Peolpe is so fool that many times, they do not believe in anything but what some kind of t.v.’s say and newspapers.. but everyone must be alarmed about the global warming. For example, now, we do not care about global warming because when it grows and the problem affect (more) human being, we are not going to be here, alive still; but, what about our children???what about beloved people who will die after us??? what about Earth?? what about living “stuf”???? You do not care??? oh, yea, soon you will care a lot, because in 2 years or less, everyone will be more worried about it. And it can be that, even you will be seriously affected… You will see, you will see…

Where I am going is to the point of: We may, and should, start making something for the Earth, for the human being, for our beloved people or for what you care about… Many people is starting to do something little, something form home, but they are doing something!!! If everyone in this world did at least 4 things to reduce their wastes, rubbish, car pollution and all that easy ways of helping world, we were even in a better world, even our relationships may get better and our life may be longer, we could be with our beloved persons more time, we would LIVE.

Please, if someone reads it, think about it, and start making something, it does not matter if it is somehting small, you will help. And one more time, excuse me because of the composition, I am really not british or from a country where it is spoken a lot the english, but I am doing my best, and I think that for a student of a 3rd world country, this compositions is not as bad as many…. and excuse if I made you lose your time or only wasted you the space of antoher commentary… I wanted to express myself… thank you.

For example:

Contrary to what you may think Kay, the Michael Mann “hockey stick” is incorrect. His methods were largely unsound. Yes indeedy there were a few errors which conprimise the conclusions drawn. Mann’s methodology was investigated by the National Research Council and was not deemed to have produced the correct results which have been verified by other scientists.

As for Dan, may I ask what credible sources I have based my statements on? A measly thirty years ago we were just beginning to understand the varying stable states of our planet. It alternates between interglacial and glacial. A measly thirty years ago, given this new found knowledge, the Earth would naturally be prepared to return to a glacial state, we thought. However, what you do know is that this was a prediction. Dont question what ever sources you are using please, because they are right. Climotologists were predicting a coming ice age, it was TIME magazine taking research and presenting it. As for what we knew then versus what we know now, yes technology has not increased that much and neither has our understanding of the world.

Dickie, I suggest you continue reading whatever made you believe that there is not a scientific consensus because there isnt a very strong one. I highly suggest you stop pulling information from thinkprogress.org, or my butt for that matter. There are many respected researchers out there who still challege elements of global warming, however they do not challenge the hypothesis itself, just the part that says its our fault. I challenge you to research the so-called non-biased research centers that are saying that global warming is a concern. I also challenge any person in this forum who would like to debate the issue to reply to the post.

In a nutshell, the Earth could be warming. For now. Atmospheric CO2 is currently at only 370 parts per million by volume and rising by just 2 ppm per year. The pre-industrial level was similarly around just 270 ppm. Once it reaches the atmosphere, CO2 has a shelf life of only 200 years. Some claim the bulk of this increase is due to fossil fuel usage, or that deforestation and poor agricultural practices also contribute to emissions. However, nature produces much larger quantities of greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane as well as CO2. These gases tend to work in an equilibrium with the biosphere or are out of our control. The CO2 that nature releases, and it releases a LOT starting in September of every year as the leaves fall, as it has done for millions upon millions of years, plus our own co2 raises CO2 concentrations nearly 7 ppm per year. However, this CO2 is captured the following spring as the vegitiation in the northern hemishphere (where most of our land mass is) in the form of new growth thusly dropping CO2 levels 7 ppm. Methane is a part of natural decay though we do emit a barely measurable amount. As for water vapor, the warmer the air is, the more vapor it can hold which means as temperature gets warmer, this important natural GHG will increase as has always been the situation for millions of years. As we continue to emit more and more comparatively tiny amounts of CO2 we dont really disrupt atmospheric chemistry or alter the energy balance that drives our climate. Its simple physics, the sun releases energy (calculated by Wien’s law and Stephen Boltzman law) in the form of short-wave radiation. That energy passes through the atmosphere where it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. It goes through a phase change and is released as long-wave radiation. A tiny fraction of that radiation is trapped by certain gases in the atmosphere. It is simple physics, but any increase in atmospheric GHG concentration does not really mean it will cause an increase in temperature. It is definetely by far and away NOT an established fact that we, people, have increased these gases by any significant. The question of course remains how much the natural system will push back through natural feedbacks. Or not. It is a much more complex issue than can be described here or anywhere else for that matter but is a start on a road of a million years. Simply put, it is not very likely that we have altered atmospheric chemistry enough to overcome any of the natural feedbacks that regulate the system and so it will not lead to a significant increase in global average surface temperature.

On one semi final note, during the previous ice age, the global average temperature was only five degrees C cooler than it is currently. We are looking at an increase greater than three by the end of the century. Or we are just five degrees shy of another ice age. Who knows? Please fill in the blank.

Currently we dont have accurate data for CO2 concentrations for the last 450,00 years from which we cant estimate with certainty the global average temperatures for such a long ass period. This information as well as other data, which shall remain anonymous, dont give indications of what the temperature may have been like through that entire long ass time period. That figure is about a year old so it may be a little higher or a little lower. Through examination of proxy data very solid, though not pefect, guesstimations have been made for the last 1000+ years. The current modeling used to predict future climates are much more accurate than in the past 1000+ years and have been tested by altering the inputs to represent what the Earth was like in the past, 100+ years ago. These models are then run to the present. the results are compared to what we know the climate has been like for the last 100 or so years. When I model has accurately recreated the climate it is then used to generate prediction of future climates based on a number of scenarios that model the economics of the future. Obviously, these scenarios are assumption driven and can not be perfectly accurate though we continue to improve the scenario’s. In other words, past performance is not guarantee of future returns. Or as my broker puts it: “Backtested performance does not represent actual performance and should not be interpreted as an indication of such performance. Backtested performance results have certain inherent limitations. Backtested performance also differs from actual performance because it is achieved through the retroactive application of model portfolios designed with the benefit of hindsight. As a result, the models theoretically may be changed from time to time to obtain more favorable performance results.”

These scenarios and the number of climate models used are the reason why you will see reports all over the place claiming that the earth will warm between 3 and 8 degrees C over the next 100 years. They are not difinitive, so can a certain amount of confidence can be placed in the results?.

M’Kay?

no one here ever heard of global dimming? not suprised. its an idea that wipes all thoughts about global warming away.

watch and you judge.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=1027879546389218797&q=global+dimming

Global Warming, keeps coming up day after day. yet those that don’t believe in it? or should I say get paid to not believe in it. always seems to be in power to do nothing about it…It’s okay for a group of idiots to not believe, or uneducated scien…

As for Dan, may I ask what credible sources you have based your statements on? Thirty years ago we were just beginning to understand the varying stable states of our planet. It alternates between interglacial and glacial. Thirty years ago, given this new found knowledge, the Earth would naturally be prepared to return to a glacial state, however, what you do not know is that this was not a prediction in any way. Question what ever sources you are using because they are wrong. Climotologists were not predicting a coming ice age, it was just the case of TIME magazine taking research and presenting it out of context. As for what we knew then versus what we know now, yes technology has increased that much as has our understanding of the world.

Dickie, I suggest you stop reading whatever made you believe that there is not a scientific consensus because there is, a very strong one. I highly suggest you stop pulling information from junkscience.com. There are a few respected researchers out there who still challege elements of global warming, however they do not challenge the hypothesis itself. I challenge you to research the so-called non-biased research centers that are saying that global warming is not of concern. I also challenge any person in this forum who would like to debate the issue to reply to the post.

In a nutshell, the Earth is warming. Atmospheric CO2 is currently at 370 parts per million by volume and rising 2 ppm per year. The pre-industrial level was around 270 ppm. Once it reaches the atmosphere, CO2 has a shelf life of 200 years. The bulk of this increase is due to fossil fuel usage. However, deforestation and poor agricultural practices also contribute to emissions. Nature also produces greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane as well as CO2, however these gases tend to work in an equilibrium with the biosphere or are out of our control. The CO2 that nature releases, and it releases a lot starting in September of every year as the leaves fall raises CO2 concentrations nearly 7 ppm per year. However, this CO2 is captured the following spring as the vegitiation in the northern hemishphere (where most of our land mass is) in the form of new growth thusly dropping CO2 levels 7 ppm. Methane is a part of natural decay though we do emit a measurable amount. As for water vapor, the warmer the air is, the more vapor it can hold which means as temperature gets warmer, this important natural GHG will increase exacerbating the situation. As we continue to emit more and more CO2 we further disrupt atmospheric chemistry altering the energy balance that drives our climate. It is simple physics, the sun releases energy (calculated by Wien’s law and Stephen Boltzman law) in the form of short-wave radiation. That energy passes through the atmosphere where it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. It goes through a phase change and is released as long-wave radiation. A fraction of that radiation is trapped by certain gases in the atmosphere. It is simple physics, any increase in atmospheric GHG concentration will cause an increase in temperature. It is an established fact that we, people, have increased these gases. The question remains how much the natural system will push back through natural feedbacks. It is a much more complex issue than can be described here but his is a start. Simply put, it is very likely that we have altered atmospheric chemistry enough that to overcome many of the natural feedbacks that regulate the system and will lead to a significant increase in global average surface temperature.

On one final note, during the previous ice age, the global average temperature was only five degrees C cooler than it is currently. We are looking at an increase greater than three by the end of the century. Please fill in the blank.

Take the time to get a little balance here — Inhofe is just the messenger, _not_ the creator.

Mann et. al. (creators of the Hockey Stick graph) were caught with their proverbial drawers down because:

a) It was discovered that their statistical models “mined” hockey graph results from _any_ data that was put through them;
b) They have obfuscated and refused to let _anyone_ other than their close friends and allies check their homework (aka “peer review”)
c) They have refused to release their statistical models and data sets that they used to conclude that the 90s were the warmest on record

As for the claim of being the warmest in “12,000 years” – again this needs checking. So far, there isn’t (repeat: isn’t) scientific consensus on temperature proxies that are reliable to 1,000 years ago — never mind any earlier.

In sum, the onus is on folks like Mann, Gore, et. al. to prove their science and submit it to unfettered review by _anyone_.

Just because it _feels_ warmer outside, doesn’t mean the causes are anthropogenic. Hell, up here in Canada I’d be typing to you from a glacier a mile thick had warming not begun over 20,000+ years ago.

Must have been a lot of mastodons farting, eh? ;-)

To the guy citing a 1974 Time article about ice ages…Guess what 9 of 10 of the hottest years ever recorded on this planet occured in the last 15 years. That’s the scary thing, global climate change doesn’t necessarily move at geologic speeds. Think things changed pretty quickly when the dinosaurs went extinct?