And what happens if the ice on Greenland and Antarctica starts melting? If all the polar ice was in the sea I don't think anyone would care nearly so much about melting icecaps...it's never as simple as it seems, remember?

I agree, most of these responses are un-informed wishful thinking. I'm especially dissapointed in your article Sander, you usually write well informed pieces. It doesn't look like you did any research for this, or at most consulted some sites owend by the global warming "skeptics".

I'll only address your second and final paragraphs, because this became very long. There are just so many ill-informed points.

1. You start by stating that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the only greenhouse gas (GG) mentioned in discussions about global warming, but that there are other more potent GGs. You then go on to state that there are natural sources of CO2 and that global temperatures have vaired historically.

You're certainly correct, there is a lot of focus on CO2, but it's not the only GG discussed in the literature. Methane is a potent GG, and has 25 times the effect of CO2 on warming, weight for weight. So even if there were equal levels of emission of CO2 and methan the methane would hardly have the "several magnitudes" greater impact you suggested. However, there is a huge difference in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane, and after considering the concentration and the effectiveness of the gass for trapping heat, then CO2 has roughly three times as much influence on the planets temperature as methane.

2. Next we come to the bit that most horrified me: Sander, you resort to a logical falacy. Every living organism has not be a net emitter of CO2. That's either ignorant, or you understand that falacy and it's a deliberate lie. I hope it's the former. Over the course of it's life-time, living organisms have (on average) a net neutral effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Plants lock it up as they grow, and release it as they die or are consumed by animals; animals lock up some carbon in their bodies, respire some CO2 as they live, and release most of their carbon as CO2 and methane as they die or are in turn consumed.

3. Finally, Yes, there are other natural sources of both CO2 and methane. Yes, a MAJOR volcanic eruption can put a huge amount of CO2 (and other GGs) into the atmosphere, but no, a forest fire is not comparable. Major volcanic eruptions don't happen every year, the types of eruptions which do release the amounts of CO2 (and other GGs) that you were referring to happen every 20 - 50 years. Still, they can and have had a major effect on global temperatures in the past, though usually the cooling caused by ash aerosols is greater than the warming form the GGs (I believe).

I note you bother mentioning the natural sources, but not the natural sinks, like mineralisation? Both are taken into account by the models used. On models, to rebut a point made by Brandon Davis, the current models are quite robust, and to the best of my knowledge do not use ludicrous assumptions like infinatley thick atmospheres. Did you really research that point?

4. Finally, no, the planet isn't naturally heating up due to natural temperature cycles. I presume you're referring to the Milankovitch cycles? These are predictable cycles in the earths' climate caused by a combination of our eliptical orbit, axial tilt and the precession of our orbit. These cycles are very well understood, and no, they do not predict warming at this point in the planets history. Likewise, the sun varies in radiation output, that variation is quite well understood, and no, the variation in the sun's output does not predict warming at this point in our planets history.

Please Sander, return to the well researched articles I enjoy reading.

Gllobal warming is not somethign Sander needs to write about...why not write about something in technology, computers, electronics, audio, the internet, but global warming? its f**king "HARDWARE ANALYSIS" not "EARTH ANALYSIS".

A quote from http://www.worldclimatereport.com

The busy beavers here at World Climate Report downloaded the temperature data for Greenland available from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These data are provided as monthly temperature anomalies (departures from normal) for the 30 5°-latitude by 5°-longitude grid boxes covering Greenland over the period January 1940–November 2003. Figure 1 shows the IPCC near-surface air temperature record for Greenland, which includes a highly statistically significant cooling of 0.11°C (0.20°F) per decade over the past 64 years!


Therefore, the ice on Greenland will not be melting, or at least, Greenland does not appear to be following the current global warming trend.



From what i've gathered on Antarctica, It is warming along the peninsula, and cooling in the center, and they mostly blame westernly winds.

This discussion and all other global warming discussions where else in the web alone, will increase global temperature by 2 Celcius! Consider all the heat generated by the computers used for hosting and typing these discussions, and the raise of body temperature in the heat of debate, could be build up to a significant figure.

Just wanna lighten things up, kidding of course.

Ken - Yes, I did research the point about a "infinite atmosphere thickness", but only minimally. I included links to a couple of the [recent] articles that make the assertion that the current climatological (computer) models use Milne's original equations, and thus contain the basic mathematical flaw (and note that this was only discovered a couple of years or so ago). And that's the basis for my assertion (admittedly, I can go overboard on this crap). I am hardly in disagreement with other points you make.

As i am informed that ice-caps on Greenland and Antarctica are melting in a very fast way. The ice layed on Greenland alone should rise the sealevel for more than 1m a newspaper wrote. For Antarctica scientists investigates that a glacier which had melted in history 3 or 4 cm in a year actual is melting 160cm. For Antarctica there is another effect: the shelfice around that continent keeps the glaciers from gliding into the ocean, pressure and counterpressure. Now the shelfice is melting rapidly so the counterpressure to the gliding glaciers is becoming less. So there is also a heavy increase in that movement of costal glaciers. The cracking pieces of the shelfice get bigger from year to year. Piece means thousands of squaremiles. Another thing there: Meanwhile greater areas before covered with ice are permanentely free of it. These areas have become terrible deserts without any trace of water. There is no life at all.

Ken Clarke said:
You are correct. The fact the atmosphere cools in the aftermath of a major volcanic event contradicts common sense because, since grade school, we were all taught of how hot lava is. The volcanic ash projected into upper levels of the atmosphere is rapidly distributed by wind around the world. As you all should know, Sol (aka the sun) is the number one supplier of heat to Earth. The volcanic ash suspended in the air prevents much of that infrared energy from reaching the surface of the planet causing cooling. Effectively, a major volcanic event has the exact opposite effect of greenhouse gases...with the addition of a giant mess to clean up afterwards.


The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are both melting at an alarming rate so there is no debate that the atmosphere is getting warmer. There is no denying that. Just look at time lapse satellite photography of the north and south pole over the past few decades to see evidence of that. There are really two questions that are being debated: 1) what is causing the warming and more importantly, 2) is human activity primarily to blame?

If memory serves, there has been a sharp increase in seismic activity (including earthquakes and volcanoes) over the past several years. Those are certainly more reasonable causes for major carbon dioxide and methane releases than human activity alone. All the magma under the crust may have a far greater influence on the surface than it may very well be given credit for.

Thanks Brandon, like I said, my comment was only based on general familiarity with the current models. I'll look into the links you refer to. I'd like to know more about that, and if it's true that's an important point to raise in my next debate on the subject =)

Cheers,
KC

Stephen Grinwis said:
Ocean temperatures have a far greater influence on climate than atmospheric temperatures.


A one mile wide and 20 mile long ice berg is going to break off Antarctica soon...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23797247/

It has been proven the cause of heightened carbon levels is the Sun rising in temperature. It is not the people on earth! This is just another deception setup by the rich to manipulate the planet. Oh, they're talking about a global carbon tax now. Shame-on those rich warmongering bastards for taking advantage of the unknowing and uneducated in this world. If you don't like the way I put it then learn to deal with it, I'm tired of the word thing to. They are just words; they don't rip through your flesh like bullets do. Words hurt because you let them! You are the problem, not the word or the person saying them! It is how you adapt to the situation; that’s the key!

Truths we know from observation,


1. The seas are going down folks, not rising.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf

2. The sun got warmer/radiated more, but is now quite/cold and so are we.

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf


3. The atmosphere is not heating, but their computers are.

The weather/climate science world has abandoned the second rule of thermodynamics and hands on science for computer modeling . Programmers or so called pseudo modern climatologist/ meteorologist/scientists, computer dependent, lacking in questioning or needing a firm and proven result or even keeping up new AND known science knowledge from over 30 years ago? What the hell? I was there and witnessed it all, warned about a up coming ice age because of trapped greenhouse gas blamed on cars. So we changed the system and bought smaller cars, reduced waste. Then it was the depletion of the ozone layer and we had to cut HFC/CFC and Freon because that was causing the hole in the ozone and cooling the earth. All lies and WE DID IT.
We replaced every refrigeration or home convenience unit to a more energy saving devise. At the same time we put new stringent laws on emissions, waste and water. Also begin recycling programs and clean up our environment.
Saving forests, planting new trees, laws for clean water and air and responsibility towards our mother earth.

We did this all……but that’s just not enough is it? It never will be. Why should our ancestors who left their homelands and countries because of fear of death, famine, tyranny, wars and no future to make a better life for themselves here. Away from the robber barons of the world a free country. But here we are again with the flimflam and deceit. . You robbed me of my future back in the 70’s because of this BS, and now you’ll ask for more by guilt, taxing and robbing us into paying for the air we breath, the air we and our kids breath, for your greedy gain.







AGW(manmade greenhouse gas) can only be observed

in a “isolated system (closed)” and earth “IS” an “OPEN SYSTEM”.
CO2 holds heat in a Closed system, once you “OPEN” the lid, the law doesn’t work. When you open up the lid, heat and gas escape, and it’s gone into the atmosphere. Hot goes to cold case closed, the second law.
The AGW CO2 was calibrated/concluded using a “CLOSED” modeling system, so what came first, the Chicken Little or the co2 egg?


I’m hearing and reading from some in the so called weather sciences saying the sun heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere heats the earth. And this is how their theory on how greenhouse gas was formed, by keeping the heat trapped in.

WRONG!





If this were true, there would be a heating of major per potions in the atmosphere and there isn’t much, only about .01c. Only heating seen in the atmosphere is on their computer model and they can't explain this phenomena, thus came the idea of using CO2. The real world doesn’t work like their model, they have to thrown out the laws of physic and become rapped up(or lazy) with using computer modeling.

Have they forgotten or become void of why these models don’t really work? I honestly think they thought they were right and have had one of the biggest scientific brain farts EVER. . Also using erroneous and left out data like Medieval Warm Period (about 800–1300) and the Little Ice Age (about 1400–1850) , CO2 levels being several times higher through ice core samples and a mountain of growing evidence of bad science is troublesome and suspect to say the least.




Sun heats the ground and the other 75% of our planets surface, “WATER”.
This heated water evaporates into a gas, rises and is seen mainly as water vapor. Some forming into clouds and come back to earth as rain, the rest goes up into the atmosphere including the HEAT and it’s gone. No trapped gas except for the heat from the planet that my get trapped by cloud cover. And then lost into the atmosphere at night, too begin the whole process again when the sun comes up the next morning. The sun heat the surface, cycles around with weather patterns, heat and gases go back up into the atmosphere and out into space. There’s also a million other things that effect circulation and distribution of heat and gas we don’t even know about not included in these models. Their like dogs chasing it tail putting in calculations and equations to make it work…


It’s an open system brought to you by real nature weather science.


Relax, it’s just the Sun!

A real measurable thing in the sky, something you can observe and keep records of and correlate with weather patterns. The only thing, to predict future weather they may need to create a model!

Unlike the AGW modeling what breaks a law of physics, and has you believing something they can’t prove.

At least with the sun modeling, I can feel it, see it and it comes on regular intervals, like everyday! Hehe!

There's no man made global warming, there's galactic warming from the sun.

We all love our earth and want to keep it as clean as possible, but I refuse to believe bald face lies and falsification. Money and time should be spent on solving some real problems and answers in this world. But I won’t be robbed by the greedy liars and haters of humanity. You want to help Africa to live? Help them help themselves, let them develop their own energy recourses and prosper. Stop forcing people into poverty over carbon.





Here's a few links,

Scientists who disagree with AGW> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf


The sun> http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=...p;ID=20272


Greenland>
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN

On wrong data for models,

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%...206-07.pdf


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/0...warm05.xml

Don’t take me wrong! I know that GGs do influence us but in a very little amount. Compared to the Suns rise in temperature over the past 300 years GGs affects are minute. I, like most, would like to see us avert from fossil fuels and towards clean zero point energy. Here is an article from The Harvard University Gazette – “Brightening Sun is Warming Earth” By, William J. Cromie. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html This will get you started if that interested in researching this subject. We all need to make this world better.

I just want someone to explain 3 things:

1) If you look at CO2 concentration vs Global Temperature for the 20th Century, why is the correlation coefficient only .06? This means that changes in CO2 explain only 6% of the variation in temperature.

2) Why do 7 of top 10 hottest annual average temperatures for recorded history of the US fall into 1940's and earlier?

3) Why hasn't the global temperature risen for the last 8 years (check GISS or HADCRUT3) and why are we still cooler than in 1998? These years have supposedly seen acceleration in the rate of CO2 growth.

Very good Lance! I have saved your PDF & links for later study. Thank You!

-Peace
Chris

its nothing the earth hasnt seen before, it's a fluke.

Soul1601 said:

My french is not perfect, but here is probably a better translation of the above post:

1. 100% of scientists are never in total agreement, it is impossible. There is always someone who has been bought out.
2. If a drug doesn't cure everyone, will you no longer take it?
3. The earth has experienced climate changes, it's true, but never in a span of less than 50 years. There are hundreds of proofs of global warming attributed to human activity.
4. I don't believe I would be mistaken to believe that most of the readers of this site are Americans and that the majority of them don't think a lot about the welfare of the rest of the world, especially if that would mean they would lose money as a result. Therefore, I would present two points to reflect upon:

1. Tell me ONE product that doesn't require oil to be produced. I await your responses.
2. HAVEN'T YOU EVER WONDERED WHY SO MANY CATASTROPHES HAPPEN TO YOU (9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, etc...?)

Let's simplify this.
Geologists tell us there have been 18 ice ages. They tell us the last ice age ended ten thousand years ago. Now, what can we call the periods in between ice ages?
GLOBAL WARMING maybe?
We have an estimated 10,000 years since the last ice age. We have about 200 years of weather reporting records. That's only 2%. It is statistically insignificant. No determinations can be made from our present records.
So, how come this time it's OUR FAULT? Only because somebody wants us to let them put their hand in our pocket to take our money.
I don't think this is a choice between fact or farce. This is fraud!

The earth is over 5 billion years old. What makes us so special? Global warming is a facade.

I will note that only 2-3 years ago, the Greenies would have been all over a discussion like this. So I am very pleased to see that the word is actually getting out that the science is FAR from "settled" on this subject (as indicated by not only the knowledgable comments, but by the commenters exercising some [un]common sense). I do understand that it takes awhile for the facts to to actually get through the immense smokescreen that political correctness has thrown around the science, but it's great to see the smoke thinnin', as it were ...so ...if you were previously "convinced" that the future was in peril, just this little bit in an out-of-the-way corner of the web should give you pause; and you have less excuse to continue living in ignorance (especially you, dirtfarmer). I should'a known it would be a bunch of hardware geeks that would have the facts in hand tho'.