Slashdot Mirror

Although that is a very interesting graph in some respects, 500 years is a very small amout of time to measure something as huge as the atmosphere. Compare these two graphs: The so called mauna loa curve over the past 50 years (here) or the graph of the co2 in the atmosphere taken from ice cores in the past 400,000 years. (here) As you can easily see, in the long term, the co2 has always fluctuated significantly and right now the co2 is increasing as it has been for sometime.

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

Many aspects of the Earth's climate system are chaotic - its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits predictability of the detailed evolution of weather to about two weeks. However, predictability of climate is not so limited because of the systematic influences on the atmosphere of the more slowly varying components of the climate system. Nevertheless, to be able to make reliable forecasts in the presence of both initial condition and model uncertainty, it is desirable to repeat the prediction many times from different perturbed initial states and using different global models. These ensembles are the basis of probability forecasts of the climate state.

Our overall assessment Coupled models have evolved and improved significantly since the SAR. In general, they provide credible simulations of climate, at least down to sub-continental scales and over temporal scales from seasonal to decadal. The varying sets of strengths and weaknesses that models display lead us to conclude that no single model can be considered "best" and it is important to utilise results from a range of coupled models. We consider coupled models, as a class, to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates.

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

Many aspects of the Earth's climate system are chaotic - its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits predictability of the detailed evolution of weather to about two weeks. However, predictability of climate is not so limited because of the systematic influences on the atmosphere of the more slowly varying components of the climate system. Nevertheless, to be able to make reliable forecasts in the presence of both initial condition and model uncertainty, it is desirable to repeat the prediction many times from different perturbed initial states and using different global models. These ensembles are the basis of probability forecasts of the climate state.

Our overall assessment Coupled models have evolved and improved significantly since the SAR. In general, they provide credible simulations of climate, at least down to sub-continental scales and over temporal scales from seasonal to decadal. The varying sets of strengths and weaknesses that models display lead us to conclude that no single model can be considered "best" and it is important to utilise results from a range of coupled models. We consider coupled models, as a class, to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates.

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

Many aspects of the Earth's climate system are chaotic - its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits predictability of the detailed evolution of weather to about two weeks. However, predictability of climate is not so limited because of the systematic influences on the atmosphere of the more slowly varying components of the climate system. Nevertheless, to be able to make reliable forecasts in the presence of both initial condition and model uncertainty, it is desirable to repeat the prediction many times from different perturbed initial states and using different global models. These ensembles are the basis of probability forecasts of the climate state.

Our overall assessment Coupled models have evolved and improved significantly since the SAR. In general, they provide credible simulations of climate, at least down to sub-continental scales and over temporal scales from seasonal to decadal. The varying sets of strengths and weaknesses that models display lead us to conclude that no single model can be considered "best" and it is important to utilise results from a range of coupled models. We consider coupled models, as a class, to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates.

I had one professor who claimed you could link the increasing effects of global warming with "research" groups fighting for funding in congress. He even had charts. ;)

I'll bet you a nickel that you can also link the increasing ill effects of cigarette smoking with research groups seeking funding.

Why? Because the more you look, the more you find; the more you find, the more motivation to become interested and look some more. Simple positive feedback in our search for knowledge, nothing sinister about it.

I wish people would stop looking at the last 50-100 years, and get it through their heads that to understand climate modeling, you need to look at eons.

Climatologists are looking at eons. Look at the IPCC reports, damn it. The Technical Summary would be a good place to start.

I had one professor who claimed you could link the increasing effects of global warming with "research" groups fighting for funding in congress. He even had charts. ;)

I'll bet you a nickel that you can also link the increasing ill effects of cigarette smoking with research groups seeking funding.

Why? Because the more you look, the more you find; the more you find, the more motivation to become interested and look some more. Simple positive feedback in our search for knowledge, nothing sinister about it.

I wish people would stop looking at the last 50-100 years, and get it through their heads that to understand climate modeling, you need to look at eons.

Climatologists are looking at eons. Look at the IPCC reports, damn it. The Technical Summary would be a good place to start.

explosive growth post 1980 -- when the BRUNT of the industrail growth was PRE-1980 ... just sounds fishy to me

It's true.

Do you really think that a turbine could extract more kinetic energy from wind than 2344 times its land area of forest extracts with friction? Remember, modern turbines have three rather thin blades, whereas forests are by definition filled with foiliage. In terms of surface area against the wind, a single tree within the same area that a turbine takes would have thousands if not millions of times the area. Also, trees aren't very rigid against moderate windspeeds, converting wind into waste heat much more than solid objects do.

Plus, the amount of heat that atmospheric carbon dioxide causes to be forced into the atmosphere will more than make up for 16,000 TWh of turbine extraction. (0.3 watts per square meter yeilds more than 150,000 TWh over the earth's illuminated surface area.)

CO2 causes warming. This is a fact, because CO2 traps heat as a property of the molecule. Logically from that, More C02 means more trapped heat. Humans release more CO2 into the atmosphere than is reabsorbed, causing a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is shown by ice core samples of atmosphere from history, and from records going back over the last century. Bottom line is, CO2 is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, and humans are causing a large portion of that. Logical conclusion of these facts is that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will therefore increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. A similar line would be " A small amount of gasoline makes a small amount of heat when burned, what happens when I pour gas on this fire?" For more science behind the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, see here Specifically Section 1.3.3 Observing anthropogenic climate change. That paper, incidentally was peer reviewed by literally hundreds of scientists, and even some NGO's that could definetly have alot to lose from the exchange, like SHELL, and Exxon-Mobil

Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!"

Isnt that how science works? Whatever theory most scientists have evidence to back up holds until some other scientist can conclusively prove to the contrary?

It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?

Thats like saying, well I have some fixed bills in my budget (rent, food, etc), and furthermore, I dont know what future bills ill have in the future, or even how much those bills will be, so I might as well spend all the surplus cash i do have. It doesnt matter what the other factors are, or even if we dont know the exact percent effect they have. We can do something about CO2, and the debate shoudl be wether or not we shoudl do something abou CO2 and not about other factors that we have no control over. We would all die if the sun exploded, but that doesnt mean we whouldnt do anything about near earth asteroi9ds, simply because "other factors" could cause the destruction of humans on earth.

"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism.

How so? Now whos the one not showing evidence? If you said "weaken currently powerful companies" Ill give you a maybe. But where there is money, capitalism will find a way. If theres money to be made in making solar cells and wind turbines, american companies will spring to the challenge, and already are to some extent. Where in the doctrine of capitalism does it say "if you made money that way last year, its your right to make it the same way next year" Companies will probably go out of buisness if greenhouse gas emissions are restricted, but to say that that will weaken the american economy or even destroy capitalism, you fail to understand how the capitalisst system works. You sound like gaslight manufacturers talking about edison "but electric lights will destroy the american economy!" For every buggy whip manufacturer that goes out of buisness, a chrysler or ford will replace them. During the middle ages, europe was going through an energy crisis. Increasing populations were destroying the forests of europe for firewood. Necessity is the mother of invention, so the english turned to coal for heat, and the industrial revolution was born (the steam engine was p

CO2 causes warming. This is a fact, because CO2 traps heat as a property of the molecule. Logically from that, More C02 means more trapped heat. Humans release more CO2 into the atmosphere than is reabsorbed, causing a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is shown by ice core samples of atmosphere from history, and from records going back over the last century. Bottom line is, CO2 is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, and humans are causing a large portion of that. Logical conclusion of these facts is that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will therefore increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. A similar line would be " A small amount of gasoline makes a small amount of heat when burned, what happens when I pour gas on this fire?" For more science behind the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, see here Specifically Section 1.3.3 Observing anthropogenic climate change. That paper, incidentally was peer reviewed by literally hundreds of scientists, and even some NGO's that could definetly have alot to lose from the exchange, like SHELL, and Exxon-Mobil

Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!"

Isnt that how science works? Whatever theory most scientists have evidence to back up holds until some other scientist can conclusively prove to the contrary?

It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?

Thats like saying, well I have some fixed bills in my budget (rent, food, etc), and furthermore, I dont know what future bills ill have in the future, or even how much those bills will be, so I might as well spend all the surplus cash i do have. It doesnt matter what the other factors are, or even if we dont know the exact percent effect they have. We can do something about CO2, and the debate shoudl be wether or not we shoudl do something abou CO2 and not about other factors that we have no control over. We would all die if the sun exploded, but that doesnt mean we whouldnt do anything about near earth asteroi9ds, simply because "other factors" could cause the destruction of humans on earth.

"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism.

How so? Now whos the one not showing evidence? If you said "weaken currently powerful companies" Ill give you a maybe. But where there is money, capitalism will find a way. If theres money to be made in making solar cells and wind turbines, american companies will spring to the challenge, and already are to some extent. Where in the doctrine of capitalism does it say "if you made money that way last year, its your right to make it the same way next year" Companies will probably go out of buisness if greenhouse gas emissions are restricted, but to say that that will weaken the american economy or even destroy capitalism, you fail to understand how the capitalisst system works. You sound like gaslight manufacturers talking about edison "but electric lights will destroy the american economy!" For every buggy whip manufacturer that goes out of buisness, a chrysler or ford will replace them. During the middle ages, europe was going through an energy crisis. Increasing populations were destroying the forests of europe for firewood. Necessity is the mother of invention, so the english turned to coal for heat, and the industrial revolution was born (the steam engine was p

CO2 causes warming. This is a fact, because CO2 traps heat as a property of the molecule. Logically from that, More C02 means more trapped heat. Humans release more CO2 into the atmosphere than is reabsorbed, causing a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is shown by ice core samples of atmosphere from history, and from records going back over the last century. Bottom line is, CO2 is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, and humans are causing a large portion of that. Logical conclusion of these facts is that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will therefore increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. A similar line would be " A small amount of gasoline makes a small amount of heat when burned, what happens when I pour gas on this fire?" For more science behind the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, see here Specifically Section 1.3.3 Observing anthropogenic climate change. That paper, incidentally was peer reviewed by literally hundreds of scientists, and even some NGO's that could definetly have alot to lose from the exchange, like SHELL, and Exxon-Mobil

Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!"

Isnt that how science works? Whatever theory most scientists have evidence to back up holds until some other scientist can conclusively prove to the contrary?

It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?

Thats like saying, well I have some fixed bills in my budget (rent, food, etc), and furthermore, I dont know what future bills ill have in the future, or even how much those bills will be, so I might as well spend all the surplus cash i do have. It doesnt matter what the other factors are, or even if we dont know the exact percent effect they have. We can do something about CO2, and the debate shoudl be wether or not we shoudl do something abou CO2 and not about other factors that we have no control over. We would all die if the sun exploded, but that doesnt mean we whouldnt do anything about near earth asteroi9ds, simply because "other factors" could cause the destruction of humans on earth.

"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism.

How so? Now whos the one not showing evidence? If you said "weaken currently powerful companies" Ill give you a maybe. But where there is money, capitalism will find a way. If theres money to be made in making solar cells and wind turbines, american companies will spring to the challenge, and already are to some extent. Where in the doctrine of capitalism does it say "if you made money that way last year, its your right to make it the same way next year" Companies will probably go out of buisness if greenhouse gas emissions are restricted, but to say that that will weaken the american economy or even destroy capitalism, you fail to understand how the capitalisst system works. You sound like gaslight manufacturers talking about edison "but electric lights will destroy the american economy!" For every buggy whip manufacturer that goes out of buisness, a chrysler or ford will replace them. During the middle ages, europe was going through an energy crisis. Increasing populations were destroying the forests of europe for firewood. Necessity is the mother of invention, so the english turned to coal for heat, and the industrial revolution was born (the steam engine was p

I would like to see the IPCC Third Assessment link included with all future articles on global climate change.

I would like to see the IPCC Third Assessment link included with all future articles on global climate change.

I would like to see the IPCC Third Assessment link included with all future articles on global climate change.

I would like to see the IPCC Third Assessment link included with all future articles on global climate change.

.05/10 year is .005/year

You missed the percent sign. 0.05%/decade is 0.00005/year.

The extent to which carbon dioxide forces solar radiation to remain as atmospheric heat is generally well understood.

According to Accu-Weather, the world's leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation...

Accu-weather, a commercial concern controlled by commercial interests, knows which side of their bread is buttered. Instead, you might consider the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which directly attributes the observed tmeperature increase to radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses.

Satellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. These satellites use advanced technology and are not subject to the "heat island" effect around major cities that alters ground-based thermometers.

This is the misinformation that pisses me off the most. I have been in direct telephone contact with the pair of so-called scientists from Huntsville, Alabama who published this crap. Their measurements of cooling above the troposphere are completely consistent with global warming in the troposphere, where radiative forcing keeps heat trapped at the surface of the Earth. Guess where the Huntsville team gets their funding? NASA. Guess what agency pumps carbon dioxide equivalent to driving a SUV two million miles into the atmosphere every time a shuttle launches? NASA.

Projections of future climate changes are uncertain.

Take another look at the r^2 value on the curve fit graph of atmospheric CO2. That value means that all but about 1% of the variation of that curve can be explained by those four numeric parameters of that logistic sigmoid curve. One thing that isn't uncertain is that if we don't start wholesale conversion to wind power pretty damn soon, there will be twice as much atmospheric CO2 in 2060 as their was in 1500. Did you know that less than 150,000 modern wind turbines could supply the entire U.S. power grid demand?

98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.

Oh, PLEASE! Water vapor, unlike CO2, becomes reflective (clouds are white) when it condenses from vapor to aerosol, which it does under temperature increase conditions (greater transpiration at greater temperatures raising humidity.) This tends to nullify water's heat trapping over time.

By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)

Both halfs of that statement are a baldface lie. The "prior to 1940" statement directly contradicts the observed data, and anyone who thinks greenhouse gas emissions "upsurged" after 1940 needs to take another look at the graph and/or read up on the history of coal mining.

Pathetic.

According to Accu-Weather, the world's leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation...

Accu-weather, a commercial concern controlled by commercial interests, knows which side of their bread is buttered. Instead, you might consider the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which directly attributes the observed tmeperature increase to radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses.

Satellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. These satellites use advanced technology and are not subject to the "heat island" effect around major cities that alters ground-based thermometers.

This is the misinformation that pisses me off the most. I have been in direct telephone contact with the pair of so-called scientists from Huntsville, Alabama who published this crap. Their measurements of cooling above the troposphere are completely consistent with global warming in the troposphere, where radiative forcing keeps heat trapped at the surface of the Earth. Guess where the Huntsville team gets their funding? NASA. Guess what agency pumps carbon dioxide equivalent to driving a SUV two million miles into the atmosphere every time a shuttle launches? NASA.

Projections of future climate changes are uncertain.

Take another look at the r^2 value on the curve fit graph of atmospheric CO2. That value means that all but about 1% of the variation of that curve can be explained by those four numeric parameters of that logistic sigmoid curve. One thing that isn't uncertain is that if we don't start wholesale conversion to wind power pretty damn soon, there will be twice as much atmospheric CO2 in 2060 as their was in 1500. Did you know that less than 150,000 modern wind turbines could supply the entire U.S. power grid demand?

98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.

Oh, PLEASE! Water vapor, unlike CO2, becomes reflective (clouds are white) when it condenses from vapor to aerosol, which it does under temperature increase conditions (greater transpiration at greater temperatures raising humidity.) This tends to nullify water's heat trapping over time.

By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)

Both halfs of that statement are a baldface lie. The "prior to 1940" statement directly contradicts the observed data, and anyone who thinks greenhouse gas emissions "upsurged" after 1940 needs to take another look at the graph and/or read up on the history of coal mining.

Pathetic.

I can't speak for the poster to whom you replied to, but I have read many scientific articles on global warming (I've almost finished my PhD in chemistry (non-atmospheric stuff, but includes many of the fundamentals behind atmospheric chemistry), and I have worked with atmospheric chemists at various times in the past), and your statements strike me as wrong.

The vast majority of climatical scientists support the theory that humans are contributing to global warming. As an example, this links to an IPCC report into the science behind global warming. As you can see, the author and reviewer list is very large. On the otherhand, the number of greenhouse skeptics who actively research in the area is quite low. One doesn't even need to take one's shoe's off to count them.

I can't speak for the poster to whom you replied to, but I have read many scientific articles on global warming (I've almost finished my PhD in chemistry (non-atmospheric stuff, but includes many of the fundamentals behind atmospheric chemistry), and I have worked with atmospheric chemists at various times in the past), and your statements strike me as wrong.

The vast majority of climatical scientists support the theory that humans are contributing to global warming. As an example, this links to an IPCC report into the science behind global warming. As you can see, the author and reviewer list is very large. On the otherhand, the number of greenhouse skeptics who actively research in the area is quite low. One doesn't even need to take one's shoe's off to count them.

I can't speak for the poster to whom you replied to, but I have read many scientific articles on global warming (I've almost finished my PhD in chemistry (non-atmospheric stuff, but includes many of the fundamentals behind atmospheric chemistry), and I have worked with atmospheric chemists at various times in the past), and your statements strike me as wrong.

The vast majority of climatical scientists support the theory that humans are contributing to global warming. As an example, this links to an IPCC report into the science behind global warming. As you can see, the author and reviewer list is very large. On the otherhand, the number of greenhouse skeptics who actively research in the area is quite low. One doesn't even need to take one's shoe's off to count them.

So, where is the trending data over a few thousand years saying that man and his theorized greenhouse gases are heating things up?

Reconstructed climate data from the last 1000 years can be found here.

So... If somebody ever proves with real evidence, and trending, that these greenhouse gases are the culperate for ALL our problems...

Nobody has ever claimed that greenhouse gases are resonible for all of our problems.

what are we going to do about those pesky things called volcanos? Tell them that they can't spew millions of tons of greenhouse gases?

Nothing, we evolved with volcanos, and their effect on the earth's climate. It's when we started pumping in extra greenhouses gaes, over and above what volcanos contribute, that problems occur.

The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is only well "known" among the environmentalist extreemists and the uninformed. Nobody is claiming that CO2 levels are decreasing in the atmosphere, but there is no evidence scientific or otherwise that can conclusively link a rise in C02 to a rise in global temperature.

Actually, it's well known to the informed as well. As I've stated before, global warming is supported by the vast majority of the worlds climate scientists.

Yes, global surface temperatures rose an average of 0.053 degrees C per decade in the 20th century, but at the same time atmospheric temperatures decreased , particularly in the latter half of the century.

Wrong. Parts of the atmosphere have cooled. Not the whole thing.

Specifically, the cooling effect has been concentrated in the stratosphere, where ozone is most concentrated. Now, if you start removing that ozone, high energy photons pass through the stratosphere (whereas normally they would hit it and cause it to heat up), and hit us instead causing an increase in skin cancers. Hence, a cooling effect in the stratosphere is expected.

It is a historical fact that global temperatures have fluctuated as much as 10 degrees C. The Ice Ages alone prove that global temperatures vary regardless of human involvement. Why is this any different?

It's the rate of heating that is surprising. Combined with large increases in the amounts of greenhouse gases (which are one of two heat sources for the earth's surface).

Again, if you check the facts you can see that this is easily disputed. Here [nasa.gov] is a graph showing the size of the ozone layer since 1980. The 2002 datapoint of about 15 million km^2 isn't even on there (a little more than 1/2 of the 2000 size). CFC aerosol cans were banned in 1976 and the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1989. Can you see any kind of link in the ozone size to this reduction on "greenhouse" gases? Are you honestly trying to convince me that these two are somehow related? Why would the hole in the ozone reach its peak a full 11 years after the Montreal Protocol was signed?

Interesting graph. However, your explaination which goes along beside it is badly flawed.

The Montreal Protocol was considerable modified over a ten year period. Each of these modifications had a significant effect on stratosphere Cl concentration. In 1998 the WMO predicted that the concentration of Cl and Br should peak at approx. the year 2000. (Source)

Unsurprisingly, the peak has occured, and now the ozone hole is starting to shrink.

I'm sorry, I let my subscriptions to all the 1970's scientific publications run out. I guess that means this is propoganda.

I guess your right. But don't take it too badly, as all of the conservative think tanks have also failed to find a peer reviewed scientific publication which supports this. That they still try and link the two together says more about them, than anything else.

Actually, Peter Singer (one of the more lefty whacko's out there) has written several books on a variety of subjects, including the "global freezing" scare of the 1970's.

I must be confused here, as the only Peter Singer that I've heard of isn't a scientist of any kind. Surely your not trying to suggest that because a non-scientist says something, scientists must agree with him. Perhaps you could supply links to Peter Singer the great climatical scientist?

Give me a list of scientists that support this theory, and I'll show you a list that don't.

Here is a list of contributed to a IPCC report on the Science basis for climate change. And here is a list of scientists who have reviewed their report.

I await your list with bated breath. And as a little hint, if you are planning on submitting a certain petition, then you might like to read Scientific American research into it first.

Its just plain bad science, and the only reason people think it is supported by a majority of scientists is because it isn't politically correct to argue it. For example, here [cnn.com] is the CNN writeup of the shrinking ozone hole this month. The size of the hole reaches a 12 year low, and the only scientific opinion expressed is: "Scientists caution that the data are insufficient to conclude that the fragile ozone layer is on the mend.

Perhaps you should read up on science as a whole, before slagging off the scientists cited by CNN. What they said was entirely correct.

The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is only well "known" among the environmentalist extreemists and the uninformed. Nobody is claiming that CO2 levels are decreasing in the atmosphere, but there is no evidence scientific or otherwise that can conclusively link a rise in C02 to a rise in global temperature.

Actually, it's well known to the informed as well. As I've stated before, global warming is supported by the vast majority of the worlds climate scientists.

Yes, global surface temperatures rose an average of 0.053 degrees C per decade in the 20th century, but at the same time atmospheric temperatures decreased , particularly in the latter half of the century.

Wrong. Parts of the atmosphere have cooled. Not the whole thing.

Specifically, the cooling effect has been concentrated in the stratosphere, where ozone is most concentrated. Now, if you start removing that ozone, high energy photons pass through the stratosphere (whereas normally they would hit it and cause it to heat up), and hit us instead causing an increase in skin cancers. Hence, a cooling effect in the stratosphere is expected.

It is a historical fact that global temperatures have fluctuated as much as 10 degrees C. The Ice Ages alone prove that global temperatures vary regardless of human involvement. Why is this any different?

It's the rate of heating that is surprising. Combined with large increases in the amounts of greenhouse gases (which are one of two heat sources for the earth's surface).

Again, if you check the facts you can see that this is easily disputed. Here [nasa.gov] is a graph showing the size of the ozone layer since 1980. The 2002 datapoint of about 15 million km^2 isn't even on there (a little more than 1/2 of the 2000 size). CFC aerosol cans were banned in 1976 and the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1989. Can you see any kind of link in the ozone size to this reduction on "greenhouse" gases? Are you honestly trying to convince me that these two are somehow related? Why would the hole in the ozone reach its peak a full 11 years after the Montreal Protocol was signed?

Interesting graph. However, your explaination which goes along beside it is badly flawed.

The Montreal Protocol was considerable modified over a ten year period. Each of these modifications had a significant effect on stratosphere Cl concentration. In 1998 the WMO predicted that the concentration of Cl and Br should peak at approx. the year 2000. (Source)

Unsurprisingly, the peak has occured, and now the ozone hole is starting to shrink.

I'm sorry, I let my subscriptions to all the 1970's scientific publications run out. I guess that means this is propoganda.

I guess your right. But don't take it too badly, as all of the conservative think tanks have also failed to find a peer reviewed scientific publication which supports this. That they still try and link the two together says more about them, than anything else.

Actually, Peter Singer (one of the more lefty whacko's out there) has written several books on a variety of subjects, including the "global freezing" scare of the 1970's.

I must be confused here, as the only Peter Singer that I've heard of isn't a scientist of any kind. Surely your not trying to suggest that because a non-scientist says something, scientists must agree with him. Perhaps you could supply links to Peter Singer the great climatical scientist?

Give me a list of scientists that support this theory, and I'll show you a list that don't.

Here is a list of contributed to a IPCC report on the Science basis for climate change. And here is a list of scientists who have reviewed their report.

I await your list with bated breath. And as a little hint, if you are planning on submitting a certain petition, then you might like to read Scientific American research into it first.

Its just plain bad science, and the only reason people think it is supported by a majority of scientists is because it isn't politically correct to argue it. For example, here [cnn.com] is the CNN writeup of the shrinking ozone hole this month. The size of the hole reaches a 12 year low, and the only scientific opinion expressed is: "Scientists caution that the data are insufficient to conclude that the fragile ozone layer is on the mend.

Perhaps you should read up on science as a whole, before slagging off the scientists cited by CNN. What they said was entirely correct.

Why don't you forget the sterotyped right and left viewpoints and check out the science behind global warming? The full text of various IPCC reports can be found here, and it is quite interesting. If there is such thing as scientific position, this is it.

If you're going to cling to the current "global warming" theory, that CO2 production and other man-made gasses are causing the earth to trap more heat, then I'd like to know how the whole Medieval Warm Period [nationalcenter.org] came about... I don't think it was because of all those Knights and Kings driving their Cadillac SUVs.

I'm not the poster to whom you replied but I fail to see what your example of the medieval warm period has to do with global warming.

Human produced CO2 isn't the only variable effected the climate.

Besides, there is considerable scientific evidence that the medieval warming period was a series of local events, not a global event.

If you want a good read on climate science and global warming, I would suggest this over some ideological charged think tank.

I don't want to answer for the poster to whom you are replying to, but there are some flaws in your post.

As for the tax cuts hurting the economy, I'm not a economist, and don't really know a great deal about economics, so as a arguement from authority, I would like to present Paul Krugmen as person who does argue (with a straight face) that the taxcuts do hurt the economy. This NYT article [reg required etc etc etc] give some of his views on the Bush tax cuts.

Pretending this is true for a moment,

You don't need to pretend, the other posters comment "Global warming is accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists as being scientific fact" is factually correct (assuming that one assumes that s/he is talking about climatic scientists). It is the global warming skeptics who lack scientific experience (with only a handful of exceptions such as Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels).

that still doesn't mean that Kyoto is a good idea. To do that you need to show that the benefits outweigh the costs.

If you want to research more on this, I would suggest this report.

Environmentalists have not done this; instead they've resorted to the "we're all gonna die!" fear-mongering that they've been using for decades.

Perhaps you should stop basing your opinions on organisations like GreenPeace, who know how (and are willing to) play the PR game, and look at the work (preferable the peer reviewed stuff) done by environomental scientists.

Recent Maps of Slovenia:here

Global warming may hit the third world harder than the US, but the US will be affected too. It does not look to be worthwhile to take Draconian measures to reduce emissions, but a middle road looks economically feasible.
Unfortunately, Kyoto is not the middle of the road.

Did anyone in your class have any suggestions other than simply allowing atmospheric CO2 to grow without limit? It's easy to criticize the Kyoto treaty. It's another to try to come up with a constructive and realistic alternative.
The issue for Kyoto is being tied into something which is detrimental to our citizens. While there is wide support for reducing CO2 emissions themselves, being forced into it is not a viable option. To force businesses to comply would be an undue burden on many of them. So the solution is to find the middle ground. Kyoto will never be signed by the US. However, another agreement might be, so long as it is equitable.

Another issue when dealing with Global warming or CO2 emissions is the fact that there is no immediate return to the enormous investment. We can spend billions to reduce CO2 emissions, but we will not see any result in our lifetime. These measures are an investment in our future, and that is difficult to convey to many people. Realize that it is not all-or-nothing issue. We can take steps to reduce emissions without being tied to Kyoto.

Here is a map of CO2 emissions in relation to Kyoto.

The following is a recently published book on Kyoto: The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming

If anyone wants more info regarding Kyoto, just e-mail me or reply to this post, and I will get you more links.
----

What was significant about the Pinatubo eruption was the 17 Megatons of sulphur dioxide (which measurably increased ozone damage for at least two years), and the sulfates in the cloud of debris (5 cubic kilometers of stuff, with much of the heavier stuff landing nearby) in the upper atmosphere which shaded the Earth and decreased global temperatures.