40 Comments

1. David Thomson:

The global warming hysteria is a sure political loser—once the voters realize the devastating consequences to their own pocketbooks. The leftist establishment is conning people into believing that the costs are extremely minimal. Of course, the harsh reality is that the vast majority of Americans will suffer horribly as the economy is literally pushed into a depression. And I might also add that the available polling data is abundantly clear on this point.

May 30, 2008 - 5:20 am 2. BizzyBlog » Latest Pajamas Media Column (’Big-Government Environmentalism Wears Out Its Welcome’) Is Up:

[...] It’s here. [...]

May 30, 2008 - 5:24 am 3. BackwardsBoy:

We are just now experiencing the effects of environmentalism as gas nears $4 per gallon and food prices rise with every trip to the grocery store. Years of short-sighted decisions by politicians who don’t care about the nations’ future have led us to this point. But what government has done, government can undo. We just need to find public officials who are willing to act in the best interests of America and will stand up and say “No” to environmentalists whose real agenda is to make us a third-world country as rapidly as possible.

May 30, 2008 - 7:50 am 4. John Samford:

The “science” ( yes, those are sneer quotes) of global warming is bogus, so why shouldn’t the politics of global warming be bogus also?

May 30, 2008 - 7:56 am 5. Boris:

Why dd rightwingers hate science so much.

I agree with Gore’s proposal to scrap the payroll tax and institute a carbon tax. That way, you can work more without as much penalty and lower your tax bill by lowering your energy use. If you want your SUV, all you are asked to do is pay the real cost.

May 30, 2008 - 9:23 am 6. Greg:

I am amazed at the people that just don’t get it. this is not a science issue. This is a religion. This is an issue of power. Gore could care less about enviroment,because he knows it is in no danger. He wants you to do with less, because then the playing field will be much more level..and manageable, if he has people that simply fear. He can whip up this un natural hatred of a standing president, these people that are just looking for an esxcuse to justify this hatred, and use it as a tool to pry away everyones liberties. This is a hoax that is meant to lure all of us suckers into ceding a way of life. Don’t you see he despises the average American? We don’t think correctly so he has to do it for us. We cannot steer a hurricane, we cannot even be sure what a hurrcane even is . We cannot affect weather localy let alone a number climates around the world. now we can wreck a climate and we can repair a climate? I smell a con. There is not one note of science behind this. Only disdain for the American way of life

May 30, 2008 - 10:05 am 7. John:

Here’s why the Global Warming Fraud is a loser in the long term:

There are two groups feeding upon this media generated hysteria, greenies and politicians.

Politicians will be expected to “solve” the crisis; however, since the only thing government is capable of doing is taking away more of your money or driving up the cost of living, there is a limit to how much “solving” the public will put up with.

The greenies, however, have no such limiting factor. They will continue to shriek that the sky is falling from now until doomsday.

Ultimately, these two lines will intersect and politicians will be told by the public to ignore the Global Warming kooks. Global Warming then will become an icon of public ridicule, and rightfully so.

As an aside, the media will also suffer further credibility erosion (as if anyone believes them anyway) as it will find itself unable to let down their fellow travelers on the far-left, the greenies.

May 30, 2008 - 10:49 am 8. Wearyman:

Boris-

“Rightwingers” LOVE Science. REAL Science. Unlike you loony leftist MOONBATS who like trumped-up falsified data twisted inside out to support a quasi-religious/socialist AGENDA.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX. It isn’t real, and Science says so.

Learn it, Love it, Live it Boris.

Now go get a real job and be a productive member of society.

May 30, 2008 - 12:37 pm 9. Robert Speirs:

No government conceivable today in the US or UK is going to back off the global warming nonsense. It offers too many opportunities to increase governmental power. The only solution is personal, to act so the governmental tyrannies don’t affect you as an individual. That’s why I ride an electric scooter. Abracadabra! I no longer worry about high gas prices or the folly of ethanol. I can concentrate on more pressing issues, such as which wines to buy with the money I save.

May 30, 2008 - 1:53 pm 10. EntropyIncreases:

It is a religion, but American voters appear to be lining up to drink the Kool-Aid. A Pres Obama working with a sympathetic Dem Congress with nice majorities will be able to do so much “good” for the world (and our country.)

Ah, well. But only worse than the Republicans who were incapable of using their Legislative and Executive Branch domination to push through meaningful legislation and reduce the federal government’s footprint. People have been joining the Democratic party in droves, showing that reason is in flight.

Conservatives had better wake up. The next 4 years will take a toll on our nation otherwise. And I am not too optimistic about the alternative, just pretty confident it will not be as bad…\

And pretty confident that Capitalization does not really help.

May 30, 2008 - 1:59 pm 11. Neal J. King:

Most of your anger about the high cost of gasoline is rather misplaced: It has absolutely nothing to do with measures taken (or considered) concerning global warming. It is a matter of supply & demand: Supply is not going to increase, and demand has been going way up, mostly because of the rise of the Chinese economy.

OK, there may be some speculation involved as well. But that’s still got nothing to do with the global warming issue.

If a carbon-dioxide tax is ever created, the likelihood is that you will hardly notice at the gas-pump. Remember a decade ago when they wanted to impose a 5-cent/gallon tax to encourage fuel economy? There was so much screaming, you would have thought the world was coming to an end. But if that in fact had been applied, maybe it would have sent the right signal to the American consumer, and we wouldn’t be as hung-out-to-dry as we are now, with millions of gas guzzlers, and gasoline price increases that make that 5-cent/gallon tax completely imperceptible.

May 30, 2008 - 2:20 pm 12. David H Dennis:

Personally, I think that in most of the United States, a warmer climate would be a winner, not a loser.

Imagine warmer weather for most of the year, lower heating bills, a longer swimming and boating season, and so on. Imagine a longer growing season for agriculture.

(Most of global warming happens during cool times of the day and relatively little of it during the summer. So it is not the case that there will be significantly hotter summers, just warmer winters).

Personally, I would like to simply eliminate winter entirely, which I think overall would enormously increase human happiness and might even make the notoriously grouchy Northeast less so.

I fear that may not be feasible and until then I am more htan happy to take warmer weather — it means a better life for most of us.

Many of us let alarmists lead us by the head and don’t consider that changes often have positive consequences as well as negative ones.

I believe that on balance a warmer world, if it can be obtained, would be a better one.

D

May 30, 2008 - 2:23 pm 13. tim maguire:

Bush has done a great job so far of not damaging the country over this issue. We only need two or three more years before global warming fades into obscurity because people will realize that we are not quite so powerful as the environmentalists think we are and the climate will take care of itself regardless of what we do. Plus it’s getting colder.

So we need one more obstructionist president, and after that it won’t matter. So which one is it? Which one will do no more than pay lip service to global warming alarmists?

May 30, 2008 - 2:25 pm 14. craig:

“Why dd rightwingers hate science so much.”

I’m a righty and a scientist, and I know bullshit when I see it. What we hate is the pseudoscience that underlies the religion of global warming. It’s on par with “Creation Science”, which lefties love to hate.

May 30, 2008 - 2:34 pm 15. Portones:

Has atmospheric CO2 gone up since the beginning of the industrial revolution? … yes.

Is this CO2 increase largely due to man-made burning of carbon-containing fuels? … almost certainly, yes, but to a limited extent.

Has mankind ever seen such a large global mean surface temperature increase? … Yes, and more. The best example was the pre-industrial medieval warming period – roughly 850-1050 A.D., when there were vinyards in England, etc.

This earth has also experienced more profound temperature increases during pre-history. Available evidence also indicates that CO2 increases did not preceed, but followed such global temperature increases.

Isn’t our climate still warming? … I don’t believe so, but the jury’s still out. The warmest year in recenty history was actually 1998. Several places in Europe, the Mideast and Far East saw this past winter as their coldest in 50 to 100 yr. Climate and weather vary, dammit, regardless of human politics.

We should conserve fuel There ar damn good economic, national security, and geo-political reasons to conserve fuel. But CO2 emmissions is not one of them.

In many places, we have made the air unclean and unhealthy. We should burn our fuel as cleanly as possible, and we definitely can do better. Whe you look at the dirty air in Southern CA, in Salt Lake City, in El Paso, and many other places, you are seeing microparticulates, photochemical smog, and occasionally traces of acid mists. You are not seeing the invisible gas CO2.

Until the last few years all the climate modeling predicting global warming did not take into account varying solar activity. Some modeling now claims to account for such variation, although I question the accuracy of such. I still don’t think such modelling can predict past climate history with reasonable accuracy.

I’m an engineer whose carrer has required solving problems and getting things done using logic, reason and … science! I consider myself a political independent and am not registered with any political party. I question global warming alarmism. I ask why some are so afreaid to question global warming scenarios. Why to they hate science so much?

Finally, I don’t refer to global warming alarmists as “greenies”. I consider myself green, but do not see the very modest increase in atmospheric CO2 as harmful to the environment.

May 30, 2008 - 4:18 pm 16. George B:

There is a huge Red States/Blue States difference in the distribution of fossil fuels along with the willingness to extract them. Everyone loses with a carbon tax or carbon cap and trade, but areas with both fossil fuels and industry that use them get hurt much worse. It’s much easier to be in favor of big government carbon dioxide restrictions in West Coast or New England states than in the Midwest or South. With carbon taxes, hydroelectric gets a windfall while coal gets hurt bad.

Coal Map: http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_bearing_areas.pdf

Regarding science and the right wing, our BS detectors go off whenever a problem is elevated to crisis level to justify a big government solution. If the proposed solution was reducing the regulatory barriers to nuclear and wind power and allowing the construction of more hydroelectric dams, the right wing would be more supportive of “climate change” legislation. We’d still be skeptical that the gradual rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide was a crisis, not a potential problem, but we’d support the deregulaion on general principle.

May 30, 2008 - 4:21 pm 17. ic:

Thank GWB for bucking the trend until the globe cools off. Thank GWB for bucking the trend until embryo stem cells are not needed for stem cell research. Thank GWB for bucking the trend until victory is attainable in Iraq.

Thank GWB for being stubborn.

May 30, 2008 - 4:56 pm 18. Seerak:

Why dd rightwingers hate science so much.

Why are lefties trying as hard as they can to make sure that it is *science* that will take the credibility hit when the planet itself refutes global warming and cools off?

It offers too many opportunities to increase governmental power.

Name any Leftist policy position, going back to their socialist origins in 19th century Continental political thought, where the increase of government power was not the ultimate goal and end result.

Most of your anger about the high cost of gasoline is rather misplaced: It has absolutely nothing to do with measures taken (or considered) concerning global warming.

It has everything to do with measures taken by *environmentalists* to constrict supply, from banning drilling of offshore and ANWR oil deposits, to trying to stop the development of the Alberta oilsands.

Nice try for a switcheroo there Neal, but you are busted.

May 30, 2008 - 7:22 pm 19. GCA:

Just as we are about to turn our backs on reason and embrace socialism, psuedo science in the name of the new diety – the Environment, and cower in self hatred before every two-bit excuse for culture that wants our nations demise, the rest of the civilized world seems to be awakening to these destructive forces and maladies. This is heartening. Assuming a runaway Democrat congress aided and abetted by a president who is best described as Carter’s second term, with luck, there will be sufficient buyer’s remorse among the electorate in two years time to replace the few Republicans who remain after the November elections, and weak Democrats elected since 2006 to marginal or traditionally Republican seats, with representatives and senators(affiliated with whatever party) who act rationally and really believe in free enterprise, small government, and a strong defense, in sufficient numbers to send Pelosi, Reid, and the rst of their ilk back to the political wasteland from whence they came.

May 30, 2008 - 9:39 pm 20. The New Trend That American Presidential Candidates Are Missing:

[...] New Trend That American Presidential Candidates Are Missing Interesting for context: Pajamas Media Big-Government Environmentalism Wears Out Its Welcome [...]

May 31, 2008 - 12:08 am 21. AP:

Bush was right to keep us out of the disfunctional Kyoto treaty. He was right to hold back. I HOPE McCain will follow his lead if he’s elected (things tend to look different from behind the desk of the Oval Office) but the other two will definitely put us onboard with all of this stupidity.

This whole absurd myth has advanced because the left wanted Al Gore to feel like a success, somewhere – to make it up to him that he lost Tennessee in 2000. Had he carried his own damn state Florida would not have mattered, and as the NY Times confirmed, Gore lost Florida, too.

I miss Bush already. All you conservatives who have hated him for not being “pure” enough on spending and immigration are going to miss him too, when you see what’s coming down the pike.

And you on the left will miss him when you don’t feel so safe, anymore.

May 31, 2008 - 3:10 am 22. Boris:

“GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX.”

Really? Started by Arhenius in 1896? Further developed by Calendar and Plass in the 1930s and 1950s, and now promulgated by EVERY scientific body on the planet? You make 911Truthers look logical and sane.

“I’m a righty and a scientist, and I know bullshit when I see it. What we hate is the pseudoscience that underlies the religion of global warming. It’s on par with “Creation Science”, which lefties love to hate.”

What about the known physical properties of CO2, craig? As a scientist, I’m sure you are aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that adding more will increase surface temperature and decrease upper stratospheric temperature. And I’m sure you know that this has been exactly what we have observed. That’s “creation science” huh?

May 31, 2008 - 4:53 am 23. EricP:

Boris: “As a scientist, I’m sure you are aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that adding more will increase surface temperature and decrease upper stratospheric temperature. And I’m sure you know that this has been exactly what we have observed.”

What you are missing is that there is no dispute on this. The problem is that this would never cause enough heating to cause a problem (max 1 degree Celsius). So to get the required emergency, the alarmists theorized that the environment is a positive feedback system with a tipping point.

There is no evidence that the climate is subject to positive feedback and in fact a lot of evidence that it isn’t. Most people, especially those who are in the alarmist camp don’t actually understands the global warming theory. Learning the actual theory is usually the first step in realizing how preposterous it is.

May 31, 2008 - 9:37 am 24. Boris:

“There is no evidence that the climate is subject to positive feedback and in fact a lot of evidence that it isn’t.”

This is quite untrue. Basic theory says that a warmer planet will have more water vapor in the air, and this has already been detected

In addition, ice albedo feedback is uncontroversial and adds to the warming.

I’m not sure what you mean by “tipping point”, but AGW does not contend that there will be any kind of runaway greenhouse effect (although there are so=-called tipping points, e.g. the point at which the permafrost melts substantially and gives off methane or the point at which the oceans begin to absorb less CO2.)

May 31, 2008 - 12:53 pm 25. unseen:

boris,

global warming has been going on for 14,000 years. 14,000 years ago there were ice sheets 50 miles north of Pittsburgh, Pa. As far as I know there were no SUV’s 14,000 years although the evil white europeans might have destroyed the evidence when they landed and “stoled” the land from the Native Americans.

You should thank your lucky stars that global warming is real. Most of Northern North America and Northern europe, russia would still be under ice sheets if not for global warming (and all the food it produces). The climate moves in CYCLES. during those 14,000 years we had periods of warming and cooling but the trend is up since 14,000 years ago. Jumping on the middle of the trend and asigning a new cause does not change that fact. the Sunspot activity is at a min and the Winter was one of the coldest on record. That is cause and effect for you. Venus, Mars, and Jupiter are all showing signs of global warming. Last I checked we didn’t have SUV’s there either.

CO2 is a lagging indicator. the warmer the world becomes the more CO2 that is released by the oceans. the earth has several postive feed back cycles too. the warmer the earth getds the more water vapor goes into the air, forming more clouds which blocks the amount of energy hitting the earth. etc. A strong volcanic eruption will cool the earth more than all the Co2 could possibly warm it.

Human caused global warming is a hoax using the present warming cycle of the earth to grasp power curtail freedoms and move human society back to the 7th century.

This nonsense has gone on long enough. Revolutions have been started for less reasons.

May 31, 2008 - 6:57 pm 26. Yvonne Wittig:

I started studying GW to learn what it actually was, we heard a lot of hype, but facts were scarces. Bjorn Lomborg, John R. Christy and Christopher Horner, these give you an overall view of Big Al’s GW. I was suspicious when it seemed to be split between the Dems and Rep., abut when Big Al got his big award from the movie industry and he bought “carbon credits” to cover his “global footprints” I became quite convinced that If the world was in such peril, I would do more than give the Redwood Forest money to maintain. I would change my life style and want every body else to do the same. Cap and Trade is Big Al’s money making scheme, we all need to wise up and tell the environmentalists to quit peddling their hype and get a real job.

May 31, 2008 - 7:54 pm 27. unseen:

This is quite untrue. Basic theory says that a warmer planet will have more water vapor in the air, and this has already been detected
Boris:

basic theory also says that increased CO2 and increased water vapor will lead to addtional plant life

In addition, ice albedo feedback is uncontroversial and adds to the warming.

Ice sheets reflect sunlight back into space thereby cooling the planet.

You want science try this:
It has long been recognized that albedo related vegetation feedbacks amplify climate variability in North Africa. Recent studies have revealed that areas of very high albedo associated with certain desert soil types contribute to the current dry climate of the region. We construct three scenarios of North African albedo, one based on satellite measurements, one where the highest albedo resembles that of soils in the desert transition zones, and one based on a vegetation map for the green Sahara state of the middle Holocene, ca. 6,000 years ago. Using a series of climate model simulations, we find that the additional amplitude of albedo change from the middle Holocene to the present caused by the very bright desert soils enhances the magnitude of the June-to-August precipitation change in the region of the present Sahara from 0.6 to 1.0 mm/day on average. We also find that albedo change has a larger effect on regional precipitation than changes in either the Earth’s orbit or sea surface temperatures between 6,000 years ago and today. Simulated precipitation agrees rather well with present observations and mid Holocene reconstructions. Our results suggest that there may exist an important climate feedback from soil formation processes that has so far not been recognized.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17397668

Notice that the report does not mention CO2 as the cause of the desert formation of the Sahara. In fact the scientists think that it may simply be the change in albedo (sunlight hitting the surface) Albedo=Albedo is the fraction of solar energy (shortwave radiation) reflected from the Earth back into space.

Ice albedo does not add to warming…it adds to cooling. That is the positive feedback most climatoligists suggest causes the ice ages. As the ice forms more sunlight is reflected back to space thereby causing cooling summers and winters which causes more snow and ice to form which causes more sunlight to reflect out to space which causes more snow and ice. Etc.

hmm see a pattern here? Seems like the amount of sunlight hitting the earth plays some “UNKNOWN” part in global warming/cooling. Let’s take it further. water is less reflective than ice thus as ice melts (esp sea ice) than more energy is absorbed into the ocean heating the ocean causing more ice to melt causing more sunlight to be absorb etc. This is a positive feedback for warming. notice again CO2 is not mentioned. However as the oceans warm the gas able to be held with in oceans is lessened thereby releasing CO2. since the oceans holds 50 times more Co2 than the air. the warming of the oceans may be adding to the CO2 in the air.

what role does CO2 play. Oh yes the greenhouse gas theory which states that the reflected light is trapped due to its wavelength change. So more Co2 must mean higher temps right? well not so fast. The increased Co2 also stimulates plant growth which acts like a carbon sink, also the warmer oceans cause more plant life like alge to form which draws more Co2 into its sink and settles on the ocean floor. Also the increase rainfall caused by the addtional water vapor will speed the erosion of silcate rocks causing more production of limestone rock thus causing another carbon sink to form.

So you say? the rate of CO2 has never gone up this fast before and we are still all doomed because the earth can not keep up. Well not so fast. the earth has seen rates of Co2 much higher than today’s numbers. infact about 550 Million years ago Co2 was 350 times higher than today’s numbers. this equates with a huge explosion in new life forms.

In short climate is effected by many things including Co2 like sun activity, the rotation of the earth, the ground cover or lack of such, the wethering of rocks,, the formation of soils, the formation of clouds, the concetration of the oceans. To say that CO2 is the only cause or even a very big cause is to not understand the science of climate, geology, meterology, the galcier cycles, the sun cycle, the effects of plant life and animal life on climate, the convenction cycles of oceans, the volcano cycle of the earth, the movements of landmasses due to tectonic forces, the chemical reactions of all parties involved. Blaming CO2 for the entire cause of warming is very lazy science and very blindsided thinking.

May 31, 2008 - 8:07 pm 28. John Samford:

“As a scientist, I’m sure you are aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that adding more will increase surface temperature and decrease upper stratospheric temperature.”

I am aware that the above is a hypothesis. I’m sure you have no idea what I just said so;

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

The Planet Earth appears to get colder and warmer.

# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

Co2 is causing it.

# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

WE are all gonna die unless big government takes over,led by the algoreator.

# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

Being done now, although not successfully. None of the models are accurate.

# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

A Looooong ways from this step.

Jun 1, 2008 - 4:20 am 29. Boris:

Wow, guys, you have some major misconceptions. First off, the CO2 did not come from the oceans warming. We know this for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the CO2 level is RISING in the ocean. You are right that, all things being equal, a warming ocean will release CO2 (although very slowly and in very small amounts). But all things aren’t equal, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a major perturbation in the carbon cycle.

“So more Co2 must mean higher temps right? well not so fast. The increased Co2 also stimulates plant growth which acts like a carbon sink, also the warmer oceans cause more plant life like alge to form which draws more Co2 into its sink and settles on the ocean floor. Also the increase rainfall caused by the addtional water vapor will speed the erosion of silcate rocks causing more production of limestone rock thus causing another carbon sink to form.”

All the sequestration processes you talk about are slow or are overwhelmed by the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. The oceans and biosphere are absorbing about half of FF emissions.

And everyone knows climate is complex, but CO2 is the most important driver in the current climate.

“None of the models are accurate.”

Flat out untrue. There are many papers on the models’ predicted response to Mt. Pinatubo, which is just one small example of the accuracy and usefulness of climate models.

Jun 1, 2008 - 7:26 am 30. Brosco Pertwee:

I consider a careful read of Nigel Lawson’s recent book: “An Appeal To Reason”. I am sure he does not have all his fact correct, I doubt any of us do. However, he makes several powerful points that are worthy of consideration. Let us say that the US and Europe all toe the line on carbon emissions. India and China have told the rest of the world to go take a hike. Perhaps it is correct for them to do so. Their populations are not well off economically, but that is a different argument. CO2 emissions are fungible. What will occur is that the industries that require lots of coal to be burned and so forth will simply leave the US and Europe and move to production in those countries. No net CO2 savings. CO2 emitted in China is all the same as CO2 from Great Britain in so far as global warming is concerned. It should also be noted that CO2 is not the worst of the greenhouse gases around. Burning natural gas is less CO2 intensive than burning coal. Alas, a substantial (perhaps as high as 20%) of methane is lost through leakage between the well head and the destination. Methane is 20X as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2. [As an aside, this is one of the nasty facts you do not hear about when somebody builds a hydro facility. They flood an area that contains plants when they create the artificial lake behind the dam. The plants rot and produce methane. The time to break even is estimated by some people as being as long as 50 years in total greenhouse gas effect vs. burning coal. I do not have the data per se, so I will remain agnostic on the actual effect, but it does exist.] Also, while the US and Europe have pretty much eliminated CFCs per the Montreal convention, China still uses them. The global warming effect of CFCs is thousands of times larger than that of CO2. We are paying them to reduce the emissions, and they are doing so slowly, but they are still producing them.

Things are never so simple and neat when you have a number of agents all reacting to different utility functions and the thing that you are talking about is fungible.

Jun 1, 2008 - 9:49 am 31. unseen:

And everyone knows climate is complex, but CO2 is the most important driver in the current climate.
boris

Hogwash.

Jun 1, 2008 - 7:31 pm 32. unseen:

First off, the CO2 did not come from the oceans warming. We know this for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the CO2 level is RISING in the ocean
Boris

you sure about that? Some scienctists disagree:

Now, let’s ask: “What is the empirical evidence that CO2 is driving surface temperature, and not the other way around?” If we ask that question, then we are no longer trying to explain the change in temperature with time (a heat budget issue), but instead we are dealing with what is causing the change in CO2 concentration with time (a carbon budget issue). The distinction is important. In mathematical terms, we need to analyze the sources and sinks contributing to dCO2/dt, not dT/dt.

So, let us look at the yearly CO2 input into the atmosphere based upon the Mauna Loa record, that is, the change in CO2 concentration with time (Fig. 3)……..

……..The evidence for rapid exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere comes from the fact that current carbon cycle flux estimates show that the annual CO2 exchange between surface and atmosphere amounts to 20% to 30% of the total amount in the atmosphere. This means that most of the carbon in the atmosphere is recycled through the surface every five years or so. From Segalstad’s writings, the rate of exchange could even be faster than this. For instance, how do we know what the turbulent fluxes in and out of the wind-driven ocean are? How would one measure such a thing locally, let alone globally?

Now, this globally averaged situation is made up of some regions emitting more CO2 than they absorb, and some regions absorbing more than they emit. What if there is a region where there has been a long-term change in the net carbon flux that is at least as big as the human source?

After all, the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the natural fluxes in and out of the surface. This means that we would need to know the natural upward and downward fluxes to much better than 3% to say that humans are responsible for the current upward trend in atmospheric CO2. Are measurements of the global carbon fluxes much better than 3% in accuracy?? I doubt it.

So, one possibility would be a long-term change in the El Nino / La Nina cycle, which would include fluctuations in the ocean upwelling areas off the west coasts of the continents. Since these areas represent semi-direct connections to deep-ocean carbon storage, this could be one possible source of the extra carbon (or, maybe I should say a decreasing sink for atmospheric carbon?).

Let’s say the oceans are producing an extra 1 unit of CO2, mankind is producing 1 unit, and nature is absorbing an extra 1.5 units. Then we get the situation we have today, with CO2 rising at about 50% the rate of human emissions.

If nothing else, Fig. 3 illustrates how large the natural interannual changes in CO2 are compared to the human emissions. In Fig. 5 we see that the yearly-average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being anywhere from 0% of the human source, to 130%.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/

For the above questions it is easy to see that the science is not “settled” yet people like you would want to change the entire economy, human advancement for a theory? read the whole article maybe you might see there is other reasons that could be causing the warming. I’m thinking it has to do with the SUN more than anything. you know that big yellow ball in the sky.

Jun 1, 2008 - 7:56 pm 33. unseen:

Does the sun’s temperture and energy output stay constant? that is the biggest question. If it stays constant then all warming and cooling are dependent on the earth and the interactions between its cycles. IF it changes in energy output, temp ect than the SUN plays a direct role in the warming and cooling of not only our planet but others also. (Hint: Since Mars and jupiter are both showing warming trends i’m going with the latter theory here)

Now some evidence to back up this view:

1 Our Sun may seem an enduring, unwavering beacon in the sky, but in truth it has a “heartbeat” of sorts–a pulsation between dimmer and brighter phases so slow that it only “beats” 9 times each century!

It’s understandable that you might not have noticed. The pulsing is not only slow, it’s also subtle. The total energy coming from the Sun only varies by about 0.1% over each 11-year cycle. For a long time scientists didn’t notice it either, which is why the Sun’s intensity is called, ironically, the “solar constant.”

The intensity of the Sun varies along with the 11-year sunspot cycle. When sunspots are numerous the solar constant is high (about 1367 W/m2); when sunspots are scarce the value is low (about 1365 W/m2). Eleven years isn’t the only “beat,” however. The solar constant can fluctuate by ~0.1% over days and weeks as sunspots grow and dissipate. The solar constant also drifts by 0.2% to 0.6% over many centuries, according to scientists who study tree rings.

These small changes can affect Earth in a big way. For example, between 1645 and 1715 (a period astronomers call the “Maunder Minimum”) the sunspot cycle stopped; the face of the Sun was nearly blank for 70 years. At the same time Europe was hit by an extraordinary cold spell: the Thames River in London froze, glaciers advanced in the Alps, and northern sea ice increased. An earlier centuries-long surge in solar activity (inferred from studies of tree rings) had the opposite effect: Vikings were able to settle the thawed-out coast of Greenland in the 980s, and even grow enough wheat there to export the surplus to Scandinavia.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm

Notice the source. It’s NASA. Yes that’s right. NASA says the sun energy output changes and that that change impacts climate. what part of this is so hard to understand? This is freaking NASA. Do you all understand this data? Notice that CO2 is not mentioned for the little ice age, for the warming that let the Vikings settle Greenland. It was the SUN.

Some more from the article:

Researchers still aren’t sure how small changes in the Sun’s output nudge Earth’s climate in one direction or another. To find the answer, they need to monitor our climate and keep a finger on the Sun’s “pulse” for many decades running……

….Getting consistent measurements from the ground is tricky, explains Joukoff, because Earth’s changing seasons and weather cause sunlight hitting the ground to wax and wane. On average, clouds and the atmosphere absorb or reflect 51 percent of the incoming sunlight, and this can vary widely between overcast and cloudless days.

Two big points here: one it takes DECADES to understand the Sun’s contribution to Climate change but CO2 nitwits have it figured out in 5 years. Two. the energy striking the earth varies WIDELY day to day, month to month, year to year. This blows the computer models of the CO2 nitwits full of holes. If the input of your models varies widely you can not with certainity deduce the outcome. All the models assume a constant energy stiking the earth from the Sun. the models entire conclusions is based on a faulty assumption IMO.

Jun 1, 2008 - 8:21 pm 34. Tom:

Boris and your ilk (in particular William M. Connolly and pals of RealClimate):

What science is (and you would think William would know):

Notice an issue and formulate a hypothesis to explain it. Then devise an experimental means to demonstrate confidence in the likelihood of your hypothesis, preferably using mathematical logic to derive the result. Then formulate a conclusion based on the ability of your experimental results to confirm your hypothesis. Duplication by contemporaries will lead to agreement or not with your conclusion. This is not new. It was formulated in the 18th Century as the Scientific Method, and led to the Enlightenment which your lot would dearly love to reverse.

What science is not:

Notice an political issue and find a pre-existing 19th Century hypothesis to back it up. In the absence of the possibility (and inclination) to experiment; form a politically expedient conclusion and then make the conclusion fit the hypothesis by constructing elaborate computer models.

“Computer modeling has a number of attractions for academics. It does not need the resources that experimental science demands; nor does it need the long hours of careful attention required for research by measurement. In just a few hours you can create a model, just a computer program, which is so complex that no outsider can hope to unravel it. You can build in many assumptions that might well be unjustifiable under independent examination. Furthermore, the human unconscious is a mischievous influence that can produce the desired results, even for those who are not deliberately cheating. In the same few hours you can produce beautiful graphs and tables, the like of which would take months in experimental science, but which are so convincing to laymen and particularly politicians and bureaucrats.” quoted from John Brignell (I hope you don’t mind, Sir).

Also quote large amounts of data showing unprecedented recent warming from unreliable weather stations in warm urban areas and broken ones from the ex USSR. Cover up conflicting information from satellites and inconvenient El Nino events, and then form a political quango at public expense called the IPCC who relies on taxpayers money to come to a “consensus” about the above, given that all negative conclusions reduce the income of the climate hierarchy and make the latter redundant. While you’re at it discredit dissenters in true Orwellian style by ostracising, cutting off funding and using ad-hominem attacks and being the “thought police” of Wikipedia. For good measure use politically sympathetic media for “groupthink” and use editor allies of publications to “peer review” your “work”.

Then call it “science”.

Jun 3, 2008 - 6:28 am 35. George:

Let this be a lesson to all of you Americans that voted the liberals into Congress. The war in my opinion was not enough reason to have a majority of liberals voted in. I hate the War also but my pocket book is more important to me than this war.

If you think that Gasoline prices are high now, If you think food prices are high now, if you think utility bills are high now. Just you wait, If this Bill passes, you are in for a rude awakening on prices. Democrats do not care about the American pubic; they only care about their own interest groups and themselves. Look at Nancy Pelosy. She flies back and forth in a huge airplane to California, burning thousands of gallons of fuel while the rest of the country is starving for oil. Is she willing to put together a comprehensive Energy Bill?

If this Bill passes I see Thousands of American jobs leaving the US. Companies will find a way to manufacture their product cheaper. If it means moving to far east they will do it.
Guaranteed.

You need to think how you vote this November.

Jun 3, 2008 - 12:29 pm 36. samule dhalgren:

Clinton and Gore started this global warming thing and it don’t mean nothing. It’s just made up stuff to scare people to move to china. Only god can destroy the earth, and he is not ready yet.

Jun 3, 2008 - 9:34 pm 37. BizzyBlog » Latest Pajamas Media Column (”) Is Up:

[...] It’s here. [...]

Jun 5, 2008 - 11:05 am 38. Boris:

“Let’s say the oceans are producing an extra 1 unit of CO2…”

CO2 is increasing in the oceans, so they cannot be a source for the atmospheric increase. The source is not geological because of the isotope ratios. And finally, you’d have to explain where the expected carbon from fossil fuels is going if not into the atmosphere.

Frankly, it’s a stupid argument to say that the CO2 rise is not man made, and I’d have to question the understanding of any scientist who would propose it.

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:30 am 39. Redmanfms:

“Frankly, it’s a stupid argument to say that the CO2 rise is not man made, and I’d have to question the understanding of any scientist who would propose it.”

Boy, that’s scientific….

Plonk.

Jun 18, 2008 - 4:05 pm 40. Spurwing Plover:

When it comes to the goverment fixing the enviroment they instead make a mess and have you ever seen what central park looks like after some silly earthday celebration? iITS A REAL MESS and the jerks from GREENPEACE ceritanly wear out their welcome where ever they go

Nov 21, 2008 - 9:44 am