So if the warming is a problem, what is causing it? Why are you so sure the cause is (exclusively) increasing CO2? Lichtenstein does not attempt to answer. The global warming alarmists don't, either.

Do you have an alternate hypothesis for what is causing global warming?

I suppose CO2 is part of the cause, also a form of the urban heat island effect, the sun to some extent, ...

I'm not sure what the solutions might be for the urban heat island effect. Eliminate cities? Mandate only bright white buildings and streets in cities? Giant parasols? I assume we have no reasonable solution to the sun. Your post would seem to suggest that controlling CO2 is the only feasible option to counteract global warming. But I am open to other suggestions if they are forthcoming.

Bottomfish:

So if the warming is a problem, what is causing it? Why are you so sure the cause is (exclusively) increasing CO2? Lichtenstein does not attempt to answer. The global warming alarmists don't, either.

Except, of course, for hundreds of pages in the IPCC report, summarizing hundreds of individual scientific publications, all because the simple chain of effects: we burn enormous truly amounts of carbon. burning carbon produces carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. absorbing infrared radiation raises the temperature, which has been proved over and over again each individual step at a time and overall, is unacceptable. Is there any other field of science where such a well proved model is rejected on the grounds that 'you haven't proved that it might not be something else we don't know about?'

Perhaps you could explain how the urban heat island effect is causing the oceans to heat up, never mind Siberia. You could then follow with a discussion of all those papers which rule out a role for the sun of more than 20-30% (meaning they can't prove that it's precisely zero). then you could do us all a service and explain how, if the sun is warming to some extent, the moon is remaining at the same temperature.

Consider how small a percentage of the atmosphere that CO2 comprises (375 ppm...that's .03%). Then consider that we emit .01% of that through industrial processes. I know the global warming-istas will call me a kook for this, but that miniscule percentage of the atmosphere isn't even worth considering. Folks, that's less of an influence than you'd have on a hurricane by standing on the beach and waving your arms. Yes, the Earth is warming, but it ain't CO2 that's causing it.

It's also not us. I know, I know. "You must think the Earth is flat!" (Just trying to simulate Al Gore's reaction.) No, I am not a member of the Flat Earth Society. I'm just a realist that has a pretty good understanding of the weather and climate for a non-meteorologist.

B#orflat has the right idea. You can't solve the sun, ladies and gentlemen.

More human presence, i.e., greater population, means more heat, no matter how the humans warm themselves. Humans themselves emit heat and they put up structures that retain heat. Due to our immensely complex atmospheric circulation system, which includes a lot of randomness, it's not surprising that the oceans and remote regions such as Siberia heat up as well. As for heating on the moon, I admit I don't know; because there is no atmosphere there, any global circulation model would have to be greatly different from what is used on earth.

You are assuming what you set out to prove.

gzuckier:

Except, of course, for hundreds of pages in the IPCC report, summarizing hundreds of individual scientific publications, all because the simple chain of effects: we burn enormous truly amounts of carbon. burning carbon produces carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. absorbing infrared radiation raises the temperature, which has been proved over and over again each individual step at a time and overall, is unacceptable. Is there any other field of science where such a well proved model is rejected on the grounds that 'you haven't proved that it might not be something else we don't know about?'

No one is questioning whether warming exists nor the cause of CO2 increases. What is in doubt, however, is the effect that CO2 has had on temperatures. Correlation is not causation.

There are hundreds of published studies that refute many of the pillars upon which AGW theories are based: positive feedbacks required to "tune" models are not observed in nature; global precipitation has not increased; solar changes can account for at least 50% of recent warming not including recent studies indicating that changes in solar magnetic fields has an effect on cloud cover; while the Arctic is warming, the southern pole is not; and, if CO2 is a significant driver of climate, why has there been no warming since 1998 in spite of a 14% increase in CO2 over this time period?

Models do not prove anything. Science works by evaluating theories against observation and measurement. In the case of AGW, the observations do not support the theory. Therefore, the theory is wrong.

Thank you for this one. I've been saying this for a few years now.

You also touch on global precipitation. Add to that the argument that storms are getting stronger and more frequent due to global warming (all because one little Cat 5 hurricane plowed into the Gulf coast). The fact is that since the record-breaking year of 2005, tropical activity has decreased. Even last year during the weak-to-moderate El Nino, Pacific activity was below normal. This year, there have only been two major hurricanes that developed in the Atlantic Basin.

The point I keep trying to drive home here is that the actual weather tells us more than any computer model. Actual climatic data about the levelling off of the temperature increase goes a long way to refuting the whole "doomsday" global warming theories. Thanks for being one of the few voices of reason in this forum.

Ford, correct me if I am wrong, but I have the suspicion you are a rightie who has as much political motivation to deny human caused global warming as the lefties who insist upon it.

Shouldn't both sides realize that if you set out to prove what you desperately want to be true you will find your proof?

Ford I notice you concede that global warming is occuring. But, was that the case 5-10 years ago when the issue first came to the forefront? Or did you deny the globe was warming back then? Be honest.....

And consider where your opinions will be in 5-10 years from now.

Buddy, I look at the numbers. I understand statistics and data. While my profession may not be meteorology (that's just an admittedly strange pastime), I spend more time than I'd like to looking at data. If the numbers say it's warmer, then so be it, it's warmer.

I do, however take issue with the idea that everything is somehow linked to global warming. I can't eat a bean burrito without causing global warming anymore. I also understand the huge difference between correlation and causation. Again, something I have to deal with regularly in my line of work.

Now, B# (or Bb, whichever you prefer), you've said some things here that make sense, and I pointed that out earlier. But I can't let you get away with the "rightie" comment. I have no political motivation to look at the weather. The only political motivation I see in this debate is from the socialists that want to centralize control over everything in the name of global warming. I know, just another right-wing fringe comment, right? Wrong. It's been done in the past, and it's been memorialized right here in my hometown of Pittsburgh.

Remember DDT? Using that chemical could have virtually eradicated malaria from the planet. However, the enviro-nazis got it banned based on junk science. The whole idea of it causing bird egg shells to be thin and fragile was proven to be BS, but the environmental groups, led by Rachel Carson, got their way anyway. One of the quotes I remember from that whole fiasco was something along the lines of, "If we can ban DDT, we can control anything."

The funny part about this debate is that somehow the environment and science have "taken sides" politically. I don't see how science is liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. I've looked at evidence on both sides of the table. To me, the evidence that refutes human-induced climate change just makes more sense. I have no idea what my opinion will be 10 years from now. That is irrelevant. I'll have to live through the next 10 years to figure that out.

The irony of this is that anyone who doesn't buy into the "we're killing the planet" argument is given some kind of label (denier, Flat Earth society, greedy...whatever), and the real environmental issues (pollution, use of natural resources) takes kind of a back seat. It seems that some in the environmental movement can't make a case without global warming as their iron in the fire. I can make the case for clean air without mentioning global warming. Look at a photo of Downtown Pittsburgh from 1950. Look at one from today. What air do you want to breathe? I'll take 2007 air over 1950 air any day of the week. Point proven.

One might say that the argument is the same. But oh no, it isn't. You can control pollution. You can control fuel usage. You have a snowball's chance in Hell of controlling the climate. Catastrophic doomsday theories (that have been notoriously wrong) are tools used by those that want you and I to hand control of our lives over to a central authority, especially if they are the central authority. These people are also the ones that never see free market solutions to problems, only government answers. They think that an elite ruling class should be in place to handle all the things that the rest of us are too dumb to do for ourselves, regardless of their experience (or inexperience) with such things. I come back to Al Gore. He'd love to tell you and I not to drive to work and to "do our part," but as a member of the ruling class, he's important enough to fly around in private jets. He would love to increase your tax burden for every ounce of fuel you use because he thinks he knows best. Of couse, I'd love to see him try to hit a seasonal forecast.

I hope the readers of this post understand that I, nor anyone that has been labeled a "rightie" or a "denier" or whatever asinine words the socialists use, have ever advocated harming the environment. We have never advocated over-consuming. We just want a realistic approach to real environmental problems, not some convoluted armageddon theory about global warming.

Common sense....finally...Thank you.

Regards,

Mike

I think we've got some more common ground here. You think anthropogenic C02 is irrelevant, I don't. But the great thing is that we don't have to agree on that to agree there are real environmental issues to be addressed.

Deforestation is a problem in many parts of the world and should be addressed whether or not we are warming the globe. Without global climate change this still leads to increased soil erosion with the resulting lose of fertility risk of mudslides etc. Providing alternatives such as solar ovens (for certain areas) and reforestation programs would help immediately and in the case of natural or manmade climate changes. Another example would be the current over-use of water in my farms due to inefficient farming methods. So called drip irrigation is far more efficient and could help First and Third world farmers.

Since I think global climate change is coming anyway I firmly believe we need to start taking steps to ameliorate the negative effects by increasing our resilience.

You would probably argue for a tax break on more efficient irrigation systems or helping to reforest Haiti etc. I'd prefer a slightly different approach, but i'd support these sorts of measures in a variety of forms as long as it would be put in place.