedness.  To be honest, I usually only read the section so that I can follow and join the intellectual debate that follows.  If you are truly open minded, you will carefully consider both sides and then make a decision.  That would be the only real way to convince someone in "denial"...demonstrate that you are not in denial yourself.  I find that the arguements against AGW are much more intelligent and refined than this site credits them.  Sure the antithesis arguements are easy to refute at their most basic level...of course they're full of holes, but the same could be said of the arguements in favor of AGW at their most basic level.  I imagine most of you will simply disregard my comment, but I feel it will make a significant contribution to the overall discussion.

Just for kicks, jobobtwc, why don't you share just one such fallacy with us?

grist.org

If this were true, there wouldn't be so many intelligent resaerchers out there with legitimate and intelligent doubt

If you eliminate op-eds and advocacy websites you will not find any of what you describe above.  The reasearch journals do not have any examples of papers that show/claim/imply that there is no warming trend on this planet.  Go look, you will not find any.  Benny Peiser, a professional denialist, tried and came up with nothing.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/1511/4868


"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

Sorry about that.

I'm all for being "open-minded," but there comes a point at which refusing to draw the obvious conclusion is a stubborn tic, not a sign of enlightenment.  


grist.org

      Ok so since I have had sucha longwinded intro...I'll start with this one...
I read Michael Crichtons "State of Fear"  and i think he makes a few very good points in it, I understand its a fictional novel, but there is still relevant factual information used in it.  I liked the football field argument for one, how many of you are familiar with this argument?  There are far too many tangents to get lost on...so please...don't get too many going at one time...I will simply be overwhelmed with the references I'm sure you will provide.  Thanks...


A skeptic of everything

**"By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations."

Can the global temperature analyses even accurately assess past temperatures from 150 years ago?

How much am I supposed to trust the measurements and record keeping of arctic ice cap temperatures from 100 years ago, or whatever exactly is supposed to be the basis of these claims?

For starters, this is a comparison between satellite data and mercury thermometer readings. Couldn't the supposed temperature differences be at least partially the product of calibration errors, different methodologies, or simply an inherent lack of prcision in the earlier data due to less sophisticated instruments?

I look forward to some answers to these questions.

Many thanks!

--Ciani

I'll try to go point by point for you:

if models aren't being used to predict future temperatures, then how are they coming up with these future projections some 100 years down the road?

Please note that the quote from the article under which you pose this question was refering to warming that has occured already over the past century.  It is a common misconception that the claim the globe has warmed ~.8oC so far is the output of or derived from computer models.  So I did not claim that models aren't being used in the projections of the future, of course they are.

More importantly, what are the exact variables that go into these observations/projections? It seems there's always some mystery regarding the exact input being used to determine future climate.

All of this detail is publically available.  If you really are interested in the actual science you must begin with the IPCC report ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html ).  From there you can follow up on the references to scientific papers.  In many cases not only can you read the papers on these model experiments, but you can actually download the computer code.  This you are then free to read and run yourself.  For example, check out as much detail as you could ever want on the GISS Model E AOCGCM here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/  It links to reference manuals, howto documents and source code.  This page ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ ) has all the data on the forcings, both for the past and the scenarios for the future.

I'd actually be curious to see what equations are being used to arrive at some of these conclusions (which, incidentally, are constantly being altered as evidenced by the latest from the IPCC when they reduced projections from previous reports).

See above resources for your main question, however I wanted to note that changing projections will result from updated forcing scenarios not just altered equations, and I will further note that altering equations seems to me an entirely appropriate response to evolving understanding.  

The underlying insinuation you seem to be making is really a rather extraordinary claim (the world's climate scientists are perpetuating a huge fraud on the public) and requires some extraordinary evidence IMO, not just a passing hand wave.  

All that aside, I suspect by mentioning lowered projections you are alluding to changes in sea level rise projections.  This is actually a bit of confusion because the change is primarily in the way the IPCC chose to present the issue and there is in fact no substantive change in actual projected rise by 2100.  Please see Real Climate here ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the ... )

Can the global temperature analyses even accurately assess past temperatures from 150 years ago?

The further back in time one looks, the greater the uncertainty.  I believe that in the GISS analysis the error bars on the record from ~120 years ago is +/-.2 oC

How much am I supposed to trust the measurements and record keeping of arctic ice cap temperatures from 100 years ago, or whatever exactly is supposed to be the basis of these claims?

This is of course an entirely personal judgement we each must make for ourselves.  It is not clear to me why we should have any different level of trust for climate scientists than rocket scientists.  NASA gets robots to explore Mars just fine, why should we expect that they screw up calibrating a few thermometers and satellite readings?

I look forward to some answers to these questions.

I hope you get some satisfaction from those I provide above.  Thanks for the comment!


"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

I want to put up a challenge in the form of a BET with anyone who's interested:

I will bet you $100,adjusted for inflation, that the average yearly temperature 20 years from now (2027) will be SIGNIFICANTLY COLDER than the same average for 2005 (or any year between 1900-1940 or 1980-2007).

Any takers?

I wonder if you will still insist that AGW is just around the corner when you fork over your money to  me? Probably. Once ignorant and easily swayed, always so...

- Anthropogenic Global Warming is the name of a evil, moralistic DoomsDay Cult with gullible scared morons as members. Shame on you!

They have all kinds of long term bets -- I think probably a few dealing with Global Heating as well.

Consider first of all that people believe and trust in the science behind airplanes, autombiles, the calculator, the electric light, electricity in general, batteries, the electric motor, the gasoline engine, the steam engine, the diesel engine, the jet engine, rockets, microwaves, fiber optics, nuclear energy, nuclear bombs, vaccines, microscopes, telescopes, telephones, radios, television, computers, the internet, x-rays, plasitics, hydralics, navigation, and much, much, more, and All That Stuff Works!.

So, the scientists are not always 100% right, but they are very, very close. Yet when scientists come up with something that doesn't agree with some people's personal ideas or views on how they think things should be, or threatens their economic stakes, like with evolution or global warming, then suddenly those people forget all about all the scientific stuff that works, and they start saying that scientists are untrustworthy, don't know what they are talking about, they have an agenda, and so forth. These arguments are clearly not based on reason, so attempting to use reason to argue against them is fruitless.

I don't see any value at all with wasting time on such people who are not going to listen to reason. They see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe, and no one is going to change that. You might as well empty the ocean with a small spoon.

To me the only logical course is to either believe in science, and all that comes with it, no matter how easy or difficult it is to accept, or you go live in a cave and live on nuts and berries. You can't selectively believe in some science and not other science depending on what you find convenient.

I feel you are doing a lot of good raising these issues, I simply have concerns about the ethics of this methodology.  Open-minded arguing forces both sides (if intelligible,) to actually consider what they are saying on the spot, whereas preconditioning, in my opinion, leads to false conclusions.

But what I have learned is: NASA's data shows the sun's radiance to be constant over the last thirty years.  Also, if all heat producing products used on the Earth were changed totally to heat, including radiation from all six billion humans, it would amount to less than three percent of the energy needed for the assumed trend.  So one has to conclude that if the trend exists it must be something about the atmosphere.

However, carbon dioxide?  Gas molecules are separated so far apart that to block the short wavelengths of infrared energy, there would have to be a lot of carbon dioxide added to the Earth's atmosphere.  Secondly, the total pressure of a gas is the sum of the pressures caused by each component of the gas, known as the law of partial pressures.  If that much carbon dioxide has been added, then why isn't this showing up as an increase to the average barometric pressure?  But the weather boys have not mentioned it !  

Take methane gas for example.  Methane is 'bout 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.  And the amount of methane gas has increased dramatically in the past century due to the rise of the world-wide cattle industry, industrialized agriculture, and as increasing urbanization has lead to a dramatic increase in the number of landfills, which produce high amounts of methane.

All GHGs must be taken into effect in order to get the full picture, not just CO2 (as important as it is).

But seriously, no matter what gas we are talking about, enough gas to increase the insulation of the earth's atmosphere would add to the barometric pressure.  That isn't being reported.  I wish someone could explain what physics they think is causing the assumed trend.

What gets to me are statements I read, like this one about methane gas in the atmosphere:
"The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750." (source Wikipedia)  Back in 1750 they could have measured a tenth of a pound if it fell on their table.  But to state they could measure 700 parts per billion, come on!  And temperature measurements in 1900 were probably no better than plus or minus a degree, about the same as the assumed rise in the earth's temperature.  This thing raises more questions than answers to me.

You underestimate the accuracy of measurements they could make in 1750. Boyle's Law, which is based on quite accurate measurements of gas pressure and temperature, was formulated in 1662, almost a century earlier.

But that is beside the point. Measurements of methane in 1750 are not based on measurements actually MADE in 1750, but rather upon measurements of air bubbles trapped in ice from 1750, using modern instruments and techniques.

I did not actually know the answer to this question when I read your post. However, it took me less than 30 seconds to find the answer using google. Probably less time than it took for you to write your entire post. Methinks you are expending considerable energy trying NOT to understand.

You said:

Secondly, the total pressure of a gas is the sum of the pressures caused by each component of the gas, known as the law of partial pressures.  If that much carbon dioxide has been added, then why isn't this showing up as an increase to the average barometric pressure?  But the weather boys have not mentioned it !

and

But seriously, no matter what gas we are talking about, enough gas to increase the insulation of the earth's atmosphere would add to the barometric pressure.  That isn't being reported.  I wish someone could explain what physics they think is causing the assumed trend.

This is a point that deserves to be addressed.

Note that fossil fuels are composed mostly of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, in that order on a mole basis, i.e., by the number of atoms, not by weight, by weight sometimes there is more oxygen than there is hydrogen.

The increase in carbon dioxide over the last 150 years is about 100 ppm. One hundred ppm is 0.1 ppt (parts per thousand), 0.01 parts per hundred. Parts per hundred is percent, so the amount of carbon dioxide released over the last 150 years is about one-hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere. A change in average atmospheric pressure of 0.01 percent over 150 years is far too small to be noticed.

But wait, there is more. Fossil fuels are mostly carbon. When the carbon is burned, each carbon atom combines with an oxygen molecule in the atmosphere, producing one carbon dioxide atom; the combustion of pure carbon does not change the number of molecules in the atmosphere. But, of course, it is not that simple...

To the extent the fossil fuel contains oxygen, for each two oxygen atoms that combine with one carbon atom there is an increase of one molecule in the atmosphere. This leaves a increase in the number of additional molecules smaller than 0.01 percent, unless there are more than twice as many oxygen atoms as carbon atoms in the fossil fuel, which, I believe, is never the case. In addition...

For every four hydrogen atoms in the fossil fuel, one oxygen atom in the atmosphere is consumed in producing two molecules of water. Since the lifetime of water in the atmosphere is relatively short, the additional water molecules will precipitate out of the atmosphere; the combustion of hydrogen in the fossil fuel decreases the number of molecules in the atmosphere.

So there may be an increase or a decrease in the number of molecules in the atmosphere (after the water precipitates out) when fossil fuel is burned.

Thought we were done, did you? One might assume that if there is an increase (decrease) of, say, ten molecules of gas in the atmosphere for every 100 molecules of gas in the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure would go up (down) ten percent. This would be true in a closed system, but atmospheric pressure is not determined by the number of molecules per unit volume (and their temperature) as in a closed system, but by the weight of all the molecules above them to the top of the atmosphere. So, if we added ten molecules of carbon dioxide for every 100 molecules of air, the pressure would go up more than ten percent, because the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is greater than the average molecular weight of air. Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures, which you mentioned, still applies.

If you are still with me, you need to get a life. :<) All you really need to know is what is in the paragraph starting "The increase in carbon dioxide..." The rest is just icing on the cake. (Now he tells us.)

- BOB

In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not.

Aarg - one carbon dioxide molecule.

- BOB

In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not.

Half of these arguments remind me of asking a preacher about dinosaurs...