Due to global warming the permafrost is melting in Siberia at a rapid rate releasing ,more carbon and methane into the atmosphere ! compounding the effect of global warming ! Ivory carvers who use Mammoth ivory are finding it a good thing ,as more Mammoth remains are being found and hence more ivory finds

And?
The permafrost in Siberia is a relict thing from the Pleistocene that have undergone melting when conditions were favourable during atleast the last 130 000 years. It is not a new thing, nor alarming for the moment. Yedoma lands react like that on climatic amelioration. The effect of the tundra as a carbon source or a sink is still debated and more research is needed to find out IF there are sub-permafrost hydrocarbon deposits there and how it would react to warming.

Global warming or the Chicken Little Syndrome?

As I understand it the climate scientists have said the average global temperature rose about one degee F in the 20th century. And most of that was in the first half, 1901 to about 1950.

But who pays attention to facts when the sky is falling?

The earth has cycled thru warming and cooling for eons long before mankind appeared and a politician is powerless to stop it.

Politicians are perfectly capable, however, of destroying all modern industry in a futile attempt to do so.

Are you people that stupid and going with Bush's "Global Warming isn't real Bullshit???"

Global Warming is real. Polar Ice caps are melting. 2005 was the warmest year on RECORD!!!.

I am a conservative Republican, but if we keep cutting down the rainforests burning fuel like its an endless supply and keep destroying the environment, there will nothing left for future generations.

Its called Oxygen. Trees take CO2 and make it into 02. Less trees less O2 to breath. More cars more CO2. More humans more forest destruction.

Is it that hard to comprehend???

HERE HERE Sierrabravo45

If You want to discuss the geochemical carbon cycle or the creation of anthropogenic carbon sinks and the multiple feedback loops created by albedo changes in the high latitudes as well as the so called human induced part of the VITAL greenhouse effect that have created life on this planet as we know it, then go ahead. That would be fun and stimulating.

But dont for a moment think that You can simplify it to CO2 emissions over a timespan of 2 centuries that the city biased temperature registrations of the nortwestern european maritime sector spans.(the worlds longest temperature series go back to 1758 in Sweden, Thermometer put on the south side of a house without shielding from the sun.)

Get real and look into the proxy archives instead.

How come the climate was warmer around 1000 years ago, when Vikings could sail to Greenland and live on the east coast where NOT EVEN the eskimo people live today due to the harsh climate?

If it is so hot today, how come it was warmer than today around 6000 years ago when there were no cars, nor human industries?

How come the northern hemisphere climate was much warmer around 130 000 years ago than it is today? Back then, the human population had not left the east african basin (That bottleneck in our evolution was reached around 74 kaBP (bp=before present) when Toba had its eruption).

How do You explain the fact that the overall trend of Antarctica is cooling, with these huge amounts of greenhouse gases heating the entire planet? The Greenland ice sheet would still regenerate if it was removed today.
Still the greenland ice sheet was almost completely absent in the last interglacial (EEM), and the latest "ice age" started around 120 kaBp. According to the IPCC reports the worst case scenario is 1 m (3 feet) of sea level rise in 100 years. After the latest deglaciation of Iceland, the island rose with 13 cm / year which equals a uplift and change in the sea level of the IPCC worst case scenario in a DECADE. This implies that sea level changes are naturally occuring on these and shorter as well as longer time scales, with or without human contributions.

The list can go on and on, these are just the most obvious examples of the natural variation in the earths climate over time.

The FACT remains, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SAY THAT THE "TRENDS" WE ARE SEEING TODAY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE "NATURAL" VARIATION IN THE EARTHS CLIMATE ON THESE TIME SCALES!

The holocene (Last 10ka = 10000years) is a inherently stable period, dramatically different from the general and very instabile behaviour of this planet, Why? No one knows. -Fund me and I will look for a piece of the answer. ;-)

Still, I fail to see the doomesday scenarios in this mild and average behaviour of the climate during the last centuries. It is an anamoly, but so is the entire holocene, and as such, the holocene is a way larger anamoly than the anthropogenic greenhouse forcing thats som much spoken about these days. I also doubt that humans have started to affect climate considerably before the onset of the paleolithic age as would be needed to explain the deviant behaviour of the climate during the last 10ka.

On the other hand, it is infinately stupid to NOT utilize the BAT concept (Best Available Technology) as far as it can be done.

Separate FACTS from unsupported and unconfirmed rumors and hearsays without significance. Just because I cannot see any things that point into a doomsday scenario, it does not mean that I am utilizing the dirtyest things I can get my hands on. On the contrary I try to enlight people to use more environmentally friendly things just to be on the safe side and have a better concience, even though we cannot today say anything about if it would matter or not. Still, it is stupid to not use the best technology just because it is a little bit cheaper to use the dirty stuff... Thats also bad business, but thats another discussion.

Please, do not mix this with popularly and politically correct nonsense. It has nothing to do with it. It is just cheap shots to earn some "voting-points" and lots of money from the uneducated majority that are willingly lead anywhere without critically assessing the information available.
Thus, forget about the bullshit about forced greenhouse warming, and make sure You put the best filters available on all your gadgets, not because You have to, but because YOU CAN. It is a matter of choice to do something or to just let it pass away.

It is not about beeing pro or con, It is about accepting the situation and forgetting about the scapegoat thing and do something about the situation by yourself. The first step might be buying a new diesel car insted of the gasoline driven one. Second thing is to use a heating device for the house by drilling 2 holes in the ground and use a heat exchanger instead of burning oil, called geothermal heat. There are lots of innovations and techiques to utilize.

Sincerely
Daniel

Mmmm-Hmmmm. My take on the whole issue is that only people who don't have to work outside in the fricking winter get hysterical about "global warming". I had on 4 layers today and this is only November.

quote:

2005 was the warmest year on RECORD!!!.

Yep and the RECORDS only go back a couple of hundred years!
Bawhawhawhahahahaha
The earth is just a LITTLE older and has slightly more history than that don't you think?

Great post Huglu

Global warming is right up there with the ozone hole frenzy of 1980's when we were all gonna fry the moment we stepped out into the sun.
Pure BS.

quote:

Originally posted by Huglu:
If You want to discuss the geochemical carbon cycle or the creation of anthropogenic carbon sinks and the multiple feedback loops created by albedo changes in the high latitudes as well as the so called human induced part of the VITAL greenhouse effect that have created life on this planet as we know it, then go ahead. That would be fun and stimulating.

But dont for a moment think that You can simplify it to CO2 emissions over a timespan of 2 centuries that the city biased temperature registrations of the nortwestern european maritime sector spans.(the worlds longest temperature series go back to 1758 in Sweden, Thermometer put on the south side of a house without shielding from the sun.)

Get real and look into the proxy archives instead.

How come the climate was warmer around 1000 years ago, when Vikings could sail to Greenland and live on the east coast where NOT EVEN the eskimo people live today due to the harsh climate?

If it is so hot today, how come it was warmer than today around 6000 years ago when there were no cars, nor human industries?

How come the northern hemisphere climate was much warmer around 130 000 years ago than it is today? Back then, the human population had not left the east african basin (That bottleneck in our evolution was reached around 74 kaBP (bp=before present) when Toba had its eruption).

How do You explain the fact that the overall trend of Antarctica is cooling, with these huge amounts of greenhouse gases heating the entire planet? The Greenland ice sheet would still regenerate if it was removed today.
Still the greenland ice sheet was almost completely absent in the last interglacial (EEM), and the latest "ice age" started around 120 kaBp. According to the IPCC reports the worst case scenario is 1 m (3 feet) of sea level rise in 100 years. After the latest deglaciation of Iceland, the island rose with 13 cm / year which equals a uplift and change in the sea level of the IPCC worst case scenario in a DECADE. This implies that sea level changes are naturally occuring on these and shorter as well as longer time scales, with or without human contributions.

The list can go on and on, these are just the most obvious examples of the natural variation in the earths climate over time.

The FACT remains, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SAY THAT THE "TRENDS" WE ARE SEEING TODAY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE "NATURAL" VARIATION IN THE EARTHS CLIMATE ON THESE TIME SCALES!

The holocene (Last 10ka = 10000years) is a inherently stable period, dramatically different from the general and very instabile behaviour of this planet, Why? No one knows. -Fund me and I will look for a piece of the answer. ;-)

Still, I fail to see the doomesday scenarios in this mild and average behaviour of the climate during the last centuries. It is an anamoly, but so is the entire holocene, and as such, the holocene is a way larger anamoly than the anthropogenic greenhouse forcing thats som much spoken about these days. I also doubt that humans have started to affect climate considerably before the onset of the paleolithic age as would be needed to explain the deviant behaviour of the climate during the last 10ka.

On the other hand, it is infinately stupid to NOT utilize the BAT concept (Best Available Technology) as far as it can be done.

Separate FACTS from unsupported and unconfirmed rumors and hearsays without significance. Just because I cannot see any things that point into a doomsday scenario, it does not mean that I am utilizing the dirtyest things I can get my hands on. On the contrary I try to enlight people to use more environmentally friendly things just to be on the safe side and have a better concience, even though we cannot today say anything about if it would matter or not. Still, it is stupid to not use the best technology just because it is a little bit cheaper to use the dirty stuff... Thats also bad business, but thats another discussion.

Please, do not mix this with popularly and politically correct nonsense. It has nothing to do with it. It is just cheap shots to earn some "voting-points" and lots of money from the uneducated majority that are willingly lead anywhere without critically assessing the information available.
Thus, forget about the bullshit about forced greenhouse warming, and make sure You put the best filters available on all your gadgets, not because You have to, but because YOU CAN. It is a matter of choice to do something or to just let it pass away.

It is not about beeing pro or con, It is about accepting the situation and forgetting about the scapegoat thing and do something about the situation by yourself. The first step might be buying a new diesel car insted of the gasoline driven one. Second thing is to use a heating device for the house by drilling 2 holes in the ground and use a heat exchanger instead of burning oil, called geothermal heat. There are lots of innovations and techiques to utilize.

Sincerely
Daniel

Who really gives a damn there's nothing anyone can do. Under the Kyoto treaty the US hasn't & shouldn't sign why is China exempt and other countries as well this is a ploy to control the USA.Screw them all!

Why do I get the impression that while the rest of us were out chasing women, drinking beer and having fun, Huglu was in his dorm reading science books and doing complicated math problems for relaxation?

Great post, by the way. I could'nt have said it any better, really.

Mousegun
Fun can be so many different things, all have its time and season.
Of course You are right in some things about the "dorm" as I recently participated in a PhD course concerning the climatic change in the arctic areas, so it was easy to write this from the top of my head. Still the fact remains, The Global Warming Issue is FAR to complex to reduce to one single factor, but if ALL contribute with what they CAN, then we will have gone a fair way.

One thing does not preclude the other. They can both exist at the same time and that is very important to realise. Its not either or, its both.

Sincerely
Daniel

quote:

Reply

Huglu,

You're right. Fun is different things to different people. I was just making a joke and hope you took no offence. It is rather nice to hear from an educated and informed source on a subject that most people dont know jack about, Myself included. You seem to have a lot to offer to this forum.

No one should doubt that there is a (slight) global warming going on. The question is what can we really do about it, either way? Fact is, we had, IIRC from grade school science, something like seven ice ages that came and went without help from any man. Fact is, the average volcano spits out more greenhouse gas and particulates than man. Fact is, the Chinese, Indians, South America, Russia, etc, won't harm their industrial base for anything to do with grass. So, we in the USA can't do anything more than we are already doing without great harm - and cost - to our economy and that small bit more would have no significant impact on the totals emitted.

I believe solar activity has more to do with it than everthing else combined. If so, we will simply have to cope with any real problems that arise, when and as they actually occur.

Wait, wait! What's that distant wail I hear in the far valley? "Run, run, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" ;-)

Mousegun

No offence taken at all. If someone could learn something from me by reading what I write, then my day is good.

The fact that the temperatures ARE rising is not a new thing, it have occurred since thermometers were invented and put to everyday use.

But since the nature of the planet is that there are major shifts in the climatic pattern over several different time scales, the trend forced by humans are hard to separate from the natural variation. I believe that it is possible to see the human trend in some areas and that it would be good if we could try to slow down the emissions of several Green House Gases (GHGs) simply by using the techniques already at hand.

The USA can do a lot in this area since it is a large consumption of fossil fuels as compared to other parts of the world (around 25% of all oil is consumed in USA, still not 25% of the human population dwells there).

It will make a difference, both in the environment and for the long term benefits of having your grandchildren beeing able to drive a car and go fishing in the creeks.

Here in Sweden many of the larger industries have started to finally get the insight that people are willing to pay a little bit more for products that are good, and also in the same way are more friendly to the environment than their alternatives. Most people does not buy meat from other countries due to the way animals are treated (constand antibiotic feed in their food) and the long transportation distances. (Why buy from Uruguay when you can buy from the farm a few miles away?)

Why would I buy a car with the steel coming from Brazil or Australia when we have the best steel in the world within the country?

It is economy in its widest perspective. Make sure the resources on the planet are used wisely and as close to the source as possible.

If the supermarket does not have the ecological milk and the ecologically farmed bananas I like, then I tell the lady in the desk that since they do not have those items I will take my business elsewhere and at the same time explain briefly why I choose those bananas instead of other bananas. The next week there were both bananas and milk in the shop, and it is a standard item in their shop now.

So, this is a real time example of that the single individual can actually change habits and make the companies change. It works even better in large numbers.

A shooting related topic would be to get the primer manufacturers to switch to non-toxic primers instead of the mercury and lead-azid compounds they use, thats EXTREMELY toxic and is inhaled after each shot, giving it a straight route into the blood veins through the lungs. The primers are the largest reason for elevated lead-levels for hunters/reloaders.

The key to sucess is information and knowledge, and for that the internet is great!
Still, one have to critically assess the sources of information. It is quite obvious that a pamphlet from Greenpeace about oil usage is biased, as well as if the oil companies would write about it. So, try to find the information which are un-biased. Common sence goes a long way.

The trade with the exhaust rights of CO2 is a start, but would be much better if there were also ways to take already done investments into the deal. As it is now, the winners are the most polluting industries that should pay the most due to their ineficcient use of energy, and the losers are the most environmentally friendly and efficient companies because they started to clean their pollution before the Kyoto treaty.

Jim C

There are lots to be done by any person in the daily life. It is a matter of choices. If You live in a big city, use the tram/subway instead of the car to work. If the house is heated by oil, get a water accumulator tank for it so that it is not needed to burn constantly. A bit expencive now, but it will cut your fuel bill later and turn into a save of money in the long run. Fit a particle filter to the chimney to get rid of the larger dust particles. By doing that You have gone a long way! Tell the supermarket fruit staff that you want organic fruits and not those soaked in pesticides, if they ask why, then tell them to drink a bottle of DDT and see how they would feel.

In the long run the economy will benefit from the increased cost in the start up period.

Volcanic eruptions are a source of GHGs, yes, but they are also a source of SO2, sulfur-dioxide, which is acting as a blockage for the solar rays in the atmosphere. Which makes a normal volcanic eruption cooling the earth for some time.

Examples:
Pinatubo in the 1990s cooled the earth with around 0,4°C for a few years, while Tambora 1816 yielded the "year without summer" and major potato crop failure and famine in Ireland, thus resulting in a big migration wave to US from Ireland then. Krakatau 1883 sent ocean waves 6 times around the entire globe and made the following years colder due to the reflection of solar radiation in the atmosphere. These eruptions cause distinkt horizons in the ice cores from greenland and antarctica.

The most important greenhouse gas today is water vapour, followed by CO2 and then methane (CH4).

The sun is the reason for life on this planet. We are just the right distance away from the sun to have water in its 3 forms naturally (solid, liquid and gas) which also gives a good chemical reaction base temperature wise. The sun does not vary that much, it is rather constant. But what is varying is the earths rotation around the sun. Run a google search on "Milankovich" cycles/forcing to see the effects of it. This is very debated in climatology nowadays.

Oh, and one last thing, the well known saying of the rainforests as the lungs of the earth, its pure BULLSHIT! The rainforests are actually a net consumer of oxygen. This has been a fact in the academic world since the 1970s but have not seeped out to the public as it seems. The producers of the oxygen on this planet are foremost the (blue-green) algae in the oceans.

But, me saying that the rainforests not producing oxygen, does that give us the right to clear cut them?

Of course not!!!

It is just again to separate fact from fiction.

Just because the rainforests do not produce any O2, does not mean the they are useless.

95% of known species are found in the rainforests, and still just a few % are explored. So going there and clear cutting is pure madness!

Not because of the oxygen but because of the biodiversity, because of the ancient ecosystems and because of the fact that nothing else can live there once it is gone. Theres no nutrients in the leached soil.

The same applies for "Global Warming"

So, again it boils down to separating fact from fiction and do the best we can with the opportunities at hand, when you have a choice, put nature first and your short term economical gain of saving a penny second.

I loose around 7 dollars every year on buying ecological milk instead of the standard one. Will I survive the extra money spent? Is the world worth it? For me it is a big YES!

Sincerely

Daniel

don't worry about it.you are going to die of something

Huglu,

I'm not sure what you mean by "taking a PhD course" in the field. If it means completing a PhD, I am especially impressed that you have ignored completely scientific consensus in your field. If you took a graduate course in the field, I presume that your instructor emphasized the importance of consensus.

However you gained the information to grandly and with great condecension "discuss" the topic, do you really think that choosing a diesel engine is a good idea?

For those who presume that anthropogenically driven global warming is "chicken litte" stuff, take a closer look at some of the data. Also. for those who think that a little global warming is fine, there are now plenty of consequences developing. Only the blissfully unaware could presume that they are of no consequence or that we really don't need to give a damn what kind of world we leave to future generations.

If I sound impatient, it is perhaps in part due to having watched this kind of debate in the past over things like cigarettes and lung cancer, the effects of CFC's in ozone depletion, and so on. Scientific consensus is as good as our knowledge base gets. There is always one more observation to make, one more anomoly to explain, but there is also a point at which it wise to stop smoking or to conclude that dumping more CFC's into the atmoshere is not a good thing.

Do all scientist agree on any major question? The answer is that there are still PhD's who think the link between cigarettes and lung cancer is not conclusively demonstrated or that anthropogencially released CFC's are a major factor in ozone depletion. That's why achieving scientific consensus is the best that we can ever do and if we ignore it, we or our kids pay the price.

Daryldouthat

The course I was taking was one among others that is on the PhD level, which means it is post MSc, but pre-PhD. From what You are implying, there would be a MASSIVE support for global warming entirely due to anthropogenic reasons. That is unheard of in the science world, and no one tries to simplify it that much. It is only the meteorologists that stubbornly refuses to look at the long term trends that say that humans pollute so much. Of course there are negative effects from the western worlds behaviour and that can clearly be seen by the well known polar amplification factor. That a small change in mid latitudes will have huge impacts at higher latitudes. But, that still does not tell anything about the reason behind the trends of today or any other time. There is no consensus on this today. But, there are a LOT of people getting funding from sources wanting negative results about the environment, so I guess that some of these things can be seen in the resulting articles. People find evidence for many things in their studies, but things they deduce from their results cannot be found in neighboring locations, and that puts their research in a limbo position of beeing unable to confirm or deny it.
If that is consenus for funding reasons or for pure "science" is another thing.

No one denies that it is a warming going on, no one says that it is entirely human deduced. No one says that the humans are not to blame at all.
I have not said that, nor will I do it.
The thing is that it is not enough information developed yet to be able to outline the climatic behaviour on the planet, the climatic research area is a vast research field both in space and time. It covers 1/4 of the earth surface, with less than 1% currently under investigation in any form. Humans know more about the rainforests than about the polar regions.

What I have concistently pointed out in this discussion is that,
one, we do not have enough information for good conclusions that are accurate.
Two, Even if we do not have the facts needed for decisions, there is no reason to not be careful and not utilize the BAT technology at all places available. Not doing that is utterly stupid.
Three, that even the single individual can make a change by acting in his/her vicinity.
Four, just because we cannot see it, does not mean it is not there.
Five, just because we cannot seem to find the owerwhealming doomesday coming towards us at an infinite speed, does not justify us sitting idle. By acting now, changes can be done that might contribute a lot to the "wellbeing" of the planet.

The big question that needs an answer is just,
WHAT is normal climate on this planet? If the answer to that is that the normal climate is a randomly changing variable climatic regime, then how do we know if it is normal or not if it is within the variations in the accepted "normal" climate?

Why look at just SOME of the data? Which parts are chosen, and why are the other parts neglected? How would you get a good scientific foundation from biased data, or just by looking at some?

What the "teachers" on the courses I have participated in put in focus is the NEED for the students to critically assess and examine the work of others by acting as individuals. What have they done, are their results plausible, are all other explanations less likely than what they have come up with?
To seek consensus is not enough, that will not bring science forward. Before I started to get interested in this field of research, I was very "aware" of the pollutions of humans and the consequences of it. But now, the more I read and study, the less certain am I about what the human contribution really signifies. It is there of course, it is larger in the arctic than in the tropics, it is measurable, and it is wrong that humans behave like they do. But will it be the doom of the planet as so often broadcasted, I dont know, and for the moment with all the data I have gone through, I do not think so. With more data at hand that shows other things, then of course things change. Thats the good thing with science, getting payed for doing things you know nothing about...

Comparing CFCs, and cigarettes to the anthropogenic warming is a good attempt, but a little bit off in terms of ground research put behind it. LOTS are written and documented about these things. It will take another 10 scientific generations (10x30years) to just outline the sea-level-curve of Baffin Island. After that, the archives on land can be relatively dated for comparison among the group. Today no consensus exist between the timing of the last 3 glaciations in Alaska, if we do not know WHEN something happened, we cannot say anything about the climate at any time. Warmer than, colder than, but not how much, nor the very important WHEN as this is synchronized with other archves giving a regional/global trend.

Choosing a diesel engine is vastly superior to a petrol/gasoline one.
It have a better efficiency, normally up to 40% compared to the maximum 30% efficency of a petrol engine, it emits much less hydrocarbons per mile of travel as compared to a petrol enging, and another benefit is that you go a longer distance per volume fuel consumed as compared to the petrol. So, yes, a diesel is much better than petrol. Hybrid cars and electric cars are not yet competitive with the combustion engines.

Sincerely
Daniel

quote:

Originally posted by daryldouthat:
Huglu,

I'm not sure what you mean by "taking a PhD course" in the field. If it means completing a PhD, I am especially impressed that you have ignored completely scientific consensus in your field. If you took a graduate course in the field, I presume that your instructor emphasized the importance of consensus.

However you gained the information to grandly and with great condecension "discuss" the topic, do you really think that choosing a diesel engine is a good idea?

For those who presume that anthropogenically driven global warming is "chicken litte" stuff, take a closer look at some of the data. Also. for those who think that a little global warming is fine, there are now plenty of consequences developing. Only the blissfully unaware could presume that they are of no consequence or that we really don't need to give a damn what kind of world we leave to future generations.

If I sound impatient, it is perhaps in part due to having watched this kind of debate in the past over things like cigarettes and lung cancer, the effects of CFC's in ozone depletion, and so on. Scientific consensus is as good as our knowledge base gets. There is always one more observation to make, one more anomoly to explain, but there is also a point at which it wise to stop smoking or to conclude that dumping more CFC's into the atmoshere is not a good thing.

Do all scientist agree on any major question? The answer is that there are still PhD's who think the link between cigarettes and lung cancer is not conclusively demonstrated or that anthropogencially released CFC's are a major factor in ozone depletion. That's why achieving scientific consensus is the best that we can ever do and if we ignore it, we or our kids pay the price.

PhD Post Hole Digger :>

Huglu,

I think that what we really disagree on is the extent to which "concensus" has been reached. With all due respect, I do not think that you appreciate the meaning of scientific "concensus" and the role that achieving concensus plays in determining when we act on information. "Concensus" does not mean that all or nearly all scientists agree or even that all the major relevant questions have been put to rest. What it means is that the preponderence of scientists who are quailified to understand and assess the topic in question have examined the available data and have agreed on the major conclusions. Could they be wrong? Of course! But we would be foolish to ignore concensus in favor of emphasizing our ignorance.

The point of concensus has already been reached with regard to the anthropogenic contribution to global warming. We do not know the precise contribution but is now concensus that the human contribution is a major factor in global warming. Consequently, we have in fact reached a point in our knowledge of the problem that it is important to take major action rather taking the sort of baby steps that you are suggesting. All of the topics that you mentioned are interesting and some may even turn out to reveal an entirely new aspect of the problem. But solving many of the problems will essentially be putting one more nail in the board. It is important to do that and indeed some of those "nails" may take the many long years that you suggest but that doesn't mean that we wait that long to take major action.

Another aspect of scientific "concensus" that I would like to emphasize here is that it does not matter what your conclusions or mine are. What matters is the extent to which concensus has been achieved within the larger scientific community regarding the major conclusions.

Achieving "consensus" does not of course mean that there is not plenty left to do and to discover. I am sure that you will have a good career and I applaud your enthusiasm.

As far as disgreeing, one of our predecessors pointed out that one can only truely disagree with friends.

daryldouthat
I agree in your emphasis on making big changes, and that is what I also have stressed in the text above, albeit indirectly. The single human beeing cannot change the way the country regulates exhausts, but he or she can actually change the small things in their own life. Those baby steps are the first things to take to be able to step up on the big changes. Change your own habits first, then introduce it to your workplace and neighbourhood. Not until the general public are willing to take these small steps in their daily life will we see a major shift in the big issues. It goes back to the Rio conference in 1991 and the Brundtland report who coined the phrase, think global act local.
But, for the moment, no one is saying that the GHG forcing by humans are negligible, nor are they saying that it is huge. It is within the standard variations of the planet. It is no consensus on the effects of it. It may be colder, warmer, wetter or drier. Scientists here does not agree on any other thing than to start the day with a cup of coffee.
The only thing that there is consensus on is the fact that just because we cannot determine it, does not mean that we can continue as we have done. Changes are needed now, not because we can see the big threat, but because we have the technology to do something about it now because we can. Its only foolish to not do it, as I have repeated several times so far.
It is separating facts from fiction and facts from unproved theories. By doing that one can become a scientist, but that does not stop things from beeing done in advance in the event of a coming change that we are not able to see today.

The politicians have to listen to the people if they want to keep their jobs, and as long as the majority of the population is not willing to take the baby steps to change their environment, the politicians will not put forth legislation that will benefit mother nature. The key is information, and the RIGHT information which means facts and not some kind of Disneyfied mumbo-jumbo. The real change starts within the single person. Preaching to the converted makes no progress in changing the world. Real information and true facts can make a real contribution.

Of course it is time to act now in big scale, but not because of the climatic information since it is to scarce, the reason to act is because it is not right to pollute the way humans are doing in our exploitation of the planet. I would not think of beeing satisfied with the environmental protection untill all factories and powerplants were made without an chimney. Still, I cannot change the way USA are going by myself. What I can do is to try to give information that highlights ALL sides of the issue, as compared to the strongly biased and incorrect bulletins from the oil companies on one side, and from the "conservationists" on the other side. Humans are capable of thinking and making own decisions based on the information they have. If given both good and bad sides they can make a better choise than if they only had bad information available.

Consensus or not among the scientists is of minimum concern to the policymakers and politicians. They only put forth those things they can gain something from. Either moneywise or things that make them stronger. Today it is often used by politicians as their last resort to cling to power for another year or so. Its a shame, but thats the way it is working.

Still, the little man CAN make a difference, and with good information they can make a good choice. Babysteps are better than beeing paralyzed, and if there are enough babies stepping on a politician, he will be squashed.

Sincerely
Daniel

We need to do what we can? Sounds good, logical and reasonable doesn't it? But, if man is a minor part of the problem, as I believe, and by far most men (nations) will not do anything at all, the question remains "Just how much good can a few acting individually do to turn the tide?" Our final potential is a piddling bit and that at great cost. It's sort of like a politician crowing of some social programs success when the "poor" are given pennies more each year but the cost in taxes is thousands; yeah, some good but at a high price to those who are doing the paying.

If the primary imputus is solar activity them the actions of all the earths devoted green men could delay the results by a few days each hundred years?

I don't have much faith in scientific consensus. Each time I hear the phrase I remember that at one time it was the scientic consensus that the world was flat, based on the clear evidence and reason. And those were not stupid men - some built the pyremids, stone henge, devised means of marine navigation, algegra, etc - but they had insufficent data and failed to correctly interpretate the evidence they did have. In fact, it wasn't a scientist that deduced the world was round, it was sailor. Today we have a simular failure of scientists to discern what's going on, or should we put our faith in dodos like Al Gore?

Al Gore lives!!!

You have to be realistic and Face the Facts that things in our world world are moving all the more Quickly !! the weather is changing ,even in the past thirty years weather patterns have changed .An oil ''man '' stated the more oil we burn the better it is for the worlds environment hmmmmmmm can you really believe that ??????? their are more and more natural disasters !!!!!!! and will get worse !!! Sure there have been Major climatic changes in the past BUT ! humans were NOT playing a Part in it by pushing so much Emissions into the Atmosphere .You have to admit that is true ? !!!!!!!! Some ''know it alls'' say it is because of Cattle and there ''emissions'' methane, that has got to be CRAP !!!!!!!! think of how many emissions just one Automobile Emits and you will know this is just Blatant guilt shifting !!!!!!!!!any bloodly half wit !!!!!! who is Honest with himself ,KNOWS that things aint Right in the world ,and it will all come to a MAJOR CRUNCH in the near Future !

It is snowing in Israel. Maybe the Jews need to know about global warming.....I think that God is telling them this is bullshit.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11049-maj...ks-set-to-alarm.html
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_...ess_rel_paris_en.pdf

Don't argue about facts.

The UN is hardly a credible organization !They have more scandals than they can count and are very highly politicized ! Most of the 'warming' is the hot air from the politicians .Well it was -2 F this morning ,typical of all the NE USA -are you listening Mr Al "hot air" Gore ??

dont sweat it.
as soon as enough fresh water desalinizes the oceans things will get cold again and freeze. the freezing action will leech out the salts and reform icebergs reducing the amount of liquid water again and resalting the oceans.
you and i wont be around for it though.