No significant global warming since 1995

Congratulations for US politicians who are free to discuss the fragility of the IPCC global warming hypothesis. Wish the EU politicians would learn from yours.

Mr. Ahlbeck should show his tables to the people of the islands that are disappering quite fast and try to drink a good glss of their salty not-anyore potable water or stand on a beack of Florida while an unusual hurricane is coming and reassure himself with historical trends he might be reading on a nice atlas he just picked up for a nephew at the book shop down the road.

Island dissapearing - there is no evidence of sea level rise - much of the erosion is due to human impact and its well documented. Hurricanes - recent "peer reviewed" studies published in major journals show no increase in hurricanes and modelling now suggests that given warmer oceans hurricanes intensity may indeed decrease. Do some reading - of the science literature not the popular press and you might be more informed. The data he uses is freely availbale and availbale for download.

Hurricanes and most other "severe" weather events are actually caused by COOLING, not warming. Warming produces wind shear, which is death to hurricanes and storm systems in general.
Folks would do well to actually spend a little time researching things before accepting them as "fact"...as most of them are not.

JimB

How interesting that Andrea Lampis heads her post Believing in tables or facts since she seems to prefer theory with very little real evidence in support over ten years of data. Since AGW says it's warming, it has to be true. Don't confuse me with your so-called data.

Mr Justice Burton of the London High Court asked the promoters of Gore's film to produce evidence of exactly what you are claiming. No evidence could be produced. To quote from the judgement:

"In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."

Exactly, because there is no evidence that any islands in the Pacific are sinking. Try the University of Colorado and see for yourself: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php

You can find the judgement here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

As for hurricane trends, have a look at: http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
As you can see the trend is sloping downwards so you have also been lied to about this.

a pitty that lectures at a university like you try to profile themselves by publishing wrong information and misleading the public. You do not even bother to cite the data you put on this website properly, nor do you discuss why the observations of temperature published in the IPCC report AR4 (Figure SPM.1.) shows a strong increase in temperature since 1995.

Just forget deniers like Ahlbeck and Inhofe - the debate is OVER.
Global Climate Change is happening, and it is caused by people.
Anyone who really looks at the facts cannot seriously contest this any more.
Stop wasting your and other peoples' time.
The real issue is, what do we do about it.

So, try to be constructive about where we go from here.
Then you will be contributing to the good of the world, rather than hindering it.

There is only one debate on Global Warming! Is it good or bad for the earth?

I here lots of negatives rising sea levels, increase draughts and huricaines!

I am biased, I do not believe in Man Made Global Warming! If it causes an increase in sea levels, where is our east and west coast floods, if there is an increase draught why did my father a vegetable farmer not irrigateing on average any more than he did 20 years ago. Where are all the Hurricaine Katrina's.

On the positive we have longer growing seasons. This is a good thing, since most of the farm land in the world is in the Northern hemisphere. Since most of us live there more people die from the cold than ever do heat. A warmer earth means better weather not worse. It takes cold fronts mix with warm fronts to cause a storm.

Which ever side your on either as "Climate Change Denier" or of the "End of Times CO2 Gospel” as a Gorical follower. If Global Warming is a bad thing, is it worth spending Trillions. A better return on investment might be on world poverty, disease and than trying to reduce that 1 to 2 degree rise this past century.

The true "deniers" are people like Peter and Andrea. They deny reality.

Here are some facts:

1. Sea surface temperatures have cooled as Earth's "global average" temperature has cooled which has caused a DROP in sea level over the past few years (as water cools, it contracts). See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg and http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sealevelsince2002.JPG to view dramatic trend reverse in recent years.

2. IPCC AGW predictions rely on an assumed 3-to-1 positive feedback from water vapor warming as a consequence of CO2 warming. A recent analysis that stands unrefuted clearly demonstrates the IPCC vastly overstates the feedback (which could be negative). See http://www.webcommentary.com/monckton.htm

3. In no period in Earth's climate history (going back at least 500 million years) has the greenhouse effect played any significant role in climate change. During some of the coldest Ice Eras (which last 40 to 60 million years), Earth's atmospheric CO2 was at levels 15 times what they are today (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M). See also http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUCO2.jpg for an illustration contrary to the IPCC AGW claim that as CO2 increases, so will global temperatures.

4. Recent summer Arctic Sea ice melt peaked in 2007. AGW theorists predicted an ice free Arctic, or at best, an record ice melt in summer 2008. There was 9% more ice during the minimum ice coverage of summer 2008 than in 2007. Studies now reveal that Arctic ice retreat was not due to warmer temperatures, but rather a change in ocean and atmospheric long-term patterns (PDO, AO, AMDO, NAO, ENSO, etc.). This fall's Arctic Sea ice increase is the most rapid of recent records. See http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/arctic_ice_increasing_rapidly/

5. The IPCC AGW theory requires the existence of a tropical mid-troposphere signature. No such signature is observed (http://www.webcommentary.com/missing-gh-sig.htm).

6. The IPCC AGW theory requires polar surface temperatures to rise prior to surface temperatures increasing in lower latitudes. The Antarctic is on a six-decade cooling binge that saw the largest extent of Antarctic Ice ever observed during the southern winter of 2007 (similar to record growth of Arctic Ice in the northern winter of 2007-2008). See http://atoc.colorado.edu/wxlab/atoc1050/1050%20ppt/Global%20warming%20quiz.ppt a powerpoint presentation by Dr. Richard Keen (Global Warming Quiz).

7. The IPPC AGW theory is based on the notion that increased atmospheric CO2 will trigger "catastrophic" warming. There is no evidence to support that theory. Pillars of the theory (tropical mid-troposphere "signature" and rising polar surface temperatures) have not been observed while atmospheric CO2 continues a fairly steady linear trend upward that began 300 or so years ago (about 1 degree C per century), well before the Industrial Age began. Actual variations in temperature over several decades are normal climate variations and nothing in the last two decades of the 20th Century is unusual. The IPCC has not studied either the causes of natural climate variability or the nature of natural variability that would allow it to put into perspective any perceived human component to climate change. See http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/new_detailed_analysis_of_global_temperature_data_does_not_support_significa/ and note the chart that clearly shows the dominant effect of natural forces of climate variability other than CO2.

In short, the AGW theory is completely and utterly invalid. Those who continue to try to perpetuate it are either ignorant or dishonest.

greetings from New Zealand...near the end of our second month of spring,would you believe we still have some places with zero temperature overnight (most unusual for this time of the year) but more importantly did you see the item on www.co2science.org..telling us that the largest polluter China is actually getting Greener yes GREENER...Please check this out thank you

Hey Trevor, perhaps you can tell us about the peoples from the sinking south Pacific islands who were evactuate to your shores. This must have been a fairly major news event, right? Do you recall such an event? Any of your mates heard of this? Links?

Andreas, the information is not misleading and not wrong. The data is from the world's two most famous sources:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly

The IPCC data AR4 is old data. I used updated temperature measurements until august 2008.

cheers Jarl

...greetings from Mt Maunganui, NZ. Al Gore's ridiculous claim regarding evacuation of Pacific Islands territories is of course a figment of his imagination. The only mass evacuation taking place is FROM NZ to Australia. Emigration is at record levels and the Socialist government of NZ is fairly and squarely to blame...

It's not only a question of global warming, it is also a question of polluting the land, oceans and air, of planetary resources devastation, of greatest species extinction since the end-Mesosoic, of human morale degradation - and what are you trying to prrove??? That we could freely continue with our greedy, selfish and totally unsustainable lifestyle, all 7 billion of us? How long do you guys think this orgy could continue? What more proofs do you need? As Peter said above: the debate is over. Face it.

Hello DamirB and others,
I have worked 15 years with flue gas and waste water cleaning research and obtained pretty good results. Next step is that same modern environmentally friendly technology we already use in Europa will be used worldwide, in China, India, Indonesia a.s.o.

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and toxic dust. But in fact significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions is an additional benefit when old power plant technology is replaced by modern technology.

Agree about lifestyle: Happiness can be achieved without high material or energy consumption. Food, house and medical care are however needed and there are millions who still suffer. Personally I love biking, skiing, beautiful women, classical music, and sailing close to my home at the Finnish west coast. None of these hobbies is energy-intensive.

Jarl Ahlbeck

Dear,Peter and Andreas,
The debate is not over, because there wasn't a debate.Just a "Global Warming" propaganda and some missinformed people to believe.But it is about knowing, not beliving.

Mars has warmed 0.5 C in the last 30 years much like Earth . Could it be the sun

or should we require the Martians to stop burning coal.

I would like to ask a few questions about global warming:

--Was the Roman Warming man made?
--Was the Medieval Cooling man made?
--Was the Latter Dark Age Warming man made?
--Was the Little Ice Age that ended in 1850 man made?

If the answer is no, please explain to me why you think the current warming cycle which begin in 1850 is man made?

My personal assumption is that at least a small portion of the warming since the 1950s may be caused by the activities of people on this planet. However, the burning of fossil fuels was still well into the future when the current warming cycle started, and for those who insist that man is primarily responsible for global warming, I would ask them to tell me again why you think this warming cycle is different from previous warming cycles.

Does it really matter? Normal cyclical earth cooling down or unnatural man made warming? What is certain is that earth as we know it WILL change, and for us to survive that change we will have to adapt. Waht is equally certain is that whether we adapt or not, the earth (and life on it) will continue.

I thoroughly agree with all positive sentiments about reducing air-borne pollution, having grown up in industrial middle England. The reduction in SO2 emmissions and coal burning cleaned everything up in a very tangible way - not just the colour of most buildings but people's health as well. I understand the principles behind greenhouse gases - this is just high school level stuff. CO2 has been used as an IR absorpotion gas in labs for many decades. However I was brought up to have an independent, free-thinking scientific mind and will ABSOLUTELY NOT be told how and what to believe on this issue.
The casuality being demonstrated by GW dogmatists is deeply insulting to all people with scientific integrity around the globe and it has GOT TO STOP. The whole issue has sinister undertones and I feel - as many do, the knock on effect of tampering with the engineering of global economics on such a massive scale is leading to predictable results.

Having just come across this site, I am glad to see the genuine desire of many contributors to discuss this serious issue in a sensible and balanced way using up to date facts. On the other hand I am saddened by contributors such as Andrea and DamirB whom seem more intent on pushing certain ideologies (as well as mixing their arguments) and trying to shut down reasonable discussion by simply trying to shout the loudest. In all things, reality is often not as clear cut as the GW proponents would like us to believe and they do all the peoples of this planet a great disservice by trying to shut down debate. I think many of us would like to see a less polluted planet, with a better balance to life and far greater equality of all people but lets do it for the right reasons (and to do that we need to ensure that we encourage people to act the right way rather than using scare tactics which allow no room for proper discussion).

Islands are going under water in the Pacific and this is due to a natural event called tectonic plate movement not global warming. The land on the Pacific and Indo- australian plates is being pushed under the asianic plate.and thus the land is sinking NOT the water rising. Google the word "guyot" and learn.

I don't know too much about this debate, however, I have read a few articles on the subject and I was under the distinct impression that sea levels were demonstrably rising. The site another Lars cited as saying that they are not appears to say they are. Check out the levels for the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific at the top of the page over the last fifteen years.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php

The global mean sea level has been rising during the last 150 years, probaby due to thermal expansion caused by (natural) global warming. No panic! Local changes are always different from the global mean change and have numerous other reasons than global warming.

Just as a sidetrack regarding the purported mass movement of environmental refugees:
A recent article published in The Guardian (November 10 2008)
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change) describes the newly elected president of Maldive Islands diverting funds to buying a new homeland.

I am only bringing forth the fact that there seems to exist (at least one) Pacific nation seriously contemplating mass emigration as a kind of "insurance policy" against their home country vanishing into the waves. This is of course regardless of whether this is due to rising sea levels or sinking tectonic plates, or whatever the cause of rising sea levels (be it climate change or one of the other reasons).

So - NO, there are no masses of eco-refugees on the shores of NZ, at least yet, no matter what Al Gore claims. But YES, there is concern among the nations of Pacific about the future of their homelands and it should be taken seriously, regardless of the cause.

Mr. Ahlbeck,

What is your response to the following article, also from Hadley, that refutes the very basis of your point above?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.html

A brienf synopsis:
"Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming.

* Global warming has not stopped
* Natural climate variations temporarily enhance or reduce observed warming

"Consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations..." After digging for many years deep into the climate change scientific literature, I think that the understanding of both natural and anthropogenic climate change still is very poor. Yes, carbon dioxide should cause some warming. But without positive feedbacks (amplifying) from water vapour and clouds the effect should be minute. These feedbacks are poorly known. Not even the total sign is known. It may be even negative (damping). When the El Nino 1998 was very strong (high temperature), the greenhouse industry (Kevin Trenberth) claimed that carbon dioxide emissions causes strong El Ninos. Now when the situation is normal, nobody claims that anymore. The long-term warming started almost 200 years ago, long before the SUV-era that now (fortunately) is coming to an end.

Jarl seems to just swim in misinformation and misleading graphs. Good job, trying to defend your ill researched point, but Rich nailed you to the wall, easily.

Rapid warming beginning at the sudden rise of the industrial age has not stopped, only slowed. Your short timelines of your graphs above are misleading and don't show a significant picture to those that want to believe that man made massive increases in CO2 can cause a global change.

As well, your assertion that the Arctic ice withdrawal reversed in 2008? I'm not sure you could be more wrong. You've ignored the perennial ice vs. annual ice differences in order to hide your true intentions.

Over all I'd give you about a 6 on the denial scale (1-10). You really could have done better.

A graph presenting recent 13 year (longer period would have involved volcano cooling) data of global temperature measured by two completely independent methods cannot be misleading. I have done no data manipulations! The data is presented by the worlds two most famous climate research institutions, NASA and Hadley. Both curves show that rapid warming has not occured during the period. Of course the time is short. But it is long enough for a 13 year schoolchild to say "During my whole life, there has been no significant global warming" . But that is not what the children are told at school where environmental religion is taught instead of old-fashioned religion.

Sorry, Jarl, you're lying and it's a very sad state of affairs. There has been warming over the last 13 years, you're using the 1998 anomaly to justify what you want to believe. I'm downgrading your rating to a 5.

Stop while you're ahead.

I never wrote "no warming", I wrote "no rapid warming", or "no significant warming". There is nothing wrong with the year 1998! But it would have been a little misleading to start the diagram from 1998, so I started from 1995 when the M.t Pinatubo effect had faded away.. A strong El Nino occured in 1998, but the Southern Oscillation is a random walk and we amateurs cannot start to "correct" temperature numbers for every natural variations that we do not know enough about. The famous greenhouse guru Kevin Trenberth wrote after 1998 that greenhouse gases are causing stronger El Ninos than before! After 1998 many newspapers presented predicted temperature curves where future temperatures rocketed out out the paper to the upper right. I tested the long-term SOI index by simple statistical standard computer programs. No clear periodicity or trend was found. Just random walk. Btw your "rating" does not interest me at all. I think you Jay K. should concentrate on the substance a little more! I am more intrested in how much or how little climate change is caused by human activity. I do not "want to believe" anything, I only want to know. Once I had to listen to communist propaganda. Many greenhouse stories today sound in my ears as more of the same.

This really is a matter of faith on the part of the Great Green Church of Global Warming. They will hear no heresy. They will attack and destroy any skeptic as a heretic. All of your logic, charts and evidence is wasted on them. It is really frightening to see the level of irrational adherence on their part.

With all the bazillion tons of Carbon combining with double the number of Oxygen to create quatracabillions of tons of Carbon Dioxide, why then are we not gasping for Oxygen and fires can burn without self extinguishing promptly? Or are we breathing CO2 now instead of exhaling it?

A good analysis of sea levels is presented in an interview with a sea level scientist with extensive field research including on site inspection of Tuvalu and Vanuatu and other South Pacific Islands is given at:
A good analysis of sea levels is presented in an interview with a sea level scientist with extensive field research including on site inspection of Tuvalu and Vanuatu and other South Pacific Islands is given at:

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

Recent scientific data shows:

The October 2007 sea level decreased by 0.2 inch from its highest the year before.
In some recent decades sea level has risen 1 cm; in others it hasn’t risen at all.
In the next 100 years sea level may rise 10 cm ± 10 cm.

sub-- weather modification rain making technology it miracle control climate &cyclones

we introduce our slave our teem developing cloud seeding rain making indigenous technology which materials are taking natural environment process for three years .before time of experiment in cloud formation .in hours we trial in ananthapur (dist) in 2006 sep 6 plz help us implement , we not uses silver iodide .our own material's
our teem independently developing WE NOT TAKEN GOVT FUND TO DEVELOP THIS TECHNOLOGY
please hope that we prove our technology , need guidance to implement,world climate can change we need fund to develop.
HYDRO SOLAR SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY NO WHERE IN WORLD TO CLIMATE CHANGE IT NATURE
for any details
satyam185 /srt s,r,nagar Hyderabad A.P INDIA pin 500038
please guide us to develop this technology &we need fund to trial we developed 50% we need to develop climate change . rain making . control of cyclones , our teem confident to achieve with in 2 years we ready to trial what we developed .any whae in world

I've lived on the Florida coast for over forty years. The water level at my favorite spots is the same as it has been all along. Specific points of reference, which I have deliberately noticed for many years, are still in the same places. I see no evidence of the "dramatically rising" ocean levels the alarmists are constantly talking about. Perhaps some of the failing islands being reported are eroding or sinking, but Florida, which is quite sandy, is still where I left it, every day.

I can also recall many days exceeding 100 degrees, where I live and work, but not recently. Most of those were several years ago. I check the weather several times each day. I have also done much travelling, for work and pleasure. I just don't see enough evidence to cause me to get so alarmed as others do.

I've always been very concerned about how we treat the planet around us, and the ways many seem to diligently work to foul it. I am more disturbed, however, by the ill we visit upon one another, rather than the environment. That is a more pressing issue, which is definitely getting worse, and at a truly alarming rate. We should concentrate more effort on resolving that conflict, and stop raging against one another based hearsay. People on both sides of the climate change debate have good points, based on reliable data. They also have a lot of misinformation. Most of the bickering we see, however, is carried out by people who are listening to emotionally charged rumors, rather than seeking their own empirical experience. I'd rather be more productive with my energies.

Peace.....*

SUM
Man made global warming scam + state-sponsored terrorism + manufactured economic collapse = total power for the global elite + a prison planet for the rest of us. See infowars.com

A pitty you can't spell pity.
Pitiful.
Global Warming??
Taxmans delight.

We need to look at longer time periods than just from 1970's, which was the start of this passing dry cycle. 1940 to 1970 wuld have shown and was believe to be the lead in to another ice age. Ask, what is happening now that has not happened in the past. NOTHING. How come weather records were set so long ago. The global warming and cooling are direct relation to sun energy burn, radiation, solar flares.
But we need also to use our finite resourse wisely and reduce pollution, as indeed we are and continuing to develop better industrial practices.
Climate change. It changes daily,monthly and yearly and always has done in a cyclic pattern, largely dictated by the sun, moon and planetary cycles. A dry or wet cycle last approx. 35 years as does the full moon cycle.
The present climate change (previously called global warming???) is a political means of shifting wealth from a large number of people to a small select few.
The suedo scientists who promote devastation do so to gain funding, just as NASA promotes the possibility of life elsewere inthe universe (use to be other planets of our solar system) to restart funding to save thier jobs.

There are scientists agree there is global warming happening on earth, the weather is changing, getting hotter etc, but it’s all natural. People are only worried as the only in recent times have we really understood these things.

Scientists agree The average temperature of the world is about 0.6°C higher than it was 100 years ago.
The level of Carbon dioxide is about 30% higher than it was 200 years ago.
Both Carbon dioxide and water vapour have a warming effect on the earth.

These findings have supported my earlier conclusion that the worlds politicians, whose power base depend on collecting taxes and spending it on their own ideas and to the benefit of their own voters, have jumped on the CO2-Global Warming Theory in order to strengthen and prolong their positions in office by introducing a whole range of new CO2 taxes.
What is needed to stop this waste of money?

This leaves the need to prepare the world for a future without fossil fuels untouched

There is no proper information in internet

I think it's safe to say that records amount of fossil fuels have been burnt these last ten years as emerging nation build infrasturcture and industry. The price of energy has reflected this until just recently. But we have seen cooling during this record amount of "greenhouse" gas production.

I am so tired of human beings being blamed for causing global warming. These same liberal wackos, led by Guru Gore, the inventor of the internet, lie about cause and effect. I am in favor of stronger laws to protect the environment from pollution, but not because of it's potential to change the climate but because it's just the right thing to do. We should clean up the air and the oceans because it's wrong to pollute both. As long as the liberal media keep on carrying the water for these wackos, this is going to be the only message the average uninformed citizen will hear. It's the main theme being taught in schools and it is very politically incorrect to opine a different view, even one based on facts. Everyone should read Atlas Shrugged, written by Ayn Rand. Written in the 50s occuring in the year 2008. Shows how far a lying government can go with the media as a willing partner.

As a young boy, I remember hearing a story about 2 scoundrels deceiving an empire and its emperor. The story in short was about a lie or hoax being perpetrated on the population. It involved imaginary clothing and how only the intelligent and educated could actually see the non-existant clothing. Only one young boy was recorded as speaking the truth that the emperor was actually foolishly prancing around naked.

As a boy, I thought how utterly ridiculous and fanciful the story was. No intelligent or educated person could ever be so ignorent as to fall for such a hoax. Right?
Read, "The Emperor's New Clothes," by Hans Christian Anderson and you will see a parable on GW. Instead of "new clothes" substitute GW and you will see the naked truth about GW and the scoundrels who perpetrate it.

Global Warming: The biggest boondoggle of the past 100 years. Giving Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize is like giving a bicycle to a fish.

As the rivers of the Earth make nonstop deposits into the oceans, sea level rise should be a permanent consequence. Ice melt may get all the credit for rising sea levels. I've never heard how much water is displaced by erosion, but eventually it would have to be a significant factor.

As the rivers of the Earth make nonstop deposits into the oceans, sea level rise should be a permanent consequence. Ice melt may get all the credit for rising sea levels. I've never heard how much water is displaced by erosion, but eventually it would have to be a significant factor.

As the rivers of the Earth make nonstop deposits into the oceans, sea level rise should be a permanent consequence. Ice melt may get all the credit for rising sea levels. I've never heard how much water is displaced by erosion, but eventually it would have to be a significant factor.

This is part of a long range plan to unite the world into a world government. The big think tanks like Rand, Tavistock, etc. figured out long ago that was was a necessary part of civilization. As a substitute for the war function they came up with fighting imaginary or created terrorists, a fake alien attack, and/or an environmental problem(global warming). This would require the people of the world to unite to fight the common enemy. This was talked about in the 1960's Report from Iron Mountain.

I don't believe any of it. It's all driven by people with a perverse anti-comfort, anti-achievement psychology.

I LIKE my 3200 square foot home, my Navigator and my second car. I've earned them. To deny humans the freedom to pursue wealth and comfort is to say that we need to go backward on the evolutionary scale. I won't regress.

You're perfectly free to enjoy a spartan lifestyle if you wish. JUST DON'T TRY TO IMPOSE IT ON OTHERS. And you DAMNED WELL had better not try to impose it on me.

I like my long drives in the country. I like a well heated, large home. If you don't - well you don't have to live that way.

JUST LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!

Ed

Thank you for reporting this.
How about going a few steps further and explaining to your readers that this cooling has nil to do with carbon dioxide and neither has any warming ever had anything to do with carbon dioxide.

There is no such effect as the greenhouse effect and no such phenomenon as climate forcing by carboin dioxide.

Any and all "climate science" that accepts the existence of the greenhouse effect is pseudo-science and a scientific fraud on the largest possible scale, for financial and political reasons only.

Any and all calculations that "prove" the effect of carbon dioxide on the "global temperature" are fraudulent and misleading to say the least.

Kind regards,
Hans Schreuder
Analytical Chemist (ret)

It’s pointless to argue the complexities of climate science with people who, like Ed, don’t really care if we’re destroying the earth or not, they just want luxury and comfort. At least Ed is honest. Having lived very happily in a tent for a summer doing falcon recovery, it’s hard not to feel contempt for such selfishness and to regard those who quail at the least hint of self-denial, regardless of the benefits to the planet, as pathetic wimps.

As to the science, the facts can be found on the internet, though it’s much easier to find head-in-the-sand sites like this one. There are far fewer scientists than idiots on the world-wide web (the inventor of which, Mr. Berners-Lee, btw, gives Al Gore full credit for advancing the internet), since becoming a scientist takes far more study, expense, time and sleepless nights than does becoming an idiot.

But most American towns of any size have a college or university nearby, many with departments of meteorology or the geosciences. I’ve found most professors are more than happy to answer reasonable questions from the public. Why not call up a real scientist and ask him or her about global warming. If you don’t like the answer, ask if he or she is pulling in big bucks in grant money to exaggerate the global warming menace. A good laugh should help relieve the tedium of academia.

In my humble opinion, just because the sun is a star possibly does not mean that it is only born, has a life, and then goes out. Why can't the sun have seasons, too? -- I believe the sun's seasons is what causes our warming/cooling cycles and the magnetic poles on earth to switch. When our sun goes through a season of low output our earth puts out a very tiny magnetic field which means that it is easy for a large heavenly body to pull it. Like for instance, if a meteorite went by the earth when we were experiencing a very low period then it would be easy for the meteorite to switch our magnetic poles. Doesn't this make sense to anyone?

If I could further add, then the earth's core cools down since we don't experience many sun spots. I believe that in some cases, once the core cools down the mantel could become unstable; volcanoes could go off, and we could have earthquakes, with some plate tectonics.

I also believe that an ice age is coming; most likely, this is just the next season. It would seem that the soot from the volcanoes that could go off will cover the atmosphere and add to the global cooling.

It is my best guess that our sun's position in our galaxy must give it her seasons in relation to the “Stickman” in the universe. It seems to me that nature supports a universe in seasons, not just an expanding universe. :-)

Tend to spend their summers doing "falcon recovery," trying to convince themselves that they could compete in the real world if they wanted. What an utter waste of time.

How much economic value did you create in that little endeavor? Don't answer: it was a rhetorical. question.

As for "global warming," here's one thing you can count on. When there is an issue being discussed, and one side is trying to bring up all sorts of facts and the other side is plugging its ears saying "nah nah nah nah....I can't hear you" (i.e., "the debate is over"), you can be pretty sure the side that doesn't want to debate is on the wrong side of the issue. If one is really certain of the veracity of his opinion, he doesn't fear opposing views and contradicting facts.

People like you know that the 9000+ PhD's in fields like climatology, geophysics, astronomy, and other sciences, as well as the 20,000+ other scientists who have signed the Oregon petiton aren't all idiots. You know they aren't all dupes of (insert bogeyman here: big oil, big coal, big XXXXX). You just want them silenced through intimidation because you can't debate them: so you call them names.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

Do you know that AlGore REFUSES to debate a scientist despite numerous requests he do so? There's a reason, and it isn't because "the debate is over."

It's because he's a moron.

Ed

The current climate debate fails to mention one significant factor: Scientific knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus.

The origin of today's so-called "scientific consensus" on climate change is based on a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 which showed that none disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.Scientific consensus, as used by political and other groups to form the basis for changes in business, society and the law is, then, merely a general collection of opinions that do not question anthropogenic global warming. Yet, on an individual level, quite the reverse occurs. The peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process at all; instead, referees submit their opinions individually and there is no concerted effort made to reach a group opinion.

Scientific consensus has been used as a means of protecting the accepted worldview for centuries – look to the examples of Galileo, continental drift, and the much more recent Helicobacter controversy, for a start – and is a political construct, not a scientific one. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof goes against all tenets of empirical science.

The claim of a consensus in scientific opinion is simply a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. The true test of science – making a theory more robust by stridently attempting to disprove it with experiments, rather than attempting to "prove" it with computer simulations – has fallen by the wayside through socio-political pressure, it would seem.

http://anticlimatechange.blogspot.com/

The average temperature on the surface of Venus is around 435 degrees Celcius. The atmosphere on that planet is almost entirely composed of CO2. The atmosphere is 97 times thicker that the atmosphere on this planet according to barometric pressure. The planet receives four times the insolation per square Metre that this planet does. On that basis if CO2 is responsible for global warming the the temperature on Venus should be around 10,000 Decrees C. But it is not. In fact considering the circumstances it is not all that much hotter than our planet's surface. How can it therefore be deduced that the relatively small increase in CO2 on Earth can cause such a vast increase in planetary temperatures? Not that I support in any way CO2 emissions, afterall why the hell should we have to breathe this pollution day in and day out???

To fellow colleague chemist Hans Schreuder: I think it was Berzelius who discovered the "greenhouse effect" with carbon dioxide, right? I think this is scientifically proven.

But never mind greenhouse effect, or global warming & cooling. To Hans, to Ed and all the like: the question here is as John points out, again - do we care to destroy the earth or not?

The hard facts are:
1) human population on the planet is closing to 7 billion
2) at the same time average (and thus the absolute) resource spending per capita grows because of total increase of population and additionally because of global consumption increase
3) tropical forests are rapidly disappearing
4) oceans are overfished
5) climate is unstable
6) resources are finite

Now, how much time do the "denying" fellows think we have left before the baloon bursts?

We live in a thermodynamic system in dynamic equilibrium; whenever something disrupts an equilibrium, the system adjusts to minimize the change, and as long as the influence is weak enough no drastic changes are visible. But when the influence becomes too big for the system to compensate, a drastic change of variables occur (is that right, Hans?) and the system establishes a new equilibrium. This happened many times in Earth's history - and every time resulted in mass extinctions. Do we want our children, or even us, to wake up in a world with 99% species extinct, with tropical climate all over (or ice all over)? There is not enough oil, or wood, or tuna for us all on this planet. We must change our way of life. Sorry, Ed.

It was Arrhenius in Sweden who made the first calculation about climate warming due to CO2 100 yrs ago. He got the sign right, so he made a pretty good job. With today's more quantitative knowledge, a model without feedbacks would give abt 1 deg C warming for double CO2, all the hypothetical rest is feedbacks that we still cannot quantify, especially regarding water vapor (the biggest contribution to the greenhouse effect) and clouds. If the total feedbacks would be strongly positive (amplifying) one could think that it should be seen in the measurements. I can not see any such amplifying. Why should I believe in strong amplifying if I cannot see it, especially when I know that the theory supporting amplifying is shaky?

When the Arctic rapidly warmed in the 1930s (fully naturally) people (my mother) said that the climate was improving. Go to Jakutsk in Siberia (minus 50 deg C this week) and warn the people for winter warming! I have been there, it was a Russian white and icy hell, "belyi Gulag".

Right, Arrhenius, thanks Jarl.

I must say I see changes in my Southern European locality. We used to have here regularly at least one heavy snowfall in December when I was a kid. Later, in 90's this became very irregular. For the last ten years I don't remember one heavy snow in December. I also noticed the disappearance of spring, and also strong climate deviations every year, whether it be cold and damp summer or unusually warm winter, or something else. Not one year in the last ten or so was "normal". This might be a natural cycle; but what if it isn't?
I cannot "prove" the global warming, nor the global cooling (I'd like to see who can, since all the data we might find on the internet might be false!), but again:there's too many of us, and we on the Northern Hemisphere live in a totally unsustainable way, having too much what we don't need and thus wasting too much of what we have, and now China and India with 2,5 billion people want to join the orgy...even if there is no currently man-induced climate change, there surely will be in the short time.

Now that many countries & those "all knowing celebrities" have fallen for Al Gore's scary MYTH finally the "real facts" come to light. What will all those that chose to participate in this global fleecing of $$ do? They have all made choices based on that morons false claims.
Best they just keep quite and fade into the background.

I own a small block of land on the Australian Coastline that we paid roughly US$70 000.00 for. We are a hard working middle class family that earns every peice of food we put in our mouths and every sip of water we drink. I am all for lowering pollution and cleaning up the beaches and rivers, but not the use of scare tactics and doctoring of data to distort facts without any thought to the massive effects felt by familys such as ours.

Our State Government has now decided to put into policy IPCC worst case scenario sea level rises over the next 100 years, as a result we may not be able to build a home on that block of land.

If that happens it makes that property worthless and makes our family bankrupt.

I am no scientist, just an ordinary labourer, but even I can see that the evidence presented from both sides is far from giving us a clear picture of what is happening. It looks to me that we are relying on data that has only been accurate for the last 50 - 60 years, and there are so many factors associated with sea levels that it is impossible to measure. I only know one way to be sure - look out the front door - my local beach looks exactly the same as photos from my childhood, sometimes the farmers get rain - sometimes they dont, sometimes the dams are full - sometimes there not, sometimes it is hot - sometimes cold, it has always been like this for as long as I can remember. I remember in the 90's seeing reports that we would all need thick lead suits by 2020 due to not having an ozone layer because of CFC's. No one even talks about the ozone layer any more, and I have no intention of putting a deposit on a lead suit!!

So all you environmentalists that keep vandalising our society and putting financial pressure on the middle class, hardworking people that you rely on funding from, STOP and think about what you are doing.

Come back to me when you have real evidence.

hai...gd article..visit me at http://d-great.blogspot.com/

Thanks for this narration and analysis. if it is the natural process then world should not frightened. if it has gained temprature and reduced tempreature atumatically by reducing fossil fuel , then it is ok.
but it also the reality that floods, flash floods tempreatures, sea inundation and erosin has caused damage alot . we are in ORISSA bearing the brunt.

It's not hard to see why the already high and rising temperatures may have temporarily stopped rising. The polar ice began melting 20 years ago and that melting has been accelerating. At first slow it became very noticeable in the 1990s......at about the same time the temperatures stopped rising. Those temperatures have plateaued. They are not falling.

Once the polar ice has melted beyond the next tipping point, there will nothing left of any significance to restrain greenhouse temperature rises. We aren't talking about just CO2 anymore. Methane is now being released in large quantified from Arctic seabeds. Methane has 20 times the greenhouse effect of CO2.

People saying the temperature hasn't risen are like someone denying the day is hot because their (ice-filled) drink isn't hot.......yet.

To: Ordinary Person by D

The world agreed to stop using CFCs almost 20 years ago and the ozone hole has been slowly repairing itself ever since. This is an example of human-driven atmospheric change - both in terms of the cause of the destruction of the ozone hole AND in terms of the solution: effective global cooperation.

I can understand the dilemma about your land. The oceans may not rise enough to inundate that land in King Tide for several decades. The rate the ice at the poles is melting, it may not be too many decades......but we will likley both be dead by then.

It's your kids and their kids who will be swept away. hard to get your head around....and painful for the pocket today.....but that is what it appears to be headed for. There is little evidence to the contrary. Every day now there are new developments on the rapidly accelerating rate of change as the world continues to diddle around doing little or nothing.

That inaction is what is hurting your land.....Denial won't help.

Personally, I've spent hours and hours looking for evidence that proves GW exists. It's existence would make me feel better - because the ££££ I pay in green taxes would at least be for agood cause....
But forget for a moment which side of the argument you're on....

just suppose we do all the things 'we need to do' to save the planet - It's clear, we will have to spend shed loads of money and face hardship even in our developed countries (which I assume we're all in cos we're on the net) --AND -- we're gonna have to stop poor nations using fossil fuels, so they will stay poor - and won't be able to but medical stuff etc. so people will die... PLUS we'll be using our farmland to grow fuel and won't be able to sell them food at reasonable prices. so millions of people will die. but we've saved the planet...

OR.....
We spend the money, all of the above will happen, and we'll still have GW....

In the second scenario, we try to reasonaby curb CO2, without crippling ourselves.
Then what happens is....
If GW is real, we have to move some of our cities from food areas - we'll lose some beautiful places, we'll all be a bit sad at the losses but we'll still have food.... and money - and spare land to grow food to give to poorer nations (although they might be better off by then) - sure, a few people will die.... but not that many...

If GW is imaginary (big tick) Al Gore gets poor, we are all happy, less hungry people, less dead people....

So... spend all our rescoures on GW causes and KILL MILLIONS OF POOR PEOPLE - with uncertain climate out come...

or

Prepare and react - (maybe say goodbye to london etc.) and SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES...

Though choice I know...

Incedentally, people often point out to me how the weather has been more extreme of late..
Katrina gets mentioned - but in my eyes, and city built below sea level on the coast, is eventually going to get flooded, so we can at least count that as circumstantial...

But more often the recent floods in the UK get mentioned.... for those who don't know, many towns built on some flood plains got flooded when we got 'over 100mm of rain in 24hrs', this is of course attributed to global warming.... But for me the name 'flood plane' should have been the clue....

But let's look at the extreme rainfall we had, and how it breaks all the records for rainfall...

www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/extremes

If you look at this page (by the UK met office) You'll see that the records for temperature are mostly recent, but the rainfall records show that the most extreme rain storms all occoured some time ago... and most (if not all) in a period of global cooling.... So.... conclusive evidence the weather in th UK is getting more extreme and that global warming is the cause ..... or not..

when i said move our cities from food areas - I meant flood areas

and poor countrie wont be able to buy food (not 'but food')

Hi there! zebeta [url=http://boinc.umiacs.umd.edu/view_profile.php?userid=17391&c-topic=zebeta]zebeta[/url] Waiting for you!

I think it is interesting the the earth was once covered by magma and the temperature was very hot. It is substantially cooler and over the next million years will get much cooler not hotter. If we have global warming, then it is just a forstalling of the inevitable freeze. Further, all of human activity only account for 3.5% of the CO2, and water vapor is a greater contributer to the greenhouse effect then CO2. We don't know that the earth is truly warming due to any contributing factors or if it is just a cycle the earth goes through. We don't know that other contributing factors such as sun's output and or increase in water vapor haven't caused global warming (if it even truly exists). We don't know whether our output of 3.5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere would cause any notable difference. But I agree with DemirB. We know we have overpopulation. We know we will have a shortage of resources. We know our landfills are filling up. We know that we will run out of oil. Lets fix the problems we know about. Global warming is debatable, us eventually running out of oil is not. The sea rising and swallowing up the east coast is debatable, overpopulation is not. The most interesting thing is that if we worked on stopping overpopulation, using alternative energy sources and lessening our waste, then we would be lessening our impact on the Earth and we wouldn't have to worry about "global warming" because we would already be doing what we could to limit our impact.

Joel D makes a good point. Overpopulation is no good. The solution does not demand much fossil energy or mass consumption: Teach people how to read! All statistics show that when especially women learn to read, the number of children per woman decreases radically. Together with improved health care this will create prosperity. Money wasted for example on carbon capture and storage should instead be used for education programs in poor countries and for production of clean drinking water for everyone. Professor Bjorn Lomborg in Denmark has explained this in such a clear way that I do believe his ideas. Of course there must be good prophets and bad prophets, Lomborg is a good one because he bases his opinions on measurable facts only.

Joel D makes a good point. Overpopulation is no good. The solution does not demand much fossil energy or mass consumption: Teach people how to read! All statistics show that when especially women learn to read, the number of children per woman decreases radically. Together with improved health care this will create prosperity. Money wasted for example on carbon capture and storage should instead be used for education programs in poor countries and for production of clean drinking water for everyone. Professor Bjorn Lomborg in Denmark has explained this in such a clear way that I do believe his ideas. Of course there must be good prophets and bad prophets, Lomborg is a good one because he bases his opinions on measurable facts only.

joel d is right... we need to concentrate on real problems, or at least problems we know are real... I for one believe that in 50 years time we'll all be thinking "why didn't we see the food crisis coming, and why were we worried about CO2"

But no need to worry - we've done our bit - the dogma of the green movement just wouldn't even consider the possibility they were wrong..... heaven forbid.... after all - green is the new god... if you don't belive - you'll go to hell....

If only they'd look at it with an open mind.... but then.... they probably still believe the world is flat... and only a few thousand years old,,,,,

As non believers of anthropogenic global warming.... we are just modern heretics.... of course many of the forward thinkers in history have been dismissed as such before (and then proved right..) .... in time the truth will tell.......

Just hope we haven't been crushed under doors or burnt at the stake first....

Weren't we taught in younger grades that - When an ice cube is placed in a glass of water, and even after the ice melts, the water level is same....Because in the very beginning itself the ice has displaced the appropriate proportions... So, I have a doubt?..Are sea levels rising due to the 'arctic melts'? I dont think so...

Well I do support that we must cut down on emissions that pollute land and sea.

Know yourself. Enlighten others. Cheers.

what ever may be the reason for global warming there should be a proper measures for controlling it and save our mother earth for our kids

what ever may be the reason for global warming there should be a proper measures for controlling it and save our mother earth for our kids

Isn't it interesting that there seem to be two viewpoints in the responses to this article. The first says the debate is over, and the second gives information and facts.

Even though I have a college degree, my basic understanding of science theory goes back to my high school science teacher. No science is ever totally settled. No matter what the consensus is, real science allows disenter opinons and research that is contrary to generally held beliefs. If someone demands that scientific discussion be shut down, then they are demanding that science be shut down. Only to be replaced with some sort of religion where basic scientific principles are considered to be sins.

I only have room in my life for one religion. The cult of Al Gore is pure insanity, no to mention an affront to science.

Whether or not global warming is caused by CO2, the acidity due to absorbed CO2 in water is dissolving the shells of shellfish.

Furthermore, the rush of engineering feats and new industries being formed for the "green" economy does nothing harmful. Rather it promises to make more efficient use of energy and chemical resources through better designs. Saving energy and materials boosts profits and makes less waste that gets thrown away around our homes and near or food and water supply.

DamirB says, "Do we want our children, or even us, to wake up in a world with 99% species extinct, with tropical climate all over (or ice all over)? "

Can I just add one fact - 99.9% of all species that ever lived ARE extinct! Life evolves to adapt to the environment - not the other way round.

Global warming causes an increase in atmspheric CO2 - as the seas warm, they can absorb less of all types of gases and some portion of the absorbed gases are released into the atmosphere. Not the other way around. That is why the Earth's temperature has been observed to rise BEFORE CO2 levels were observed to increase.

Many of the islands which are suffering from sea level rises are in sea level rise "hot spots" which are not explained by increased levels of CO2 or "global" warming. Also, some of these sea level rise areas are on plates which are slowly sinking, and have been for thousands of years.

etc, etc, etc

People are suffering due to changes around the globe. They are also suffering due to man made problems such as war, internal conflict, selfish dictatorships etc. Let's stop wasting huge sums of money on the Man Made CO2 end of the world myth and use the money and the brain power that is currently being wasted on providing real help to these very real people.

The Earth's climate has been in a constant state of change since our home planet was formed. Climate change is a never-ending, natural phenomenon.

The key question for all intelligent observers today (which unfortunately excludes most of the naive and emotive commentators) is how we, as an increasingly sophisticated and technologically competent species, can manage the natural AND human-caused variations in our global climate to best benefit our species and ensure our long term survival.

Aesthetic and prudential grounds are sufficient to drive us in droves towards carbon reducing solar, wind and thermal solution to our growing appitite for energy.

When the deserts of our continents are filled with solar collectors and the coasts hum with wind generators, we will be free of our addiction to carbon from the corpses of long dead organisms. Bring it on!

Who cares if the climate is warming or cooling or doing loop-the-loops in dayglow colors while we endlessly and useless engage in the great climate change debate.

I've got news for you.......the Earth's climate is, always has been and always will be changing. Mountains erode, lifeforms evolve and financial markets do their own weird change thing. Get used to it; get over it.

The key issue is how we humans, being newcomers to the planet, can get all of the greedy energy requirements that we require without making a stinky mess in the process.

Setting fire to stuff like wood, coal, charcoal, oil and gas has sustained us in recent years. We have even been smart enough to figure out how to "burn" enriched uranium in nuclear power stations.

So woopee doopee, we know how to play with matches and burn stuff. But to be a really smart species we are going to have to figure out how to get our energy needs without setting fire to anything at all. Our salvation is up in the sky. Look up! See the sun; this is the source of nearly all of the energy potential of our world. Let us become harvestors of solar energy, let us fill our empty spaces with solar panels; let us sprinkle out coastlines, cliffs and hillsides with wiind turbines; let us produce the base load that we need a a local level and buy and sell our deficit and surplus on a truly open energy market. We already have all of the technology that we need. All that is required to eradicate, once and for all, our sad dependence on OPEC, the big oil and gas corporations and the stink of burning carbon is concerted will-power and bloody-minded determination.

May your sunlight and your passing breeze become your energy provider.

'God Gift' said.... ' to save our mother earth' - what do you think will happen? will it melt? - fact is, the concequences of GW aren't near as bad as GW prophets make out.
Sure, it wouldn't be nice but we would survive - and even if we diden't - earth would.
It amazes me you still hear people say ' we're all gonna get swept away' - nonsense

All this panic about an event that won't be as bad as they say - AND - it's not gonna happen!

Mybe CO2 causes significant climate change, or maybe not. However, I have never considered this to be any big problem for mankind or for the nature. Neither did Arrhenius 100 years ago. Nature can adapt, and so can mankind. Much bigger problems should be solved: clean drinking water especially in Africa, something instead of oil and natural gas (coal is still abundant), all stupid fightings especially in Africa and the Middle East should be finished and so on. I was born in 1946 after the war, and I know what war is about because I have heard all terrible war stories from my family (only half of my relatives survived) members as a child. Everyone has the right to defend itself (Israel too when rockets are raining on villages) but please keep cool! Bombing civilians will not bring peace, only negotiations will bring. The Finnish Nobel peace prize winner Ahtisaari (Al Gore should never have got the prize) said that he is ready to talk with the Devil himself if he wants to make peace. Happy New Year to every reader of this outstanding site and txs for very interesting comments on my humble contribution! - Jarl

Well done. Seems to apply thoughtful and non political science.

Before anyone gets too excited by the results of, and reactions to, man-made global warming, four simple questions have to be asked:

1. Is global warming happening ?
There is considerable debate over this. The two major sources for global temperature measurements; NASA and Hadley both show no significant rise in average global temp since 1998 and some cooling since 2006. The current AGW theory relies on the discredited Mann Hockey Stick graph that itself tries to re-write history by smoothing over the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum.

2. If Global warming is happening, are we causing it through our use of fossil fuels ?
No one has presented clear, unequivocal evidence that this is the case. Some theories have been published that explore possible relationships between CO2 and temperature but as for a definite causal link tested by long term observation ? There is none. You need only see the language used by AGW proponents to understand this. They say 'could', 'may', 'probably' and rely on the worst possible outcomes of their flawed computer modelling.

3. If global warming is happening AND we are responsible is there anything we can do about it ?
Here in the UK we produce around 2% of global CO2 emissions. So if everyone in England, Scotland and Wales gave up using cars, burning coal and heating their homes with oil we could delay the supposed cataclysmic climate failure by what ? Two or three days ? Meanwhile we would be living in the Stone Age. A simple bucolic lifestyle appeals to me on one level but there are limits.

4. Is a global warming trend a bad thing ?
The greatest advances in human culture have occurred during warming periods. The Dark Ages were not only dark but also cold. We are an adaptable species - that's why there are 6 billion of us. Is it not better to put the resources and effort into adapting to whatever situation comes along than to throw trillions of pounds and dollars and yen at a problem that may not be as serious as some would have us believe.

For the world's economies to cripple themselves with draconian CO2 limiting policies then the answer to these four questions has to be Yes, 100%. Who here has the arrogance to claim that ?

I believe people have made various good cases out of the issues of Global Warming. Both side have backed their arguments with facts and figures to suggest the authenticity of their claims. I think what we should rather be doing now is to start taking measures aimed at either preventing or reducing the impact of all negative occurrence that are likely t arise as a result of Global Warming.

It will not be out of place to hold world leaders to invest in the issue of Global Warming whether it will happen at all or not.

Let us not be bias about this issue because it is something that really bothers on the existence of mankind.

a) It seems to me that the genesis of the GW consensus among our Western leaders is that it answers their need to find excuses to tax us more heavily, shove us around, preach at us, pose as morally superior, feel more important, show how enlightened they are compared to the common herd and generally lord it over us, as they remain cushioned from all the proposed restrictions on us by their self-awarded priveleges.
b) For many of the population, acceptance of the GW crusade provides a much-needed substitute for religious belief.
c) I have no objection whatsoever to conserving resources, not being wasteful, thriftiness, etc., and actually believe there is an inherent satisfaction therein.
d)Finally, it seems to me that the whole area of global population increase is being dangerously ignored.

This is nonsense.
It makes me sad that people ignore the truth ducking their head in the ground or being lobbied.
Have a look on satellite data of rapidly decreasing ice shields; death of the corals etc.
Whole nation - Maldives is set funds for the total evacuation, as the sea levels are rising.
Last year they even collected some strawberries in Greenland!

Surely, there is no global warming in your airconed office...
So-called researches like you just make me sad...

This is nonsense.
It makes me sad that people ignore the truth ducking their head in the ground or being lobbied.
Have a look on satellite data of rapidly decreasing ice shields; death of the corals etc.
Whole nation - Maldives is set funds for the total evacuation, as the sea levels are rising.
Last year they even collected some strawberries in Greenland!

Surely, there is no global warming in your airconed office...
So-called researches like you just make me sad...

Recent satellite measurements show a recovery of the Arctic sea ice. Maybe last years low values were more due to inflow of warm water from the south than to global warming. Probably this was happening in the warm 1930s too. In Antarctic there has not been any decrease of sea ice. The sea level at the Maldives has not rised! The global sea level rise has slowed down during the period 2003-2008 due to smaller thermal expansion (lack of warming). The (smaller) increase is thought to be caused by continuosly melting glaciers (that have been melting ever since the little ice age ended). The fastest glacier melting occured around 1880! But still I refuse to speculate anything about the future, such advanced business is not suitable for a Finnish lumberjack (forest industy scientist) like me. Btw, nobody pays me any lobby money for writing about the climate (you should see my rusty car...). I have no air condition in my office either, but some heating is needed (minus 15 deg C outdoors at the moment). The heat originates from a local combined heat and power plant (CHP) with 90% total efficiency. Compared to condensing power plant, the heat is free.

No one out there seems to want to talk about the real problem.
Who out there has over 2 children, or 5, or 8.
Why do you think we are running out of natural resources.

Boris is accusing me, and others of ducking the issue.... I could say the same to him....

We have no evidence...

2 things that seem to have been ignored....

1/ If Ice core CO2 measurments have been matched to global temperature - Surely that acknowledges the existance of significant temp. increases (supposedly caused by CO2) before. what caused that, and why can't it be that again?

2/ Clearly we cannot measure global temperature very well at all.... el nino/ la nina causes global temp changes!!!! - where does the energy come from/or go? - It's impossible for there to be a real temp change (a la conservation of energy) - only that the heat is not where we saw it last - ie. we're rubbish at measuring it....

I'm not ducking the issue.... I'm looking at the facts! - you should try it!

Yeah, this site is about facts and arts. I try to present some facts. Other people write about arts. In arts imagination and fantasy are utilized to create feelings. If you mix facts with imagination you must realize that you have done so. Ray Bradbury once wrote the best science fiction books. George Orwell was outstanding. Climate alarmists are not as good as these guys, but they try their best.

There are decicated statiles that measure the ocean... just browse www.sciencedaily.com ther was a resent study posted on the topic... common sense... glaciers have been reported as disapearing at an alarming rate.... where does the excess water go to? The answer the oceans... ergo sea levels rise and islands sink...

use common sense... please.

Think you'll find that glacier melting is not really an issue with sea level.... It's thermal expansion.... just for clarification....

However, that's not really the point, if global temperature rise is due to solar cycles (which I think, if you ignored the scaremongers you would see is true) then it's an irrelavent argument, because there is nothing we could do about it.

sea level rise is slight, has not displaced people yet, will reverse when the temp falls again... and has been happening for the last 20,000 years - pretty sure there were no SUVs back in 18000 BC...

ie. we havent caused it and can't do anything about it - and in my view is not a major threat..

IT WOULDN'T BE THE END OF THE WORLD!

Science want to discuss but they are lacking one factor. It is the fact that all the output of photosynthesis is exothermic. So the new molecules of oxygen and water produced are ... what... hot gases. (There is no term as yet). Photosynthesis do produce the higher clouds. The lower clouds are produced by evaporation and always require heat. Clouds are produced but there is also a manner of pressure that keeps the atmosphere, "le plafond", functional. That pressure is what distribute the heat that is building because of the thickness of the atmosphere. So all the patches of vegetation are in competition. Eventually where the desertification ruin the lands it will become colder while undisturbed vegetation area will see hotter temperatures. Desertification is the true problem. Snow do fail to reach the Ice Cap. That sea water out there is cold to stop melting even if it were hot temperatures.
The best of forest management in the long term will produce dwarf trees. That is the trueproblem: desertification.
If you want to read more about my scientific opinion go to http://pierreverville.blogspot.com and excuse me for my bad english.
I am sorry for Al Gore, but he is striking a ghost.

These basic conclusions (that global warming IS man-made, potentially apocalyptic, and NOT just natural) have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.

Do you think if you keep saying, "There is NO evidence" somehow or other that statement will become true?

The evidence for global warming is so strong and the causal link between CO2 and warming so evident that whether you acknowledge the reality of AGW or not boils down largely to a question of perception. If you live a life insulated from the outside world, spend most of your time indoors (in centrally heated or air-conditioned rooms), in your car (rather than walking anywhere); if you are happy with the comforts of an urban existence which may in some ways be threatened by severe reductions in CO2 emissions, then it is likely that you have only limited direct experience of AGW and will choose to look for arguments contradicting it (these will always exist no matter how serious and obvious AGW becomes).

If however you work outside or spend long periods outside, if your income is in some ways dependent on agriculture and the climate, if (God forbid!) you live in a developing country which is already being adversely affected by global warming, then you will see things very differently. You will know that weather patterns are changing and will probably suspect this has something to do with how we live.

One of the tragedies about our response to climate change is that so often it is people living lives disconnected from the natural world who are pontificating about it, people who, alas, have allowed vested business interests to dominate their thinking. If such people were really objective about the science, however, they would know that global warming IS a given - well over 90% of the world's scientific community are hardly likely to be wrong. But because the deniers enjoy all the fruits of the modern world and are insulated from all the destructive effects of global climate change, they convince themselves, en masse, that it isn't really happening. They are the 1940s tobacco manufacturers of the 21st century: the people who just can't bring themselves to admit that what they are doing can have fatal consequences. And this is the tragedy of being alive today: that we have to live in the midst of such dishonesty at the same time as seeing the evil effects it's having on our planet.

not the debate on global warming as this is done for both monetary and political reasons. The true debate needs to be how do we take better care of the resources of this planet for the improvement of human health and life. Gases escaping from refineries have caused numerous health issues over the years for millions living within a few miles of the many refinery ports of this nation (not to mention the dirtier ports of other nations). This has also caused fish kills and other wildlife concerns. STOP the arguing over whether Global warming is occuring or not. It doesn't matter. Let's try to improve our water and air and seashores and people's lives near refinery ports. That is where the money needs to go. Let's limit the amounts of pollution that stacks put out because it betters the health of those nearby, not because of some global warming! This is the BIGGER issue that all people can agree on...so let's fix things for the right reasons. This is as obvious as the nose on your face......politics and money...the roots of all evil....YHWH says to take care of the earth because it was given to man to maintain. So let's listen to Him and help better our lives, our health, and our neighbor's lives...while there is still time.

During the industrial revolution, when there were no EPA standards for carbon emissions.. or any regulations on any poisons being dumped where ever a company wanted... the oceans did not swallow europe or asia or the americas... the North Pole did not become the next Florida. So why is it we claim global warming is happening at such a risen rate now?
In this time of technology and advances in efficiency... carbon emmissions have actually declined across the world. Yes, there are more cars on the road today than 1930s... but the cars today have mufflers and emmission control systems and catalytic converters. All meant to reduce emmissions. Yes there are more factories today than in 1930s... but now the stacks are filled with filters and neutralizers and heat recapturing devices. Yes there are more people... and thus, more waste. But today waste water is recycled, cleaned, and readmitted into the enviorment cleaner than when it was taken out. We no longer dump raw sewage in Boston Harbor... as was done from the founding of the city until the late 1960s... No longer do factories spew their waste directly into the Mississippi River... as was done up until the early 1970s. We heat more homes and we run more lights now... but the energy comes not only from fossil fuels but from bio diesel, nuclear plants, wind turbines, solar panels, geo thermal pumps and, in some areas, the burning of trash to create electricity.
If people think that the water and air are more dangerous now than even 20 years ago... take a look at photographs of Los Angeles today vs the 1980s. Smog so thick and grey hung over LA at times in the 1980s that you couldnt see the city even at night from the air... it would block out the lights. Now, there are fewer days of smog alerts. Take a look at Boston Harbor. In the 1980s fishing was banned in the harbor due to raw sewage. Now, Boston Harbor has recovered and swimming and fishing are allowed. Take a look at the population of the American Bald eagle in the 1980s vs today.. the population has nearly quadrupled and the American Bald Eagle has moved up from the endagered species list to simply at risk. Fishing populations have returned to Georges Bank, wolves have been seen in their ranges... ranges where the north american grey wolf and the timber wolf were once extinct. Oil Rigs are more efficient, oil processing is more effiecient, technology in heat transfere systems have made huge strides. Large engines such as V-8s now get comprable mileage to the smaller V-6s or, in some cases, 4 cy.
Here is my point: If Global Warming is happening today at such a break fast pace, how can humans be the cause if humans have done so much to lower the enviornmental impact of pollution? Before you get so caught up in what the news media tells you, think about it. History is such a great teacher if we only learn from it. History tells us of the plague... does anyone understand what caused it? Rats... yes rats. See, Rats infesting cities carried the disease. The rats congregated in such great amounts because of the amount of refuse and garbage in the streets... and the disease spread so fast because the water systems were not clean. History tells us of refuse being dumped into our oceans and lakes and ponds.. untreated... now, we treat waste water and reuse it. Look back to everything we have done in even the last 20-50 years... and you can see... Global Warming should have taken its biggest toll in the 1930s-1970s... long before the EPA, long before emmission controls on cars, long before the technological revolution.

Yes, Damon, we have achieved some great things in the last twenty years or so. But the fact remains that there is more CO2 in the air now than ever before and despite all our apparent efforts, CO2 emissions are still increasing every year globally by about 1%. These are hard facts and we ignore the correlation between them and global warming at our peril.

In Britain, just to illustrate, there were only 7 million cars in 1970. Now there are nearly 30 million. Even in a developed country the number of cars has quadrupled in less than forty years. Now try to imagine what the multiples must be in Eastern Europe, China and other S.E. Asian countries. It means that until we shift more to non-fossil fuels or impose a swingeing carbon tax, global CO2 emissions simply will not go down, not with all the best will, filters and catalytic converters in the world.

The global increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide during 2008 was 1.82 ppmv only (parts per million volume units) despite record emissions from fossil fuel and cement factories. The mean concentration during the year was 385 ppmv. The increase percentage was 0.476%, not 1%. The increase rate seems to follow the global temperature (2008 was a cold year) much better than the emission rate. During warm years (during 2005 the increase was 2.44 ppmv or 0.65 %) the increase rate has been higher. Still I think that carbon dioxide concentration increases due to anthropohenic emissions. But we must realize that there are a lot of unclear mechanisms involved in the global carbon dioxide cycle as well as in the alleged carbon dioxide triggered global warming.

Even if global warming is a myth, and we hold it up to the same regard as the bible, shouldn't we be respecting the planet anyway..

Shouldn't we be planting more trees in the rainforest instead of knocking them down?
Shouldn't we be preserving more species of animals and plants before they disappear?
Maybe stop dumping in the seas, rivers and lakes.
Can't we use renewable energy, and make it free for everyone?

If not "for the good of the planet" then maybe because we have evolved past the point of eating shagging and shitting (well most of us anyway) and become free thinkers that can truly appreciate the stuff that the planet gives to us every day..

To illustrate further for you how much carbon emissions have dropped: In Brittain, air pollution during the early 1900s was staggering... so much so a native white moth changed its color to match the soot covered trees. Those moths have now returned to their natural white color.
Now per the EPA these numbers were calculated
In 1980, Carbon Monoxide was roughly 178 million tons per year... 2007... 81
in 1980, Total particulat fossil fuel pollution emitted was estimated to be 267 million tons per year... in 2007....129 million tons.
Again this is during a time where the population of the US has nearly trippled, the number of cars on the road has quadrupled, the number of factories has increased, the amount of energy consumed is more than 10 fold. I will reitterate my point... if the north pole was to melt catastrophically due to global warming.. should it not have done it when the million tons per year of air born pollutants was over 250million... more than half the estimated for 2007?

Now in response to Mook Skywalker and Respect the planet anyway. I couldnt agree more with your headline.. but not your premise. First, the rainforest is being depleted, of that we can agree.. but we can not simply replant. The rainforest is being depleted to make way for farmlands and other agricultural sites. No, this is not a good thing... however, the nations that are built in the areas of the Rainforests need to work on that... and indeed Brazil is. By 2010 Brazil will be free of all fossil fuels using bio deisel made from sugar beets instead.
We can not make renewable energy completely free. To do so would cost jobs, would eventually crash a free market system, and ultimately lead to the decline of the global economy. One of the reasons socialism does not work.
We can and most of us do appreciate what the planet gives us each day. Most of us understand the survival of any species including man is directly linked to the enviornment. The problem comes about when one takes and uses global warming as a means to a political end. For instance... you buy a house on 2 acres of land. You decide you want to expand your house by building an addition. So you get all the permits and go through all the loops. Then, out of the woodwork comes a man protesting your building of that addition because it would mean the loss of 900 square feet of land that some toad you never heard of before lives on. Suddenly you are in court day after month after year trying to fight the suits he and his organization are bringing against you. Dont think this is reasonable? In 2006 an animal rights group on cape cod stopped the building of underground power lines to a community because the trucks had to move across a path used by box turtles in the woods. In 2005 a Wal Mart in Maine was served a stop and desist order by the courts when they were updating their signs... because an owl had made a nest in the sign. In 2002, Cape Wind began a project to bring wind power generators to Cape Cod... in 2009 they are still fighting enviornmentalists whose claims have ranged from it destroys the pristine views to the moving blades will cut birds in half. Of course, Denmark has been using wind mills for generations and has only seen the bird population increase... and the off shore wind farms being used as natural reefs for fish and shell fish.
Should we be preserving more animals and plants? Have you asked yourself.. or done any research into the preservation efforts just of the United States? In the last 10 years, the American Bald eagle has made a come back.. timber wolves and grey wolves are returning to habitats they were extinct from for over 100 years. Fish thought extinct have been found living in multitudes off the Japanese coast, shell fish beds once deemed to be unsafe for consumption are open again, fish hatcheries have increased the population of herin, salmon, and other fish dramatically.
The point here is this: Yes we need to be concerned over the enviornment but not so much that we use it as a way to destroy human ideas and thought... and definitly not in a way that restricts the prosperity of human beings. A company that pollutes and destroys the enviornment in which they function, knows they are doomed to end. People who dump raw sewage into their lakes and streams know the dangers from disease. We dont need broad sweeping laws that stop progress.

Yes, agree with Mook Skywalker! What I want to say, is that fear is a bad master. Common sense and respect for the wonders God has created will lead us to the right decisions. Never forget that millions have no clean water, not enough food, and no health care. Money wasted for fighting against hypothetical global warming (like carbon dioxide capture "investments") should be used to solve these humanitarian problems instead. We should of course use less oil and gas, but never make fuel from food stuff. As long as the sun shines, mankind is never running out of energy. And all the best for president Obama! But I do think that president Bush has done many things a little better than most people here in Europe think. For example, he has been fighting against AIDS i Africa. And to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his criminal sons and chemical Ali, just great!

Malta is a small island 30 Km x 15 Km bang in the middle of the med. We are still above water. No noticeable rise in sea levels for the last 50 years. Last high temperature greater than 40 C was in 1997. Since then its been cooling a bit and we are having more rain, more water and veggies etc. Grass is greener and trees grow better, maybe due to the 0.01 % increase in atmospheric CO2? My old father in law recorded zero degrees in his field one early morning last March 2008, which is quite a feat for our weather.

In my opinion Global Warming is over for the next 60 years or so. CO2 is innocuous and Al Gore is finished.

Why is it that former "Global Warming" now, seamlessly, "Climate Change" alarmists feel the need to respond to reasoned scientific data presentations with personal attacks on the presenter? That's really a rhetorical question. The method is called "diversion" and if you look closely you will never see peer reviewed evidence to support their position point by point included in their retorts. Only attempts at diversion from the issue at question by attacking the questioner.

The answer is all about money and social control. The global warming, excuse me, climate change crisis "scientific research" is currently funded to the tune of $50B (that's not a typo) annually. There are a lot of people out there riding this bandwagon and they get really angry when someone with inconvenient facts threatens their funding, paychecks, falcon recovery, whatever.

Whoever does not comply with their "beliefs" is an automatic heretic and hates the earth and is an enemy of mankind. No other actual facts required. You see you have to have a crisis in the offing, one way or the other, to scare the public into accepting sweeping societal changes, read that one world government, to stop the threat of the impending crisis.

But they have blown it, big time. CO2 is the way wrong gas to use for alarm. First of all it's not a pollutant. It makes green things greener faster. Second of all any casual research reveals that, historically, temperature drives atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. For instance, when the temperatures are warmer the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere and when temperatures are colder the oceans absorb it from the atmosphere. Listen up boys and girls, temperature drives CO2, CO2 does not drive temperature. Oh, and what drives temperature is activity on the sun. Check the science. What are your questions?

Don't get me started. Nuclear energy, especially with the latest technology, is safe, efficient, and releases zero emissions. So why are the greens so adamantly opposed to it? The short answer is that nuclear energy does not fit into the alarmist's agenda for social control. They oppose it rabidly because it does away with their argument for control of people. They actually don't like us folks. Why else do you suppose that the issue of population control occasionally slips out in their arguments?

Developing nations need energy. All of it they can get to produce clean water, efficient sewage disposal infrastructure, and a healthy cooking environment. You can bet your bippy that these dedicated alarmists with their private jets and their modern homes would not consider for a second trading places with people who spend a considerable portion of their day gathering firewood or dung to burn in open fires for cooking in their kitchens with no ventilation subjecting their children and themselves to chronic pollution. If you listen to the greens this is a natural state and should be preserved in order to save the planet. They just don't want to trade places. OK so how about just getting off the grid?

Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are under attack from a beast. The only way to fight back is with information. Do the research. Educate yourself and pass it along. Radical environmentalists are not constrained by the truth. In fact they recoil from truth. They don't inquire, they "believe". They sell disinformation repeatedly and will continue to do so until life as we know it is long gone.

Think about it. It is hubris in the extreme and supreme arrogance to think that human activity, short of global nuclear war, will have more of an effect on climate change, whatever that might be, than the sun.

Jerry - your tone is offensive and patronizing. Are all the people who work for the IPCC with access to meteorological data from all around the world and all the best technology 'Flat Earthers' just in it for the money? Are all the thousands of unpaid environmentalists (like me) who give up their free time to try to do something about this issue just 'riding the bandwagon'? However much money you imagine there is to be made out of taking global warming seriously, it is not a fraction of what has been made by oil companies and car manufacturers pretending it isn't happening.

You make the mistake of attributing the same money-making motives the polluters have to people on the other side. Like most deniers, you put vested interests before rational thinking. But the vast majority of AGW believers are not people guided by vested interests. My belief in AGW, for example, is based on observation, personal experience and looking at as much scientific evidence as I can. I've seen climate patterns change in my lifetime. I've travelled widely and spoken to many people about it, I've read books about it. And nothing would please me more than to find out that it is all a myth. But unfortunately perhaps I'm not the kind of person given to self-deception and wishful thinking. AGW might not be happening in your air-conditioned office. But it's happening in Africa, in Australia, in Siberia, in India - all around the World. And you should stop insulting people for not pretending it isn't.

Can't find any science in your post. Can you enlighten us a bit? AGW is based on one single parameter: a 0.01% increase in that life giver of a gas known chemically as Carbon Dioxide. Without it life will not exist on this planet. Life is carbon based and all life gets its carbon, directly or though the food chain from CO2.

Global warming and cooling depend on many physical parameters. The same parameters that caused the ice-age, the warmings and the little ice followed by the warming we had till 1998. I too have a personal experience (56 years) and can assure you that where I live and have lived all my life I have seen it all. Draught, ice, hot air blasts that turn green fields into dry brown tinder in three days. Now we have been getting cooler and wetter weather and milder summers for the last 9 years.

I was a believer in AGW,and I have to admit that I've been had, conned, scammed, etc. But not anymore. I should have looked up the science I learned at school and University in the first place. That's what I've been doing lately and finding out that CO2 is innocuous and Al Gore is on his way outa here

You will notice that when I mentioned a 1% CO2 increase I was talking about annual emissions levels not the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere. Thanks though for the stats and for acknowledging that last year emission levels were at a record high level. Now just try to spell this fact out to people like Damon who still seem to think that emissions levels are actually going down.

Fossil emissions (and cementmani´facture.): 2004: 7.7 GtC (Gigaton coal), 2005: 8.0 GtC, 2006: 8.4 GtC, 2007: 8.7 GtC, 2008 (best guess): 9.0 GtC. Abt 0.3 GtC increase a year or close to 4%, some years ago it was only 1% a year. It was due to the economical boom especially in China! But as we know, the boom is over (who believed it could last forever?) So now we probably are going to see a decrease of emissions. Money rules, not Kyoto, or any other attempt. To the 9 GtC 2009 we have to add 1.3 GtC from deforestations, total 10.3 GtC. In the atmosphere stayed 2.13*1.82 = 3.86 GtC, or 37.5 %.

The rest, 10.3 - 3.86 = 6.4 GtC was absorbed to the biosphere and to the oceans.

Jonathan: Are you talking of 1% of 0.038%? That means 0.00038% of yearly increase in CO2 gas. CO2 gas increased from about 0.025% to 0.038% in a hundred years or so. During this increase the planet saw warming, cooling, warming, now cooling.......its the sun you see, the sun, and maybe planetary orbits, precession, intergalactic radiation.. These physical parameters all have their effect on our climate. In fact these have much more effect on it than the minuscule CO2 molecule.

Thanks for your response to my article. You make my point. I'm sorry that you find the truth to be patronizing and offensive. You have your "beliefs" but you have no evidence to support AWG. The IPCC is a political body that publishes information that is fraudulent. How scientific do you think it is to publish a "summary" and then gather information that supports only that summary and nothing else? Sounds bogus to me. It's certainly not science. FYI scientists don't do consensus, that's what politicians do. I agree that pollution is a genuine problem and I'm totally in favor of addressing the cleaning up of our planet. We all want clean air and water. But CO2 is not a pollutant. It's the wrong target. It makes up a small portion of the atmosphere and trees love the stuff. There is more CO2 produced by bees, fleas, and birds than by humans, and cows emit more methane than all the cars on the planet. ( Chris Horner, "Red Hot Lies") Have you seen a weather report recently? We've been cooling for the last 9 years and this winter in the US we're breaking cold and snowfall records like crazy. You are welcome to your "belief" in AWG but, sorry, the science doesn't support that "belief". And neither does the weather. One last thing, aviation weather forecasts by the NOAA are updated every six hours, 27/7 like clockwork. Think about that and then think about climate change "models" ability to predict long term climate

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

No Albert, I'm not talking about a 1% increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere, I'm talking about an increase in global CO2 emission levels. But it seems, from what Jarl says above, that I've understated it and that it's closer to 4%. Which is pretty damn frightening given that we've known about AGW for nearly twenty years, says much for the quack science of the oil companies and the SUV manufacturers who have been doing everything in their power to play down the reality of global warming and manipulate political decisions to serve their own interests.

Fortunately, however, there is a new president in the White House and we in Europe can expect change. And do expect change. And fortunately the number of AGW sceptics is decreasing every year and it's no longer a Left/Right issue. In fact the Conservative Party in Britain proposes even more radical CO2 emission reductions than the Labour Party (up to 60 to 80% reductions by 2050). Which perhaps bodes well for the future but will not let our generation off the hook for doing nothing about AGW.

Emissions do no directly cause AGW, but increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might cause AGW (althought the warming effect of CO2 seems to be exaggerated by most climate models). From my last message, you could see that despite record high emissions in 2008, total 10.3 GtC, the atm. concentration increase rate was moderate or 1.8 ppm only. For example, in 1987 the total emissions were 7.3 GtC only, but the CO2 increase was 2.7 ppm!

Obviously the sink flow of carbon dioxide to the biosphere (enhanced growth, CO2 fertilization of photosynthesis) and the oceans increases when the atm. concentration of CO2 increases. This happens because the driving force for diffusion increases.

Nature will create the biofuels and food of tomorrow by utilizing the carbon dioxide emitted from the fossil fuels of today.

They take more energy to produce than they omit. How stupid is that? Furthermore they subtract from the food producing farmlands and cause food shortages which has caused food riots and regional wars. Does anybody really care? Apparently not as long as it's green.

They take more energy to produce than they emit. How stupid is that? Furthermore they subtract from the food producing farmlands and cause food shortages which has caused food riots and regional wars. Does anybody really care? Apparently not as long as it's green.

You talk about science, Jerry, ask for 'scientific' evidence for AGW, but the problem is you reject any factual evidence for it a priori. If you can't accept the findings of an independent international body of expert scientists (the IPCC) then you're clearly a conspiracy theorist who, from my point of view, it is pointless arguing with. What's the point of me reiterating that 11 of the hottest years ever have been in the last 13? What's the point of me telling you that last year would have probably been the hottest ever (and was in many parts of the world) were it not for the La Nina effect? What's the point of me telling you that the hottest temperature ever recorded in my country (Slovakia) was in 2007, that the hottest ever in Britain (where I grew up) was in 2003? What's the point in me giving you figures for global CO2 emissions showing how they're going up all the time? What's the point of me telling you about my friends who operate ski lifts and complain about less and less snow every year and warmer and warmer temperatures stopping them from even making the stuff? Or about wine producers I know whose vineyards are moving further north every year? Does none of this count as 'science' in your book? What is it: hearsay; witchcraft; Communism?

Sure, you can no doubt find some other facts aimed at disproving AGW. The world is a big place and not all parts of it are warming up at the same rate. But the trend (and we're talking about trends here) is that the world is getting warmer and there is no getting round the fact if you're willing to look at the facts objectively and not just reject them at source because they don't correspond to your political perception of things.

I am not going to contribute anything else to this site. I don't need to lock horns with unreformed eco-sceptics all my life when I could be out celebrating a new age in American politics and the end of one of its darkest. But my parting question to you Jarl is: What is it like for you, a clearly intelligent person with access to all the data and an obviously scientific mind to have the support of people who are so unscientific and irrational in their thinking? Wouldn't you prefer to have some of these guys on the other side? It must be a bit of an embarrassment to you when you read through some of the posts above and look at the mindsets some of those ranters echoing your views.

Of course we should not burn food! But wood (and peat) is no food. In Finland 28% of all primary energy originates from the forest. We have the biofuel world record, and we burn no food. And we use only 75% of the yearly growth. Due to higher atm concentration of carbon dioxide the forest growth is increasing.

To Jonathan: I try to present facts and only facts. Please go on reading this site, you will find facts in every contribution. What pople do with facts is their own business. There are no bad facts and no good facts, just facts In the Soviet Union some facts were allowed, other facts not because these facts undermined the socialistic moral of the people. Contrary to Russia, in USA there is a very free press. That´s why Obama in now the president. I do like this guy! But a fishing tour with Mr Bush would be fun too.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

This link contains a brief history of global warming, cooling, warming, cooling, warming...scares of the last century, all perpetrated by renowned scientists and journalists.

You'd better talk what you understand. Do not make a mess between the Soviet union and Russia. Do you speak or read the russian to judge about their life or democracy? The Condoleezza's time is over, fortunately, as well as Bushy will be forgatten for ever and their propaganda and lie. So let's talk respectfully about people of the country who won the last war without nuclear extermination civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When is Al Gore going to take credit for solving the climate crisis?

Yes, I speak Russian, but not very well. I also watch Russian TV. But when I want to know what really is going on in the world (and in Russia too), I have to watch the BBC. Just like in the old times. But let´s stick to climate change: It is amazing, that almost all rural Siberian met stations show that the 1930s was as warm as today or even warmer (like all Finnish and Swedish stations show), but the urban stations a little south along the same rivers show a huge warming (Global Warming??) But I think that nowadays the people making the Hadley global temperature curve know how to deal with this serious problem. And the urban effect may be leveling off as times go by. My graphs show that since 1995 both satellites and surface stations show about the same lack of significant global warming.

One more comment about Russia and GW. During the communist time millions were sent to labour camps to do timber work, or to Belyij Gulag (White Gulag). Some came back, other froze to death or died of starvation and diseases. Today some of these places are empty, other are villages and small cities where life actually is not very bad anymore. But these cities consume huge amounts of gas, oil, and coal to make life possible. A little climate warming would be good for you there, or? The worst that could happen is climate cooling.

Didn't want to wade into this but had to respond to Mook Skywalker. No we can't use renewable energy and make it free for everyone. The reason we are using fossil fuels is because they are inexpensive. Wind power, nuclear power and solar power are expensive and unreliable. Can we make them better? I hope so because we are running out of the cheap stuff. If the western world woke up tomorrow and removed all the need for oil, the price of oil would likely drop to about 2 dollars a barrel. China, India, Russia and elsewhere would have a huge economic advantage since their energy costs would be practically zero while the western world struggled to compete with expensive energy costs.

The world needs to put some money into research and development to make alternative energy affordable globally. Putting into effect non-practical energy sources because of climate worries will not really do much for you. Sure your children will wake up to less local CO2 emissions but they will now be part of the third world struggling with basic survival. Globally though the emissions will be the same because all the new rich fossil fuel burning countries will be buying cars and partying like we are now.

Even if the climate models are right, which I doubt, (there are far too many variables and lack of knowledge), massive reductions in emissions will delay a degree in temperature rise by a few years. As the price of oil rises (natural supply and demand rises, not Bush "make money for my buddies" type rises) other energy forms will be developed and the entire world will wean itself off fossil fuels.

Oh and as far as population increase is concerned, that is not really a huge issue. The population will plateau at about 10 billion. The planet should be able to feed itself. We won't all be driving cars and living the high life. Some countries will do better than others. The corrupt, inefficient and under-educated countries will not do well. The middle class will shrink and mass transit will become more popular. Energy costs will be a driving force in reducing consumption for most people. In other word, we will adapt naturally. Hopefully we can learn to live without population growth. Economic growth and population growth generally go hand in hand. I will leave that to the economist to figure out. I can't do everything.

To the dipsticks that think cooler oceans generate hurricanes, not warmer ones: have you ever wondered why hurricanes are a TROPICAL phenomena?? It has a lot to do with the fact that the water and air is WARMER!

If this site wishes to pursue truth, people need to stick to what they know. What I have seen of glaciers (and i spend a lot of time on north and south american glaciers) is that they are very rapidly disappearing, and through photographs, we can all see that this has gone on for over a century. The effect is extremely dramatic and undeniably universal to the Americas. There are only a very few glaciers that are larger than they were a century ago, and most are tiny in comparison. The earth may fluctuate "naturally", but we are having an affect on our planet and would be wise to use our ability to steer, as we have done with infectious disease, starvation, and a million other solvable problems. Why stick our head in the sand on global warming? And who, besides Jarl, believes it is ethical to take "only 75%" of the total gross primary productivity of our forests for human consumption? How about leaving a bit more for our billions of furry friends and other fellow inhabitants on earth that together give this home of ours a strong, healthy, interdependent weave?

Welcome to Finland to have a look at sustainable use of forests! When the trees are cut down, new trees are planted. It was my first real job as a young boy (16yr old) to plant trees. I bought a transistor radio with my first salary.

Huge forest areas are of course protected as natural parks.

Unfortunately, only few countries have forest resources. I think that running out of fossil fuels is a serious problem for mankind. Compared to this problem, a probably slight GW is not very serious.

Remember that glaciers have been shrinking since the end of the little ice age for natural reasons! Maybe CO2 emissions have caused acceleration, nobody knows for sure.

Welcome to Finland to have a look at sustainable use of forests! When the trees are cut down, new trees are planted. It was my first real job as a young boy (16yr old) to plant trees. I bought a transistor radio with my first salary.

Huge forest areas are of course protected as natural parks.

Unfortunately, only few countries have forest resources. I think that running out of fossil fuels is a serious problem for mankind. Compared to this problem, a probably slight GW is not very serious.

Remember that glaciers have been shrinking since the end of the little ice age for natural reasons! Maybe CO2 emissions have caused acceleration, nobody knows for sure.

Greeting from New Zealand. I'm a skeptic and AGW is just a load of old bollocks for the following reasons.

1) CO2 makes up about 3% of the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for less than 5% of global warming with Water Vapour (mostly clouds) accounting for over 95%. How could CO2 possibly influence air temps in any major way at these levels? - somebody please explain this to me.

2) Current CO2 levels at just under 400 PPM is a miniscule amount. Given that during periods of the Earths history CO2 reached about 3000 PPM (Jurassic Period when all those dinosaurs were running around eating all that lush vegetation). Average air temp was then about the same as today. How could high levels of CO2 (a natural, odourless and vital gas) be possibly bad for us. As we all know the higher the level of CO2 the better plants grow.

3) CO2 levels are rising yet the average air temperature during the last 7-8 years has been slightly decreasing. Where exactly is the positive correlation?

And yes sea levels have continued to rise as they have been for many hundreds of years at about 10cm per 100 years - big deal.

Would those fervently clinging to their religious (non scientific) beliefs about Climate change please go visit this site before making any more comments. These are actual satellite recordings displayed on a daily basis in near real time. They also show air temperature trends over time.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

Have fun everybody.

Obama did the right thing when calling for more fuel efficient cars! Not because of AGW, but because of limited global oil reserves. But if he REALLY wants to reduce US dependence of Middle East Oil, he should demand making synthetic diesel from coal, drilling in Alaska, and investments in nuclear power for feeding electrical cars. Fuel efficient cars and renewable energy are only a small part of the solution for the next 100 years.

I checked sea level data at our nearest test location (Fort Denison). There's been no increase for the past 2 years, and 8mm increase in the previous 25 years. I see sea levels have been rising for the past 20,000 years, though more slowly in recent times.

James Allison - I must correct you. CO2 isn't 3% of the atmosphere - it's 0.038%. At 0.02% plant life (or food source) struggles to survive. Everything else you said I totally agree with.

when you said the weather is extreme

There is much fear by the global warming supporters over what will happen if (they say "when") the Arctic Ice melts. Unlike the Antarctic, the North Pole ice is floating.

(1) Get a cooler and fill the bottom with Ice blocks from your corner convenience store.
(2) Now add water the so that the Ice blocks are all floating free.
(3) Mark the water line with a permanent marker.
(4) Come back after an hour and check the water line.
(5) Realize the truth regarding displacement, floating bodies, why they float and apply what have learned to the theory of Arctic Ice melting and how it will affect coastal water levels..
(6) Try to figure out how you are going to dump all that water without sloshing it all over yourself.
(7) Send Al Gore and the global warming alarmists nasty email for telling fibs, and wonder what else they have been fudging the truth on.

HINT: Ice expands when it freezes.

For those wishing more accurate results wait until the ice has melted completely.

OPTIONAL: You could add salt to create a brine solution to approach that of the Arctic Ocean, however be aware that this will lengthen the amount of time it will take the ice to melt, as the salt content allows the water and ice together to reach even colder temperatures than the can on their own. (That's what made it possible for your great-grandmother to create home-made ice cream in the middle of summer.)

Oh, and one other scientific fact. Hard-pack Arctic ice, is created by snow fall. Continual snowfall causes layer after layer and the hard-pack below is further compressed by the layers above. (in simpler terms, polar ice is less dense then that found in your ice tray.)

RB - well put. It's amazing how basic science has been neglected in preference to a good story.

i think the global warming scam, now called climate change (because its getting colder) is more political than science. its about socialism the people trying to tell us the end is near are the same people who hate;
worldtrade
America
Israel
republicans
microsoft
property rights
weath
suv's
these poeple fall into two catagories socialists and people who cannot think things through
on their own and are easy to lead dont worry though the democrates have the answer
they will fix this non existant problem but it will cost.

Thank you for pointing out the economic reality that seems to lost in the discussion of "renewable" energy production. Fossil fuels are not only cheaper, as you point out, they may also be more energy efficient. Renewables like wind and solar are thought to be free energy sources. Fossil fuels are naturally occuring in the earth. They are also free. It is the energy and human effort to extract them for which we must pay. The same applies to wind turbines and solar collectors. It is the energy and human effort to make those devices that makes the costs so high. It takes energy to pump oil out of the ground. It takes energy to make the steel drill pipe. Every activity connected to the production and delivery of fossil fuels takes energy and human effort. Similarly for renewables. It takes energy to extract and refine the copper used in the windings of a wind turbine. It takes energy for the silicon used in photovoltaic cells. If a technology is more expensive compared to another, then it "probably" means it produces less energy per unit of energy input. Evaluating the energy cost of the human input could be difficult. I use the word "probably" because I can think of several different ways of doing that. I'm not sure that matters if you are comparing two capital intensive technologies. If you were to evaluate a highly human effort intensive energy source, such as a human powered water wheel, might be important for comparison.
Bottom line, it takes energy to produce energy even for renewables. Prices and a free market may give us a good indication of which energy sources are the most efficient.

AGW is a Red Herring. It is neither proven to be real nor proven to be a real problem. While the preoccupation with it may be merely a waste of time and source of entropy converting work into hot air, it has the potential to cause real harm.
Mandates for corn or sugar cane based ethanol and bio diesel will not only put food prices out of reach for billions of people. They also cause tropical rain forest to be burned down to cultivate cane for sugar and to start plantations for palm oil ( google National Geographic for references). I am old enough to have experienced tractors powered by on-board "wood gasifiers" in post world-war Germany and I am sure that we can figure out ways to eventually make ethanol out of cellulose. Nevertheless, "possible" does not mean that it will be economical and thermodynamically efficient if the energy balance includes all production and distribution steps.
And regardless of chosen path, bio fuels other than those based on waste, will consume another scarce and non-renewable resource: fertile arable land. And so will hydroelectric projects financed by UN Cap and Trade Taxes in China and elsewhere since they typically flood farmland behind their dams. With 7 billion people to feed and with global cooling and shorter growing seasons certain to come in the future this is certain to turn out to be the worst of all solutions. But Al Gore and his followers will be long gone when that happens, hence their apparent lack of consideration and concern about unintended consequences of solutions that are worse than the problem.
How can we guard against this? By doing a much better job of developing a profound understanding of how human activity of any kind can be sustained into the distant future and how we can get from here to there. There is no easy answer but there are elements that we know will have to be part of it. The first one is to understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics and to become fanatics for efficiency. Efficiency at the production side such as coal gasification combined with combined cycle gas turbine power generation. It will cut CO2 emissions in half compared to conventional power plants without resorting to wasteful carbon sequestration schemes. And efficiency on the user side, such as Zero Energy houses and energy optimized production and transportation processes.
But efficiency alone will not be the answer. New energy sources will have to be harnessed as well. The options are known in principal: solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, tide, geothermal etc. They are not equal and none will alone be able to be the solution. I myself consider solar thermal as a result of its high energy conversion efficiency and its use of mature technologies to have good potential to emerge as a front-runner. It would need a new DC power grid and a distributed hydrogen generation/storage system to bridge nights. It will take a long time and a lot of money and probably "all of the above" options.
To get there we will need a focus on real science and engineering solutions, innovative business models and most importantly, capital formation to be a able to pay for it all. Whenever a lot of money is at stake there will be schemes to steal it. The current economic crisis is a case in point and the AGW industry should be considered to be a suspect for exploitation as well.
Instead, we need to develop business models with tax incentives that will support a steady development and phasing in of a sustainable economy without being subjected to the starts and stops imposed by wildly fluctuating fossil fuel prices and competitive disruptions. Global Cap and Trade schemes as pushed today will not accomplish this. We will have to start at home where it is possible to make the relationship between cost and benefit of sustainability meaningful to the people, regardless whether they are conservatives or liberals.

Has anyone tried plugging the last 11 years worth of actual data into the models used for Kyoto and seen if they correlate? That would be an interesting thing to publish.

A regression line for the Hadley surface data 1995-2008 (14 years) gives an (statistically questionable significance due to variations) increase of 1.4 deg C for the period or abt. 1 deg C/100 years. This is more than the long-term trend since the little ice age, but only 1/4 of the IPCC projection of 2.5-5.8 deg C (if I remember the IPCC numbers right).

1 deg C/100 years warming is the same number as the greenhouse theory would give for CO2 only (using emission scenario IS92a) if positive and negative feedbacks would level out resulting in zero total feedback from water vapor and clouds together.

14 years is a short time period, but still long enough (no volcano eruptions, ocean oscillations rougly in balance) to strongly support the "dissenting" view that the threath of a remarkable future AGW is badly exaggerated for some reasons I have no idea about.

Some reports claim that AGW is delayed by the oceans. But other reports claim that the backmixed ocean surface layer has not enough heat capacity for more than a a few years delay. I think that what Hadley and NASA have reported is the "real" global mean temperature, although is no such temperature exists in real life.

.... going now for a 20 km cross country skiing tour in the wonderful white cold forest....

It is of course 0.14 deg warming for 14 years (not 1.4), or 0.10 deg per decade, or 1 deg for 100 years. Anyway, not much to worry about.

i think the global warming scam, now called climate change (because its getting colder) is more political than science. its about socialism the people trying to tell us the end is near are the same people who hate;
worldtrade
America
Israel
republicans
microsoft
property rights
weath
suv's
these poeple fall into two catagories socialists and people who cannot think things through
on their own and are easy to lead dont worry though the democrates have the answer
they will fix this non existant problem but it feb 09

Wasn't it warmer in the 13th century than it is now? I don't think the polar ice caps melted or coastlines were wiped out at that time. What caused the warming in the past? Its funny to hear the Goldilocks view of global temperature, that at particular point in time the temp is "just right" and anything other than that is a catastrophe. The resistance to manmade global warming is starting to beat back the propaganda thrust on us in order to promote a particular agenda. Keep up the fight people.

Yes Eric Terwilliger. It was much warmer in the 13th century. It was the Medieval Warm Period (MW). Then the Little Ice Age (LIA) followed with probably much more severe storms och floodings in Europe than during the MW. In Finland the Grande Finale of the LIA took place in the 1860s when after numerous icy summers in row at least one hundred thousand Finns died of hunger. As a result of that, big grain silos were built for food import and storage, the railroad to S:t Peterburg was built that could transport food from Finland to Russia after warm summers in Finland, and the other way after icy summers. Then the climate started to get warmer, fortunately.

Hej,
Jag fick din kontakt via Fred Goldberg , som visade på att du arbetar politiskt och ställde upp i Eu-valet (Nr 122) nu i juni 2009 . Tack för det !

Interesting indeed that Your work as a "climate skeptic" matching facts sheered by more and more many alikes around the Globe ! On our Islands 6000 in the north of Baltic Sea Europe live abt 27.000 people and up til now nobody seems to understand that it is a question of politics and a kinda religion. In our parliament and office seem no one have
Your knowledge at hands or blindfold themselves in order to gain the said AGW religion and Mr Gore´s vision of the "inconvenient thruth" . The old media is holding on to the same category new aged religion but thanks to INTRENET and bloggers one can have a good possibility to balance these two a.m. opposit trendsetters.
Some of the comments are nasty but significant for "AGW- thruth" sayers feeling the threat from us who have other views on the AGW IPCC doctrine. Maybe they are the
"gammelmedia" folks who are going to lose their jobs or just can´t change their points
of thinking regardless new facts coming in on their desks.
Erik

Global warming ia ALL a Hoax !
to Tax your Ass to death

I think one of the problems with hysteria about severe climatic events was the advance in communications technology. Today we can hear and see everything going on across the planet, whereas before this last century less news travels, and at a great deal less speed. People just weren't aware and didn't care about good record keeping of a random flood in England or unknown hurricanes on the other side of the planet which might as well have been on the other side of the universe at the time. Now all of sudden we hear about calamity after calamity whether it is the normal course of things or not on the daily news. The Earth is still a very dynamic object with new things appearing and others disappearing and interactions changing.

Are you so ignorant you can't see a STATISTICAL BLIP when you see one?

Look at the hundred year trend: http://www.paganchaosmagic.com/pics/Temp.jpg

I suppose the Ice Caps melting is all photoshopped?

Hey JimB,

First the warming crowd said the warming oceans would cause more hurricanes. Now the story is, cooling causes more hurricanes. One of these days, the warming crowd will stick to one story.

waz gud ma sons

finally i am finding proof against global warming that comes with charts that the people around me will actually believe! words are nice, sure, but many people want hard,solid data