Global warming greatest in past decade

Wait for it, wait for it.... 10, 9 ,8,

Lol, Damon beat me to it

Is this the study that references another study by the same authors to prove that what they are doing is correct?

The original study of ice core samples has been put into question by those great scientists we call politicians. :-)

But, yes... sampling and measuring techniques do change over the years so it is good to check results again if other studies start to show different results.

If the serial liar Michael Mann says, he made it up.

His tree ring "chronology" was totally fabricated.

Mann has been totally discredited. This charlaten would do anything to produce the result that he wants.

No self-respecting scientist would take his work seriously.

It is a shame that this web site is promoting political idealogy rather than genuine science.

Mann has been totally discredited. This charlaten would do anything to produce the result that he wants.

No self-respecting scientist would take his work seriously.

It is a shame that this web site is promoting political idealogy rather than genuine science.

you quite alone (with few) to deny the reality. It is not this web site that is showing to world the global warming trend, but a vaste number of very reliable reputation.

What happened to the NSF 'high uncertainty' for temperatures

more global warming drivel. besides I prefer a warmer earth over a colder one, and plants LOVE CO2..

May the Goricle's minions rate my comment a "1"...

Seems I recall that atmospheric temps, at least, peaked around 1998. The ocean being a great big heat sink, I think it's reasonable to expect it to follow with some delay. So I have to ask: what is the SPECIFIC trend Mann reports over the past ten years? I bet his data shows an early peak, followed by a general decline. Hardly cause for alarm, if so.

"But this year -- which corresponds to the start of Solar Cycle 24 -- has been extraordinarily long and quiet, with the first seven months averaging a sunspot number of only 3. August followed with none at all. The astonishing rapid drop of the past year has defied predictions, and caught nearly all astronomers by surprise.

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.

The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial."

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun Makes History First Spotless Month in a Century/article12823.htm

Science believes it too controversial to publish 10 year projections based upon data, but they have no problem publishing projections that the ice caps will melt in 50 years.

What objectivity!

The original study of ice core samples has been put into question by those great scientists we call politicians. :-)

But, yes... sampling and measuring techniques do change over the years so it is good to check results again if other studies start to show different results.

Actually the ice cores have been called in to question by scientists. A NAS report titled "Surface Temperature Reconstruction for the Last 2000 Years" says the following:
"In Greenland, the 20th century warmth is not higher than that during medieval times (11th century). In the Canadian Arctic, ice isotopic ratio records from the Agassiz Ice Cap on Ellesmere Island show warming over the last 150 years, which is unprecedented for the last millennium (Fisher et al. 1995). As a group, the ice cores from interior Antarctica (Figure 6-2) show nothing anomalous about the 20th century (Masson et al. 2000)."

If you look around in the report you can find comments indicating that ice cores from mid latitudes can be affected in the opposite fashion as cores from the polar regions. They dance around it quite a bit but do admit the resolution of the temperatures is around 2 degrees.

Another study (Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. and Ono, N., 1992b. %u201CDo glaciers tell a true
atmospheric CO2 story?%u201D The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 114, pp. 227-284.) where ice cores were compared to actual measured CO2 concentrations indicate that ice cores contain less CO2 than is present in the atmosphere.

The original study of ice core samples has been put into question by those great scientists we call politicians. :-)

But, yes... sampling and measuring techniques do change over the years so it is good to check results again if other studies start to show different results.

Actually the ice cores have been called in to question by scientists. A NAS report titled "Surface Temperature Reconstruction for the Last 2000 Years" says the following:
"In Greenland, the 20th century warmth is not higher than that during medieval times (11th century). In the Canadian Arctic, ice isotopic ratio records from the Agassiz Ice Cap on Ellesmere Island show warming over the last 150 years, which is unprecedented for the last millennium (Fisher et al. 1995). As a group, the ice cores from interior Antarctica (Figure 6-2) show nothing anomalous about the 20th century (Masson et al. 2000)."

If you look around in the report you can find comments indicating that ice cores from mid latitudes can be affected in the opposite fashion as cores from the polar regions. They dance around it quite a bit but do admit the resolution of the temperatures is around 2 degrees.

Another study (Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. and Ono, N., 1992b. %u201CDo glaciers tell a true
atmospheric CO2 story?%u201D The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 114, pp. 227-284.) where ice cores were compared to actual measured CO2 concentrations indicate that ice cores contain less CO2 than is present in the atmosphere.

You are not correct to infer that human made co2/dioxines are not causing global warming because the North Pole had more a less ice some time ago. Directly said, it is really a false inference. Because climate is affected by various elements. It is not because some of these elements caused the earth to be warmer some time ago that human made Co2/dioxines can't warm the earth as well. Your argument is equal to saying that "A" causes "C" so "B" can't cause "C". That is not logical at all. It is a stupid way, a wrong way to try to convince people that Co2/dioxines are not causing global warming. You are creating noise so that peoples get confused over global warming and this is quite a sad attitude given the terrible impacts and consequences that global warming is having. Have you ever thought that you could be wrong, even just a little bit? Isn't wisdom telling you that this attitude contributes to a serious problem and that it would be wiser to refrain from persuing it?

The 1st world needs to get rid of the ostrich mentality, the 3rd world needs to learn to see beyond the short term fulfillment of needs. The fact is we are consuming far more than what we can sustain, and this asymmetric behaviour will have its (NEGATIVE) ramifications.

But given the inherent irresponsible nature of human beings, maybe they do not deserve to exist.

The "Hockey Stick" graph,for this what it is with a few extra squiggles,has been revived using even more questionable methods than before.
Google:- Caspar and the Jesus paper.
The Bishop Hill Blog goes into (long)detail,but cuts most of the technical complication.
Treerings to show temperature have been shown to be unreliable.More than temp can vary the rings and a paper on this site a month or so ago shows that trees have a built-in thermostat which would even out some external temp effect on ring growth.

Sorry,this is a different paper,still it's engineered to avoid data he does not like.(see climate audit)
The one I refered to above is an a try to resurrect the original hockey stick,still worth a look.Shows the lengths the people will go to.

[q

You are not correct to infer that human made co2/dioxines are not causing global warming because the North Pole had more a less ice some time ago. Directly said, it is really a false inference. Because climate is affected by various elements. It is not because some of these elements caused the earth to be warmer some time ago that human made Co2/dioxines can't warm the earth as well. Your argument is equal to saying that "A" causes "C" so "B" can't cause "C". That is not logical at all. It is a stupid way, a wrong way to try to convince people that Co2/dioxines are not causing global warming. You are creating noise so that peoples get confused over global warming and this is quite a sad attitude given the terrible impacts and consequences that global warming is having. Have you ever thought that you could be wrong, even just a little bit? Isn't wisdom telling you that this attitude contributes to a serious problem and that it would be wiser to refrain from persuing it?

CO2 does not cause global warming. I challenge you to write out the proofs that it does. If I find fault with them and can back myself up you must yield.

This is a fun game where real science makes your AGW rhetoric go by the wayside and perhaps Physorg will stop pandering to the liberal failure that is AGW.

The 1st world needs to get rid of the ostrich mentality, the 3rd world needs to learn to see beyond the short term fulfillment of needs. The fact is we are consuming far more than what we can sustain, and this asymmetric behaviour will have its (NEGATIVE) ramifications.

But given the inherent irresponsible nature of human beings, maybe they do not deserve to exist.

I assume you are a human being? Do you volunteer to commit suicide first?

Or should you be one of the 'enlightened' to decide the fate of the rest?

"It is a stupid way, a wrong way to try to convince people that Co2/dioxines are not causing global warming. You are creating noise so that peoples get confused over global warming and this is quite a sad attitude given the terrible impacts and consequences that global warming is having."

From a previous commenter, bears repeating.

Its quite confusing to follow the supposed logic above. Let's see... a) Sure, agreed, earth is warming at least recently, though we're not sure if its the highest average temp ever seen. b) Sure, agreed, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase earth's temperature. c) Sure, agreed, humans are increasing atmosphere's GHG levels by large fractional factors. d) BUT since I hate the implications of this scientist's conclusions I still BELIEVE they're wrong.

I knew i'd seen it somewhere once before. Its religion.

I guess the consequences are only disasterous if they directly effect the poster.
" I prefer a warmer earth over a colder one, and plants love CO2".

I like category 4 hurricanes over tropical storms because they are more exciting to follow, and hurricanes love CO2.

I guess the consequences are only disasterous if they directly effect the poster.
" I prefer a warmer earth over a colder one, and plants love CO2".

I like category 4 hurricanes over tropical storms because they are more exciting to follow, and hurricanes love CO2.

Not true. There has been no increase in intensity or occurance of hurricanes and tropical storms over the past 30 years.

AGW failed on that prediction. It may seem like there are more or greater hurricanes/typhoons/etc but that's simply a sign of how well telecommunication has improved.

This fact would also point to a failure in AGW to prove that the Earth's retained energy budget has increased due to AGW.

Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert from MIT has this to say about whether hurricanes have increased because of man:

http://wind.mit.e...hro2.htm

You are not correct to infer that human made co2/dioxines are not causing global warming because the North Pole had more a less ice some time ago. ...
Have you ever thought that you could be wrong, even just a little bit? Isn't wisdom telling you that this attitude contributes to a serious problem and that it would be wiser to refrain from persuing it?

1) Do you mean Dioxins instead of Dioxines? If so, what relevance do they have to AGW?

2) I consider whether I may be wrong. So far the following tend to mitigate against it:
a) lack of any reasonable proof that this is anything but a natural warming trend,
b) the intolerance to normal scientific criticism shown by the proponents,
c) the call that doing something is good even if the theory is wrong (whatever the cost) reeks of Pascal's Wager.
d) the eagerness in which politicians and the eco-extreme support this is also a negative factor.
e) the result if I'm wrong will be a minor, temporary increase in the global mean temperature that will have positive effects as well as any negative effects.

You are not correct to infer that human made co2/dioxines are not causing global warming because the North Pole had more a less ice some time ago. Directly said, it is really a false inference. Because climate is affected by various elements. It is not because some of these elements caused the earth to be warmer some time ago that human made Co2/dioxines can't warm the earth as well. Your argument is equal to saying that "A" causes "C" so "B" can't cause "C". That is not logical at all. It is a stupid way, a wrong way to try to convince people that Co2/dioxines are not causing global warming. You are creating noise so that peoples get confused over global warming and this is quite a sad attitude given the terrible impacts and consequences that global warming is having. Have you ever thought that you could be wrong, even just a little bit? Isn't wisdom telling you that this attitude contributes to a serious problem and that it would be wiser to refrain from persuing it?

CO2 does not cause global warming. I challenge you to write out the proofs that it does. If I find fault with them and can back myself up you must yield.

This is a fun game where real science makes your AGW rhetoric go by the wayside and perhaps Physorg will stop pandering to the liberal failure that is AGW.

Already done; but, you learned nothing.

And now you ask that others undertake a fool's errand?

[q

You are not correct to infer that human made co2/dioxines are not causing global warming because the North Pole had more a less ice some time ago. Directly said, it is really a false inference. Because climate is affected by various elements. It is not because some of these elements caused the earth to be warmer some time ago that human made Co2/dioxines can't warm the earth as well. Your argument is equal to saying that "A" causes "C" so "B" can't cause "C". That is not logical at all. It is a stupid way, a wrong way to try to convince people that Co2/dioxines are not causing global warming. You are creating noise so that peoples get confused over global warming and this is quite a sad attitude given the terrible impacts and consequences that global warming is having. Have you ever thought that you could be wrong, even just a little bit? Isn't wisdom telling you that this attitude contributes to a serious problem and that it would be wiser to refrain from persuing it?

CO2 does not cause global warming. I challenge you to write out the proofs that it does. If I find fault with them and can back myself up you must yield.

This is a fun game where real science makes your AGW rhetoric go by the wayside and perhaps Physorg will stop pandering to the liberal failure that is AGW.


It is said that it is proven with 95% certainty that they aer causing global warming (IPCC). For some it is enough to get their act together. While so far I have heard non-sense arguments from those who argue militantly that the 5% are enough to deny any call to actions. some of their false arguments:
1- the earth was once warmer than today
2- the IPCC did not take into account water moster (this was from you Velanarris)
3- the last 10 years temperatures show a decline

all of which are 100% wrong in infering that Co2/dioxins are not causing global warming.
Anyone who does a little reading will understand this in no time. Except if you have the intention to create confusion. You can find some arguments because there are still 5% uncertainty by the way, but please spare us the non-sense.

Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert from MIT has this to say about whether hurricanes have increased because of man:

http://wind.mit.e...hro2.htm

Did read it (quotes):
"There has been a large upswing in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, beginning in 1995"
"Q: Is the intensity of hurricanes increasing with time?
A: There is some evidence that it is"

You are not correct to infer that human made co2/dioxines are not causing global warming because the North Pole had more a less ice some time ago. ...
Have you ever thought that you could be wrong, even just a little bit? Isn't wisdom telling you that this attitude contributes to a serious problem and that it would be wiser to refrain from persuing it?

1) Do you mean Dioxins instead of Dioxines? If so, what relevance do they have to AGW?

2) I consider whether I may be wrong. So far the following tend to mitigate against it:
a) lack of any reasonable proof that this is anything but a natural warming trend,
b) the intolerance to normal scientific criticism shown by the proponents,
c) the call that doing something is good even if the theory is wrong (whatever the cost) reeks of Pascal's Wager.
d) the eagerness in which politicians and the eco-extreme support this is also a negative factor.
e) the result if I'm wrong will be a minor, temporary increase in the global mean temperature that will have positive effects as well as any negative effects.

1- dioxide (not dioxins)
2a)- basic chimical and physic at college should already be enough to be able to understand the basics: gaz in the earth atmosphere reflects solar energy back to earth. That is a 100% normal and natural process that makes sense, is logical and holds in basic science that can be relied on. In some case it might not work (against all expectations), then prove in which cases? If you can, you win because the very basics of physics and chimistry principals tells us that they do reflects energy. You have to prove that this is wrong, if you want to make a point, because evidences are not on your side at all.
2d) the politicians are not moving very fast as far as most experts are concernd and if you call more than 50% of the world population (those who support more mitigating actions) "eco-extermist", you must see extremist all the time.
2e) there are still a lot of poeple who do not see the urgent need of actions, should they be led to support actions, this will be a major political incentive for gorvernment to regulate more strongly the automobile, energy and other Co2 generating economic activites.

It is said that it is proven with 95% certainty that they aer causing global warming (IPCC). For some it is enough to get their act together. While so far I have heard non-sense arguments from those who argue militantly that the 5% are enough to deny any call to actions. some of their false arguments:
1- the earth was once warmer than today
2- the IPCC did not take into account water moster (this was from you Velanarris)
3- the last 10 years temperatures show a decline

all of which are 100% wrong in infering that Co2/dioxins are not causing global warming.
Anyone who does a little reading will understand this in no time. Except if you have the intention to create confusion. You can find some arguments because there are still 5% uncertainty by the way, but please spare us the non-sense.

There isn't one proof there but I'll reply anyway.

1)

"IPCC panel member John R. Christy says, 'I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but most of us see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.'"

Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy in the Nov 1, 2007 Wall Street Journal.

http://mobile2.ws...php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

2) Water vapor has a higher than 50% albedo.

3) The last 10 years show a decline in what?

According to the IPCC the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a 13 degree increase in global temperature. If this was the case the math supports thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus. Since CO2 has been over 1000 ppm in the past, (where as today it's approx 280-300 ppm), then AGW should prove that neither you nor I can have this conversation because the planet is currently several hundred degrees celsius, but here we are.

So, I'll give you another shot, provide a proof that AGW is occuring or concede.

It is said that it is proven with 95% certainty that they aer causing global warming (IPCC). For some it is enough to get their act together. While so far I have heard non-sense arguments from those who argue militantly that the 5% are enough to deny any call to actions. some of their false arguments:
1- the earth was once warmer than today
2- the IPCC did not take into account water moster (this was from you Velanarris)
3- the last 10 years temperatures show a decline

all of which are 100% wrong in infering that Co2/dioxins are not causing global warming.
Anyone who does a little reading will understand this in no time. Except if you have the intention to create confusion. You can find some arguments because there are still 5% uncertainty by the way, but please spare us the non-sense.

There isn't one proof there but I'll reply anyway.

1)

"IPCC panel member John R. Christy says, 'I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but most of us see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.'"

Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy in the Nov 1, 2007 Wall Street Journal.

http://mobile2.ws...php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

2) Water vapor has a higher than 50% albedo.

3) The last 10 years show a decline in what?

According to the IPCC the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a 13 degree increase in global temperature. If this was the case the math supports thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus. Since CO2 has been over 1000 ppm in the past, (where as today it's approx 280-300 ppm), then AGW should prove that neither you nor I can have this conversation because the planet is currently several hundred degrees celsius, but here we are.

So, I'll give you another shot, provide a proof that AGW is occuring or concede.

Concede to one whose ignorance and/or disregard of basic Physics is so very much in evidence? I think not.

Concede to one whose ignorance and/or disregard of basic Physics is so very much in evidence? I think not.

Show me the disregard.

I guess the consequences are only disasterous if they directly effect the poster.
" I prefer a warmer earth over a colder one, and plants love CO2".

I like category 4 hurricanes over tropical storms because they are more exciting to follow, and hurricanes love CO2.

Move away from the hurricanes like most smart people did in the past.

It is said that it is proven with 95% certainty that they aer causing global warming (IPCC). For some it is enough to get their act together. While so far I have heard non-sense arguments from those who argue militantly that the 5% are enough to deny any call to actions. some of their false arguments:
1- the earth was once warmer than today
2- the IPCC did not take into account water moster (this was from you Velanarris)
3- the last 10 years temperatures show a decline

all of which are 100% wrong in infering that Co2/dioxins are not causing global warming.
Anyone who does a little reading will understand this in no time. Except if you have the intention to create confusion. You can find some arguments because there are still 5% uncertainty by the way, but please spare us the non-sense.

There isn't one proof there but I'll reply anyway.

1)

"IPCC panel member John R. Christy says, 'I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but most of us see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.'"

Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy in the Nov 1, 2007 Wall Street Journal.

http://mobile2.ws...php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

2) Water vapor has a higher than 50% albedo.

3) The last 10 years show a decline in what?

According to the IPCC the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a 13 degree increase in global temperature. If this was the case the math supports thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus. Since CO2 has been over 1000 ppm in the past, (where as today it's approx 280-300 ppm), then AGW should prove that neither you nor I can have this conversation because the planet is currently several hundred degrees celsius, but here we are.

So, I'll give you another shot, provide a proof that AGW is occuring or concede.

First some replies:
1- Quote: "IPCC panel member John R. Christy"
reply: the chair of IPCC is Mr. Pachauri.
2- Quote: "Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy"
reply: were the data taken from above the clouds? If so it should show some decrease, while data from bellow the clouds show an increase.
3- quote: "thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus"
reply: the feedback is not always large, it is a false assumption to assume it is.

The proof is the IPCC report. As far as I am concerned, the basic physics and chimistry class I had are enough to understand that it make sense that Co2 are causing global warming. Common sense, and I will not go over the basic law of gaz in detail here because I don't have that time, and this is why I refer to IPCC to summerize it better that I would. But from my perspective, from what I have learned, you have a long way to prove that Co2 is not causing Global Warming, harder for you since you already agree that water moister does!

Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert from MIT has this to say about whether hurricanes have increased because of man:

http://wind.mit.e...hro2.htm

Did read it (quotes):
"There has been a large upswing in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, beginning in 1995"
"Q: Is the intensity of hurricanes increasing with time?
A: There is some evidence that it is"

"cientists have discovered a correlation between hurricane activity in the Atlantic and thick clouds of dust that periodically rise from the Sahara Desert and blow off Africa%u2019s northwest coast. They found that during periods of intense hurricane activity, dust was relatively scarce in the atmosphere, while in years when stronger dust storms rose up, fewer hurricanes swept across the Atlantic."

http://www.agu.or...635.html

First some replies:
1- Quote: "IPCC panel member John R. Christy"
reply: the chair of IPCC is Mr. Pachauri.

And?

2- Quote: "Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy"
reply: were the data taken from above the clouds? If so it should show some decrease, while data from bellow the clouds show an increase.

Well lets turn to the IPCC report stating exactly where the measurements were taken..... oh wait, the IPCC doesn't write anything, they review the peer submitted reports they choose (that agree with their political stance).

3- quote: "thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus"
reply: the feedback is not always large, it is a false assumption to assume it is.

It's a false assumption to assume the feedback will be of any measure what so ever if you don't have scientifically measured data to base your calculations on. Now what is the one thing that IPCC scientists are missing.

Accurately measured scientific data.

The proof is the IPCC report.

You mean the paper that the politicians released or the draft that was submitted by the scientists who quit the IPCC immediately after the political paper came out?

As far as I am concerned, the basic physics and chimistry class I had are enough to understand that it make sense that Co2 are causing global warming.

Cool, explain how then. If it's so easy let's see it.

Common sense, and I will not go over the basic law of gaz in detail here because I don't have that time, and this is why I refer to IPCC to summerize it better that I would.

Well they didn't.

But from my perspective, from what I have learned, you have a long way to prove that Co2 is not causing Global Warming, harder for you since you already agree that water moister does!

Water moisture holds heat, that's true, but the more heat that water moisture holds the higher it's albedo as well.

Still waiting on your facts. You should have a ton of them, especially if you actually read the IPCC paper.

1- dioxide (not dioxins)

You mean "dioxines" was a typo? In that case, why would you specify CO2/dioxides? That would be redundant since there is no (relevent to AGW) class of chemicals described as "dioxides".

2a)- basic chimical and physic at college should already be enough to be able to understand the basics: gaz in the earth atmosphere reflects solar energy back to earth. That is a 100% normal and natural process that makes sense, is logical and holds in basic science that can be relied on. In some case it might not work (against all expectations), then prove in which cases? If you can, you win because the very basics of physics and chimistry principals tells us that they do reflects energy. You have to prove that this is wrong, if you want to make a point, because evidences are not on your side at all.

Gases in the atmosphere also reflect radiation back out in to space. They will absorb and emit strongest at their prefered wavelengths but energy coming in at one wavelength can be reemitted at another. In this way CO2 can absorb in one part of the IR spectra and emit that energy in another part of the spectra (far IR or mircrowave/RF.)
Here's a little primer on absorption, reflectance, and scattering: http://209.85.141...0etc.doc co2 "emission spectra" "infrared" microwave -laser -lasers -exhaust -greenhouse -polymers -sensor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&lr=lang_en

2d) the politicians are not moving very fast as far as most experts are concernd and if you call more than 50% of the world population (those who support more mitigating actions) "eco-extermist", you must see extremist all the time.

Don't use "most experts" unless you have numbers to back it up. As far as I'm aware no quantative survey of "experts" (or even a uniform definition of what an expert is) has been done.

The last I heard, China and India constitute more than 50% of the world's population and they have stated clearly that they are not going to limit their CO2 emissions to anything less that the western countries emit.

2e) there are still a lot of poeple who do not see the urgent need of actions, should they be led to support actions, this will be a major political incentive for gorvernment to regulate more strongly the automobile, energy and other Co2 generating economic activites.

Any government that tries to add US$50,000,000,000,000 in taxes on the backs of their population will have a very hard sell.

First some replies:
1- Quote: "IPCC panel member John R. Christy"
reply: the chair of IPCC is Mr. Pachauri.

And?

2- Quote: "Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy"
reply: were the data taken from above the clouds? If so it should show some decrease, while data from bellow the clouds show an increase.

Well lets turn to the IPCC report stating exactly where the measurements were taken..... oh wait, the IPCC doesn't write anything, they review the peer submitted reports they choose (that agree with their political stance).

3- quote: "thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus"
reply: the feedback is not always large, it is a false assumption to assume it is.

It's a false assumption to assume the feedback will be of any measure what so ever if you don't have scientifically measured data to base your calculations on. Now what is the one thing that IPCC scientists are missing.

Accurately measured scientific data.

The proof is the IPCC report.

You mean the paper that the politicians released or the draft that was submitted by the scientists who quit the IPCC immediately after the political paper came out?

As far as I am concerned, the basic physics and chimistry class I had are enough to understand that it make sense that Co2 are causing global warming.

Cool, explain how then. If it's so easy let's see it.

Common sense, and I will not go over the basic law of gaz in detail here because I don't have that time, and this is why I refer to IPCC to summerize it better that I would.

Well they didn't.

But from my perspective, from what I have learned, you have a long way to prove that Co2 is not causing Global Warming, harder for you since you already agree that water moister does!

Water moisture holds heat, that's true, but the more heat that water moisture holds the higher it's albedo as well.

Still waiting on your facts. You should have a ton of them, especially if you actually read the IPCC paper.

Quote: "And?"
Reply: The point did try to make is lost.
Quote: "Well lets turn to the IPCC report stating exactly where the measurements were taken..... "
Reply: you did try to make a point using the Paper by Christy, well, you don't have a point.

Quote: "Now what is the one thing that IPCC scientists are missing"
Reply: you do agree that Co2 reflects heat? Then explain to me how this does not lead to an increase in temperature. Tell you what, you can't.
Quote: "feedback will be of any measure"
Reply: certainly not that it will be always large.

Quote: "Cool, explain how then. If it's so easy let's see it"
Reply: again, you do agree that Co2 reflects heat. Do you need a proof of that?

Quote: "Well they didn't"
reply: please keep to facts this will avoid other readers to be misguided. The paper is easy to read and to understand for anyone. Which line is bad? Well, you could isolate and manipulate the lines, which paragraph is false?

Quote: "the more heat that water moisture holds the higher it's albedo as well"
Reply: So?

So far you have come up with arguments that can't claim at all that Co2 is not causing the earth to warm.

First some replies:
1- Quote: "IPCC panel member John R. Christy"
reply: the chair of IPCC is Mr. Pachauri.

And?

2- Quote: "Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy"
reply: were the data taken from above the clouds? If so it should show some decrease, while data from bellow the clouds show an increase.

Well lets turn to the IPCC report stating exactly where the measurements were taken..... oh wait, the IPCC doesn't write anything, they review the peer submitted reports they choose (that agree with their political stance).

3- quote: "thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus"
reply: the feedback is not always large, it is a false assumption to assume it is.

It's a false assumption to assume the feedback will be of any measure what so ever if you don't have scientifically measured data to base your calculations on. Now what is the one thing that IPCC scientists are missing.

Accurately measured scientific data.

The proof is the IPCC report.

You mean the paper that the politicians released or the draft that was submitted by the scientists who quit the IPCC immediately after the political paper came out?

As far as I am concerned, the basic physics and chimistry class I had are enough to understand that it make sense that Co2 are causing global warming.

Cool, explain how then. If it's so easy let's see it.

Common sense, and I will not go over the basic law of gaz in detail here because I don't have that time, and this is why I refer to IPCC to summerize it better that I would.

Well they didn't.

But from my perspective, from what I have learned, you have a long way to prove that Co2 is not causing Global Warming, harder for you since you already agree that water moister does!

Water moisture holds heat, that's true, but the more heat that water moisture holds the higher it's albedo as well.

Still waiting on your facts. You should have a ton of them, especially if you actually read the IPCC paper.

Quote: "And?"
Reply: The point did try to make is lost.
Quote: "Well lets turn to the IPCC report stating exactly where the measurements were taken..... "
Reply: you did try to make a point using the Paper by Christy, well, you don't have a point.

Quote: "Now what is the one thing that IPCC scientists are missing"
Reply: you do agree that Co2 reflects heat? Then explain to me how this does not lead to an increase in temperature. Tell you what, you can't.
Quote: "feedback will be of any measure"
Reply: certainly not that it will be always large.

Quote: "Cool, explain how then. If it's so easy let's see it"
Reply: again, you do agree that Co2 reflects heat. Do you need a proof of that?

Quote: "Well they didn't"
reply: please keep to facts this will avoid other readers to be misguided. The paper is easy to read and to understand for anyone. Which line is bad? Well, you could isolate and manipulate the lines, which paragraph is false?

Quote: "the more heat that water moisture holds the higher it's albedo as well"
Reply: So?

So far you have come up with arguments that can't claim at all that Co2 is not causing the earth to warm.

DKA, how does more CO2 increase the temperature of the Earth if the IR bands at which CO2 absorbs IR are past tropospheric saturation at 0.0038 ppm CO2?

1- dioxide (not dioxins)

You mean "dioxines" was a typo? In that case, why would you specify CO2/dioxides? That would be redundant since there is no (relevent to AGW) class of chemicals described as "dioxides".

2a)- basic chimical and physic at college should already be enough to be able to understand the basics: gaz in the earth atmosphere reflects solar energy back to earth. That is a 100% normal and natural process that makes sense, is logical and holds in basic science that can be relied on. In some case it might not work (against all expectations), then prove in which cases? If you can, you win because the very basics of physics and chimistry principals tells us that they do reflects energy. You have to prove that this is wrong, if you want to make a point, because evidences are not on your side at all.

Gases in the atmosphere also reflect radiation back out in to space. They will absorb and emit strongest at their prefered wavelengths but energy coming in at one wavelength can be reemitted at another. In this way CO2 can absorb in one part of the IR spectra and emit that energy in another part of the spectra (far IR or mircrowave/RF.)
Here's a little primer on absorption, reflectance, and scattering: http://209.85.141...0etc.doc co2 "emission spectra" "infrared" microwave -laser -lasers -exhaust -greenhouse -polymers -sensor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&lr=lang_en

2d) the politicians are not moving very fast as far as most experts are concernd and if you call more than 50% of the world population (those who support more mitigating actions) "eco-extermist", you must see extremist all the time.

Don't use "most experts" unless you have numbers to back it up. As far as I'm aware no quantative survey of "experts" (or even a uniform definition of what an expert is) has been done.

The last I heard, China and India constitute more than 50% of the world's population and they have stated clearly that they are not going to limit their CO2 emissions to anything less that the western countries emit.

2e) there are still a lot of poeple who do not see the urgent need of actions, should they be led to support actions, this will be a major political incentive for gorvernment to regulate more strongly the automobile, energy and other Co2 generating economic activites.

Any government that tries to add US$50,000,000,000,000 in taxes on the backs of their population will have a very hard sell.

Quote: "will absorb and emit strongest at their prefered wavelengths but energy coming in at one wavelength can be reemitted at another"
Reply: are you saying that Co2 does not cause more heat to be trapped than if would not have been there in the first place?

Quote: "The last I heard, China and India constitute more than 50% of.."
Reply: You are clearly wrong on this, every government on this planet wants to do something about Co2 and global warming. What they feel is challenging and needs negotiation is how.

Quote: "Any government that tries to add US$50,000,000,000,000"
Reply: This is a non-issue when the costs of destructions cause by Global Warming amounts to many times more in tax than the amount needed to control Co2 emissions. Another flashy but false and maybe ill-intended argurment of yours.

Quote: "will absorb and emit strongest at their prefered wavelengths but energy coming in at one wavelength can be reemitted at another"
Reply: are you saying that Co2 does not cause more heat to be trapped than if would not have been there in the first place?

That's exactly what we're saying.

Quote: "The last I heard, China and India constitute more than 50% of.."
Reply: You are clearly wrong on this, every government on this planet wants to do something about Co2 and global warming. What they feel is challenging and needs negotiation is how.

No, many countries have said they're not going to do it because there is a lack of evidence for the AGW hypothesis.

Quote: "Any government that tries to add US$50,000,000,000,000"
Reply: This is a non-issue when the costs of destructions cause by Global Warming amounts to many times more in tax than the amount needed to control Co2 emissions. Another flashy but false and maybe ill-intended argurment of yours.

No his argument is sound. I repeat, inform us of the mechanism through which increased CO2 traps more heat when the total saturation point of CO2 is 0.0038 ppm.

It seems to me that in every thread as soon as an AGW fanatic is challenged to answer the above question the conversation dies.

Is it that tough to explain or are you unable to explain your own "theory" due to it's lack of evidence?

Quote: "will absorb and emit strongest at their prefered wavelengths but energy coming in at one wavelength can be reemitted at another"
Reply: are you saying that Co2 does not cause more heat to be trapped than if would not have been there in the first place?

It may not. The theory that CO2 will trap more heat is based off of laboratory experiments on CO2's effects and the (unproven) belief that Venus' temperature is due to greenhouse gases.

Since laboratory experiments are simplifications of the real world the results don't always apply. Just ask any civil or structural engineer.

Quote: "The last I heard, China and India constitute more than 50% of.."
Reply: You are clearly wrong on this, every government on this planet wants to do something about Co2 and global warming. What they feel is challenging and needs negotiation is how.

From http://network.na...-31.aspx

India gets it
Re: In India, Growth Trumps Sustainability, Lawrence Solomon, July 26.
India has taken a bold decision to reject the "Climate Doom" projection made by the IPCC (Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change), the UN Body of scientists on Earth%u2019s climate and climate change. The Indian politicians led by the astute and pragmatic Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have made the right decision to prioritize economic development and poverty eradication over some nebulous climate change action plans.
The climate of India and by extension that of the rest of the world has changed in recent years, but not necessarily for worse, as claimed by the IPCC and its ardent supporters. In a recent paper published in the U.K.-based Journal Energy & Environment (May 2008), I have carefully analyzed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated. They also lack supporting evidence.
It is time to take a closer look at the IPCC science of climate change and ask some hard questions. Recent satellite data clearly document enrichment of world forestry due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Further, for a high-latitude country like Canada, future climate change can be beneficial in terms of milder winters, lower house-heating costs and a longer agricultural season.
The IPCC science of climate change must be carefully re-assessed by the Canadian scientific community at large before making substantive policy decisions about greenhouse gas emission targets. India has it right.
Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, retired scientist, Environment Canada, Toronto."

And http://www.news.c...,00.html

A year ago China released its own global warming strategy -- its own Garnaut report -- which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.

Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth."

In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: "It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high."

Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.

The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.

"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."

The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries."

Quote: "Any government that tries to add US$50,000,000,000,000"
Reply: This is a non-issue when the costs of destructions cause by Global Warming amounts to many times more in tax than the amount needed to control Co2 emissions. Another flashy but false and maybe ill-intended argurment of yours.

Per country? US$50 Trillion is just the cost to the US. The EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc will have equal costs. China and India won't have any since their excluded.
And the results? There hasn't been any destruction that can be proven to be GW related. And don't bring up Katrina, it was a Class 3 huricane when it hit New Orleans. There have been 3 Class 5 huricanes to make landfall in the last 108 years (1935, 1969, and 1992.)

The theory that CO2 will trap more heat is based off of laboratory experiments on CO2's effects and the (unproven) belief that Venus' temperature is due to greenhouse gases.

Not really.

It's a logical deduction from the basic Physical Laws of the Universe as applied to an irradiated body with a reflectivity less than 1 surrounded by an interface having asymmetrical transmissive characteristics over the bandwidth in question.

The theory that CO2 will trap more heat is based off of laboratory experiments on CO2's effects and the (unproven) belief that Venus' temperature is due to greenhouse gases.

Not really.

It's a logical deduction from the basic Physical Laws of the Universe as applied to an irradiated body with a reflectivity less than 1 surrounded by an interface having asymmetrical transmissive characteristics over the bandwidth in question.

I don't disagree with the above statement but in order to trap more energy you need to be trapping less than all energy initially.

If I have a liter of water and I pour it from a 1 liter bucket into a 2 liter bucket then yes I have more capacity to hold the water, but without a source of more water I cannot ever hold more than the 1 liter of water in the bucket.

That's where my argument against the whole CO2 causing AGW lies. Now if you can show me where the extra energy is comming from I'll change my views.

GrayMouser, your quote about India is crealy wrong. The Indian Canadian who wrote this is an idiot. And you quoted him! The article refers to what an Indian Canadian thinks, not what India and the Indian PM think.
According to Indian Prime minister, Global warming is an urgent issue to be dealt with.
I mean that you are so wrong, that please, for everyone's reading time here, be more careful when you edit. Also it takes some time to help you, while if you do more effort, it would everyone else some time.
The rest of your comments are all the same, too easy to check off. how should I deal with this now? If you can avoid to make a false claim, I can spend more energy answering you other ones, but not in this condition. It seems that you are looking for anykind of flashy news to make people think false about global warming.

Quote: "Any government that tries to add US$50,000,000,000,000"
Reply: This is a non-issue when the costs of destructions cause by Global Warming amounts to many times more in tax than the amount needed to control Co2 emissions. Another flashy but false and maybe ill-intended argurment of yours.

Per country? US$50 Trillion is just the cost to the US. The EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc will have equal costs. China and India won't have any since their excluded.
And the results? There hasn't been any destruction that can be proven to be GW related. And don't bring up Katrina, it was a Class 3 huricane when it hit New Orleans. There have been 3 Class 5 huricanes to make landfall in the last 108 years (1935, 1969, and 1992.)

My apologies, my last comment was not well formated (I am getting lost in the quoting methodology).

Here is what I was editing:

GrayMouser, your quote about India is crealy wrong. The Indian Canadian who wrote this is an idiot. And you quoted him! The article refers to what an Indian Canadian thinks (1 person), not what India nor the Indian PM think.

According to Indian Prime minister, Global warming is an urgent issue to be dealt with.
http://www.expres...id=89455

I mean that you are so wrong, that please, for everyone's reading time here, be more careful when you edit. Also it takes some time to help you understand your mistakes, while if you do more efforts, it would save everyone else some time. The rest of your comments are all the same, too easy to check off. how should we deal with this now? If you can avoid to make a false claim, I can spend more energy answering you other ones, but not in this condition. It seems that you are looking for anykind of flashy news only to make people think false about global warming.

DKA, please don't make commentary on someone's editing prowess when your comments are barely cohesive even after being re-explained.

The theory that CO2 will trap more heat is based off of laboratory experiments on CO2's effects and the (unproven) belief that Venus' temperature is due to greenhouse gases.

Not really.

It's a logical deduction from the basic Physical Laws of the Universe as applied to an irradiated body with a reflectivity less than 1 surrounded by an interface having asymmetrical transmissive characteristics over the bandwidth in question.

I don't disagree with the above statement but in order to trap more energy you need to be trapping less than all energy initially.

Precisely; no "extra" energy required, just less escaping. Which is exactly what happens when the transmissivity of the interface changes so as to become more opaque at long wavelengths.

Inbound supra-IR is absorbed, and re-radiated as IR. With the interface now less transparent to IR, less IR energy escapes, and the total thermal energy of the body and any other mass between it and the interface increases, raising its temperature.

To use the analogy of pouring water into a into a container, it's the equivalent of the container having holes which are slowly being plugged, so that the level of water in the container rises, even though the rate of inflow has not changed.

The theory that CO2 will trap more heat is based off of laboratory experiments on CO2's effects and the (unproven) belief that Venus' temperature is due to greenhouse gases.

Not really.

It's a logical deduction from the basic Physical Laws of the Universe as applied to an irradiated body with a reflectivity less than 1 surrounded by an interface having asymmetrical transmissive characteristics over the bandwidth in question.

I don't disagree with the above statement but in order to trap more energy you need to be trapping less than all energy initially.

Precisely; no "extra" energy required, just less escaping. Which is exactly what happens when the transmissivity of the interface changes so as to become more opaque at long wavelengths.

Inbound supra-IR is absorbed, and re-radiated as IR. With the interface now less transparent to IR, less IR energy escapes, and the total thermal energy of the body and any other mass between it and the interface increases, raising its temperature.

To use the analogy of pouring water into a into a container, it's the equivalent of the container having holes which are slowly being plugged, so that the level of water in the container rises, even though the rate of inflow has not changed.

Yes but we're incapable of plugging the holes.

I'm not saying Global warming isn't occuring. I'm saying we're not the cause. The current financial sacrifices we're making aren't being made for valid reasons. The current AGW research is inferior science being pushed by a political agenda.

Water "moster"....*snicker*

The theory that CO2 will trap more heat is based off of laboratory experiments on CO2's effects and the (unproven) belief that Venus' temperature is due to greenhouse gases.

Not really.

It's a logical deduction from the basic Physical Laws of the Universe as applied to an irradiated body with a reflectivity less than 1 surrounded by an interface having asymmetrical transmissive characteristics over the bandwidth in question.

I don't disagree with the above statement but in order to trap more energy you need to be trapping less than all energy initially.

Precisely; no "extra" energy required, just less escaping. Which is exactly what happens when the transmissivity of the interface changes so as to become more opaque at long wavelengths.

Inbound supra-IR is absorbed, and re-radiated as IR. With the interface now less transparent to IR, less IR energy escapes, and the total thermal energy of the body and any other mass between it and the interface increases, raising its temperature.

To use the analogy of pouring water into a into a container, it's the equivalent of the container having holes which are slowly being plugged, so that the level of water in the container rises, even though the rate of inflow has not changed.

Yes but we're incapable of plugging the holes.

I'm not saying Global warming isn't occuring. I'm saying we're not the cause.

One step at time; let's first conclude the specific matter at hand.

Does this mean that you now understand that 1) CO2 contributes to radiative forcing; and 2) such effect is directly proportional (note that I do not here say linearly) to the level of CO2?

DKA, how does more CO2 increase the temperature of the Earth if the IR bands at which CO2 absorbs IR are past tropospheric saturation at 0.0038 ppm CO2? ... It seems to me that in every thread as soon as an AGW fanatic is challenged to answer the above question the conversation dies.

I've seen Valanarris's laughable "fact" about CO2 IR absorption being saturated more than once, but as you can see here,
http://www.atmos....sir.html , the only saturation occurs at >14 microns and a few minor peaks between 2 and 5 microns. Valanarris is either a fool or a liar. I'll let you take your pick.

Velanarris, Valanarris - what's the difference.

My apologies, my last comment was not well formated (I am getting lost in the quoting methodology).

Here is what I was editing:

GrayMouser, your quote about India is crealy wrong. The Indian Canadian who wrote this is an idiot. And you quoted him! The article refers to what an Indian Canadian thinks (1 person), not what India nor the Indian PM think.

According to Indian Prime minister, Global warming is an urgent issue to be dealt with.
http://www.expres...id=89455

I mean that you are so wrong, that please, for everyone's reading time here, be more careful when you edit. Also it takes some time to help you understand your mistakes, while if you do more efforts, it would save everyone else some time. The rest of your comments are all the same, too easy to check off. how should we deal with this now? If you can avoid to make a false claim, I can spend more energy answering you other ones, but not in this condition. It seems that you are looking for anykind of flashy news only to make people think false about global warming.

You don't bother to read the material before responding, do you?

The first quote was from a former IPCC member. His word should be gospel to you. If that isn't enough, how about the following quotes from another former IPCC member in his testimony to the US Senate:
The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed, which simply isn't true, Lindzen said. Under true peer-review, he explained, a panel of reviewers must accept a study before it can be published in a scientific journal. If the reviewers have objections, the author must answer them or change the article to take reviewers' objections into account.

Under the IPCC review process, by contrast, the authors are at liberty to ignore criticisms. After having his review comments ignored by the IPCC in 1990 and 1995, Lindzen asked to have his name removed from the list of reviewers. The group refused.

The second quote was from India's National Action Plan for Climate Change:
http://www.pewcli.../06-2008

Emphasizing the overriding priority of maintaining high economic growth rates to raise living standards, the plan %u201Cidentifies measures that promote our development objectives while also yielding co-benefits for addressing climate change effectively.%u201D It says these national measures would be more successful with assistance from developed countries, and pledges that India%u2019s per capita greenhouse gas emissions %u201Cwill at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives.%u201D

http://pmindia.ni...1-52.pdf
Note the quote, it says simply that India WILL increase their per capita CO2 output until they are happy with their standard of living. Count the number of people in India against the Western countries combined populations. Guess what it adds up to in tonnes of CO2 production?

As for China... Much more material available:

http://www.ccchin...e229.pdf

The amount of China's per-capita carbon dioxide emissions ranked 92nd in the world, and the elasticity coefficient of carbon dioxide emissions per-unit GDP was very small.

This is based on outside estimates of China's emissions. If the numbers are better than yours... Use them (it looks better that way.)

China will pay more attention to the clean utilization of energy resources, especially coal, and make it a focus of environmental protection, energetically combating ecological destruction and environmental pollution. The country is quickening its pace of control of coal mining subsidence areas and the exploitation and utilization of coal-bed gas...

Coal gasification is anethma in the USA and Europe. And new coal development? Political suicide.

http://news.bbc.c...7671.stm

China has unveiled its first national plan for climate change, saying it is intent on tackling the problem but not at the expense of economic development.

http://www.ccchin...e188.pdf

As noted by the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as UNFCCC), the largest
share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has
originated from developed countries, while per capita emissions in developing
countries are still relatively low and the share of global emissions originating from
developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs. The
UNFCCC stipulates clearly that the Parties to the Convention shall protect the
climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on
the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities, and accordingly, the developed country
Parties shall take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects
thereof.

China says
"current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated from developed countries, while per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and the share of global emissions originating from developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."
"the developed country Parties shall take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof."
Guess what? This says that, as one of the 'developing countries' it ain't their problem...

Along with the steady social and economic development, the emission intensity defined as the CO2 emission per unit of GDP declined generally.

Notice that they define it on the basis of GDP. China has doubled their GDP (approximatly every 5 years since 1974 [http://www.chinab.../GDP.htm]) between 2002 and 2007. That means their total emissions have gone up.

Natural resources are fundamental to the development of a national economy. The industrial structure and economic advantages of a country are determined to a considerable degree by its resources availability and combination. China is a country with a large population and at a relatively low level of development, and its economic development has long been constrained by the scarcity of per capita resources and it will continue to be so for a long time. The development history and trend of various countries has revealed the obvious positive correlations between per capita CO2 emissions, per capita commercial energy consumption and the economic development level. In other words, with current level of technology development, to reach the development level of the industrialized countries, it is inevitable that per capita energy consumption and CO2 emissions will reach a fairly high level. In the development history of human beings, there is no precedent where a high per capita GDP is achieved with low per capita energy consumption. With its ongoing economic development, China will inevitably be confronted with growing energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

What part of "to reach the development level of the industrialized countries, it is inevitable that per capita energy consumption and CO2 emissions will reach a fairly high level" isn't clear?

By all these means, China will
achieve the target of about 20% reduction of energy consumption per unit GDP by
2010, and consequently reduce CO2 emissions.

By 2010 China's GDP may double again. So they'll only be producing 160% of what they are now... Wow! I'm releaved!

Climate change, the impacts of which have been felt all over the world, was mainly caused by the massive emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases originated from developed countries since industrial revolution. Broad international cooperation is necessary to address climate change. In order to effectively address climate change and implement this national programme, China is ready to strengthen international cooperation with all countries. Meanwhile, China would like to appeal to the developed countries to sincerely fulfill their commitments under the Convention to provide financial assistance and transfer technology to developing countries so as to enhance their capacity to address climate change.

"China would like to appeal to the developed countries to sincerely fulfill their commitments under the Convention to provide financial assistance and transfer technology."

Can we say "Carbon Black Mail"? Send us your technology and money so that we can increase our standards of living with less CO2 per GDP unit?

DKA, how does more CO2 increase the temperature of the Earth if the IR bands at which CO2 absorbs IR are past tropospheric saturation at 0.0038 ppm CO2? ... It seems to me that in every thread as soon as an AGW fanatic is challenged to answer the above question the conversation dies.

I've seen Valanarris's laughable "fact" about CO2 IR absorption being saturated more than once, but as you can see here,
http://www.atmos....sir.html , the only saturation occurs at >14 microns and a few minor peaks between 2 and 5 microns. Valanarris is either a fool or a liar. I'll let you take your pick.

The irony is that Velanarris and others fail to understand that "saturation" as here used really means that CO2 is essentially "opaque" at the wavelength(s) in question.

While that does serve to block the transmission of inbound IR, which constitutes a minority of the solar influx, it also serves to block the escape out outbound IR which, of course, is the product of the absorption supra-IR, which constitutes the majority of the solar influx.

I.e., at the wavelengths where "saturation" occurs, CO2 keeps a little IR out, but keeps a LOT of IR in!

Can we say "Carbon Black Mail"? Send us your technology and money so that we can increase our standards of living with less CO2 per GDP unit?

What is the relevance to the Science under discussion?

And, are you wholly ignorant of the fact that developing nations' productions of CO2 is the result of the West 1) having exported its smokestack industries to such countries; and 2) creating the demand for the products that are manufactured by such expatriated industries?

Are you aware that, were the US to repatriate such industries, its own levels of CO2 production would be approx. 30% higher than at present?

In short, the US has simply outsourced its generation of CO2 and pollutants, many of them quite toxic.

southeastern australia in worst drought in recorded history
this is decimating agriculture and business
CSIRO states this and the drought in the 1940's are caused by climate change ; specifically by the warming indian ocean

see; www.mdbc.gov.au

Can we say "Carbon Black Mail"? Send us your technology and money so that we can increase our standards of living with less CO2 per GDP unit?

What is the relevance to the Science under discussion?

And, are you wholly ignorant of the fact that developing nations' productions of CO2 is the result of the West
1) having exported its smokestack industries to such countries; and

And your saying that developed countries FORCED those countries to accept the industries? I'm sorry, I thought China and India's militaries would oppose such an attack on their soil...

2) creating the demand for the products that are manufactured by such expatriated industries?

The various industries already had markets for their products. They just want to put more money in their pockets by doing the work in countries where they don't have the costs associated with the western world.

Are you aware that, were the US to repatriate such industries, its own levels of CO2 production would be approx. 30% higher than at present?

In short, the US has simply outsourced its generation of CO2 and pollutants, many of them quite toxic.

And it works to the benefit of the eco-political movement. If the people in the US and Europe saw the costs of implementing 'green' measures they wouldn't support them as vocally. Money talks...

Does this mean that you now understand that 1) CO2 contributes to radiative forcing; and 2) such effect is directly proportional (note that I do not here say linearly) to the level of CO2?

1)I never said it didn't, I did say it was hard capped and we're far past that cap.

and 2) No it's certainly not linear. It's logarithmic.


And in regard to your following comment, you said yourself Excalibur, the IR is reradiated evenly in all directions, meaning it escapes from the atmosphere into space.

Also, the US didn't sign the Kyoto accord, we really don't care if we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Labor is cheaper in India and China, the laws are not less strict.

I've seen Valanarris's laughable "fact" about CO2 IR absorption being saturated more than once, but as you can see here,
http://www.atmos....sir.html , the only saturation occurs at >14 microns and a few minor peaks between 2 and 5 microns. Valanarris is either a fool or a liar. I'll let you take your pick.

Who's the fool who posted a chart showing that CO2 is absolutely sunk by other gasses at those other wavelengths.

Understand your own material before you bring it to the table.

GrayMouser,

Quote: "The first quote was from a former IPCC member."
Reply: so what, he can't speak in the name of India, and still, what is said about India is still wrong. You are making a ridicilous point here. Assuming that you argument makes more credible the false idea that India does not take Global Warning seriously is 100%. Please be a little serious. You should bother a little more before making such easy false claims.

Quote: " IPCC member in his testimony to the US Senate"
Reply: Right, everyone knows that the US elected government who is receiving a lot of cash from the oil industry (to win electoral campain -it should not be aloud for company to influence democratie but well they do and abuse)is tied to it and can't support actions that go against it too much. And so does several amercian citizens, shame. But this has changed in recent years because the proof is becoming stronger. There is a very big change in scientist minds since the last few years in favor of beleiving that we know enough to link global warming to human related Co2.

Quote: "The second quote was from India's..."
Reply: Interesting to read that India thinks that Co2 is causing Global warming. Thank you for the information.

Quote: "As for China... Much more material available..."
Reply: Interesting again. Thank you. I was very concerned to read these:
"Climate change, the impacts of which have been felt all over the world, was mainly
caused by the massive emissions of CO2...."
You are concerned also right?
However I feel better when we read:
"achieve the target of about 20% reduction of energy consumption per unit GDP by
2010".
Well maybe you dissagree and don't like your own quotes!

GrayMouser,

Quote: "The first quote was from a former IPCC member."
Reply: so what, he can't speak in the name of India, and still, what is said about India is still wrong. You are making a ridicilous point here. Assuming that you argument makes more credible the false idea that India does not take Global Warning seriously is 100%. Please be a little serious. You should bother a little more before making such easy false claims.

The IPCC is attempting to censor this man, I believe he is in fact speaking for the Indain government at large but that is contrary to what the IPCC wants.

Quote: " IPCC member in his testimony to the US Senate"
Reply: Right, everyone knows that the US elected government who is receiving a lot of cash from the oil industry (to win electoral campain -it should not be aloud for company to influence democratie but well they do and abuse)is tied to it and can't support actions that go against it too much. And so does several amercian citizens, shame. But this has changed in recent years because the proof is becoming stronger. There is a very big change in scientist minds since the last few years in favor of beleiving that we know enough to link global warming to human related Co2.

The proof for CO2 based AGW is becomming weaker. The climate models employeed by the IPCC and their practices are under a lot of scientific scrutiny at the moment. Many independent groups and other UN oversight commitees are beginning to see that the IPCC is a biased organization and have taken actions against them which have resulted in the upcomming IPCC 5th AGW review to be released in March of 09. It should be interesting to see what they say when every piece of data they accept and acknowledge has to be peer reviewed by independant scientists prior to being accepted for publication.

Quote: "The second quote was from India's..."
Reply: Interesting to read that India thinks that Co2 is causing Global warming. Thank you for the information.

Quote mining does not make a strong argument. The full argument is "Indian officials acknowledge that CO2 contributes to a green house effect but that human made CO2 is of an immaterial and unsubstantial amount to effect the change claimed by the UN IPCC."

Quote: "As for China... Much more material available..."
Reply: Interesting again. Thank you. I was very concerned to read these:
"Climate change, the impacts of which have been felt all over the world, was mainly
caused by the massive emissions of CO2...."
You are concerned also right?
However I feel better when we read:
"achieve the target of about 20% reduction of energy consumption per unit GDP by
2010".

That's economics. They want to reduce energy used to create exportable product. Every government has plans similar to that. The US is hoping to reduce used energy per GDP by 50% through renewable energy sources. Not to save the planet but to csave some coin.

Well maybe you dissagree and don't like your own quotes!

I like his quotes when they're uneditted and not truncated.

I like his quotes when they're uneditted and not truncated.

Go easy on him, he's just following in the footsteps of the IPCC ;-)

I've seen Valanarris's laughable "fact" about CO2 IR absorption being saturated more than once, but as you can see here,
http://www.atmos....sir.html , the only saturation occurs at >14 microns and a few minor peaks between 2 and 5 microns. Valanarris is either a fool or a liar. I'll let you take your pick.

Who's the fool who posted a chart showing that CO2 is absolutely sunk by other gasses at those other wavelengths.

Understand your own material before you bring it to the table.

Ridiculously blind, aren't you. The only CO2 absorption peak that is completely masked by other chemicals is the one at ~2.7 microns.

So between NO2 and H2o you're telling me the 4.2 micron is wide open right?

Right. Check again.

GrayMouser,

Quote: "The first quote was from a former IPCC member."
Reply: so what, he can't speak in the name of India, and still, what is said about India is still wrong. You are making a ridicilous point here. Assuming that you argument makes more credible the false idea that India does not take Global Warning seriously is 100%. Please be a little serious. You should bother a little more before making such easy false claims.

The IPCC is attempting to censor this man, I believe he is in fact speaking for the Indain government at large but that is contrary to what the IPCC wants.

Quote: " IPCC member in his testimony to the US Senate"
Reply: Right, everyone knows that the US elected government who is receiving a lot of cash from the oil industry (to win electoral campain -it should not be aloud for company to influence democratie but well they do and abuse)is tied to it and can't support actions that go against it too much. And so does several amercian citizens, shame. But this has changed in recent years because the proof is becoming stronger. There is a very big change in scientist minds since the last few years in favor of beleiving that we know enough to link global warming to human related Co2.

The proof for CO2 based AGW is becomming weaker. The climate models employeed by the IPCC and their practices are under a lot of scientific scrutiny at the moment. Many independent groups and other UN oversight commitees are beginning to see that the IPCC is a biased organization and have taken actions against them which have resulted in the upcomming IPCC 5th AGW review to be released in March of 09. It should be interesting to see what they say when every piece of data they accept and acknowledge has to be peer reviewed by independant scientists prior to being accepted for publication.

Quote: "The second quote was from India's..."
Reply: Interesting to read that India thinks that Co2 is causing Global warming. Thank you for the information.

Quote mining does not make a strong argument. The full argument is "Indian officials acknowledge that CO2 contributes to a green house effect but that human made CO2 is of an immaterial and unsubstantial amount to effect the change claimed by the UN IPCC."

Quote: "As for China... Much more material available..."
Reply: Interesting again. Thank you. I was very concerned to read these:
"Climate change, the impacts of which have been felt all over the world, was mainly
caused by the massive emissions of CO2...."
You are concerned also right?
However I feel better when we read:
"achieve the target of about 20% reduction of energy consumption per unit GDP by
2010".

That's economics. They want to reduce energy used to create exportable product. Every government has plans similar to that. The US is hoping to reduce used energy per GDP by 50% through renewable energy sources. Not to save the planet but to csave some coin.

Well maybe you dissagree and don't like your own quotes!

I like his quotes when they're uneditted and not truncated.

this man represents India as much as I represent the United States. And it is not because there are dissagrementsbetween him and the IPCC that this entitle him to represent the country. This argument is going way too far and if this is the kind of logic you use for your arguments it looks really twisted.

Well the IPCC is certainly more convinced this year than it was 5 years ago. And many arguments that were used before to explain the increase in temperatures by other means than Co2 have been proven false, also the strong correlation between Co2 and temperatures is standing stronger. This are very strong argument explaining how Co2 and GW are related.

"CO2 contributes to a green house effect but that human made CO2...."
Can't find this in the "India's National Action Plan for Climate".

"They want to reduce energy used to create exportable product", this is a big issue because no one wants to produce Co2, they are very well aware of their impacts (it is like a hot potato).

"Go easy on him, he's just following in the footsteps of the IPCC ;-) "
You have the IPCC in mind but I think that they have been too conservative in their assesments on the impacts of GW. Example, the predict a maximum something like 80cm of sea rise only while other researchs point to 2 to 3 meters.

Let's see some sources DKA. This arbitrary 2-3 meters is pretty ridiculous when the IPCC, who have been blasted for having inaccurate models estimating far greater consequence than are possible, is estimating .8M.

Let's see some sources DKA. This arbitrary 2-3 meters is pretty ridiculous when the IPCC, who have been blasted for having inaccurate models estimating far greater consequence than are possible, is estimating .8M.

Well you know this is the maximum because you commented that research about it in an another article. Note that the IPCC is even more blasted for being too conservative.

Let's see some sources DKA. This arbitrary 2-3 meters is pretty ridiculous when the IPCC, who have been blasted for having inaccurate models estimating far greater consequence than are possible, is estimating .8M.

Well you know this is the maximum because you commented that research about it in an another article. Note that the IPCC is even more blasted for being too conservative.

Yes but the criticisms of the IPCC being too conservative are comming from people who have a vested interest in the laws being passed to limit advancing economy in the name of AGW.

Let's see some sources DKA. This arbitrary 2-3 meters is pretty ridiculous when the IPCC, who have been blasted for having inaccurate models estimating far greater consequence than are possible, is estimating .8M.

Well you know this is the maximum because you commented that research about it in an another article. Note that the IPCC is even more blasted for being too conservative.

Yes but the criticisms of the IPCC being too conservative are comming from people who have a vested interest in the laws being passed to limit advancing economy in the name of AGW.

I am affraid not. Most criticism are coming from citizens of fianciancialy rich countries. People where the econonics are not there, do not education nor communication access to learn about Global Warming. There are unfortunatly the victims.

Yes but the criticisms of the IPCC being too conservative are comming from people who have a vested interest in the laws being passed to limit advancing economy in the name of AGW.

I am affraid not. Most criticism are coming from citizens of fianciancialy rich countries. People where the econonics are not there, do not education nor communication access to learn about Global Warming. There are unfortunatly the victims.

You just proved my point. The people saying AGW estimates are too conservative are from the US, Canada, England, France etc All first world countries. In order to prevent countries like China, India, etc from becomming economic and industrial super powers they want to enforce global policy which will set these countries back a great deal while they spend time and money developing systems to adhere to the laws passed by the rich countries that can already afford to implement them.

IPCC is pushing a political agenda to keep the rich people rich, how did you not see that?

A criticism of Mann's misuse of statistics:
http://wmbriggs.c...ey-puck/

Yes but the criticisms of the IPCC being too conservative are comming from people who have a vested interest in the laws being passed to limit advancing economy in the name of AGW.

I am affraid not. Most criticism are coming from citizens of fianciancialy rich countries. People where the econonics are not there, do not education nor communication access to learn about Global Warming. There are unfortunatly the victims.

You just proved my point. The people saying AGW estimates are too conservative are from the US, Canada, England, France etc All first world countries. In order to prevent countries like China, India, etc from becomming economic and industrial super powers they want to enforce global policy which will set these countries back a great deal while they spend time and money developing systems to adhere to the laws passed by the rich countries that can already afford to implement them.

IPCC is pushing a political agenda to keep the rich people rich, how did you not see that?

scientifics, researchers, pushing a political agenda at the expense of science and inventing global warming to be able to do so? Are you serious? I would have never known.

scientifics, researchers, pushing a political agenda at the expense of science and inventing global warming to be able to do so? Are you serious? I would have never known.

Now this is where I can perhaps educate you as to my reasons for full disbelief in AGW.

A lot of the scientists "employed" by the IPCC submit their papers and they are reviewed by a panel of senior scientists within the hallowed halls of the IPCC. After that is done the senior scientists write their review of the material they've decided to include.

Then the political forces get their hands on the IPCC paper and review it where they accept or reject the findings within and then the review is either rewritten or published.

Now the majority of the scientists on the review board and the scientists actually writing the papers are rather furious with the IPCC because their methods have shown a very heavy political bias. There's a lot of info out there about the particulars including the petition of 37000 scientitsts who signed up trying to have the IPCC reviewed by an intergovernmental panel for "intellectual mistreatment."

You can see that the science on AGW is very lackluster in most cases.

My point is that there si not enough research to make the suppositions that are being made, let alone to push those "guesses" into legislation that can effectively harm people.