Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Global warming first emerged clearly in the 1990s and has become more evident with each passing year. The last decade was the hottest such span on record and is very likely to be surpassed as the 21st century progresses.
A new report from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lists 10 indicators that global warming is happening: rising humidity; rising sea-surface temperature as well as heat stored in deeper waters; shrinking sea ice, glacier and springtime snow cover; rising temperatures over land and sea; and rising sea levels.
All point to a rapidly warming world. And all are based on actual observations, from satellites high in the sky to meteorological stations in the middle of a Kansas cornfield.
You can debate how bad global warming will be or what to do about it, but it's hard to deny it's happening anymore. The physics of greenhouse gases trapping heat are clear.
The politics are murkier. Legislative efforts to combat climate change have failed in the U.S. But the Environmental Protection Agency plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions—noting that rising temperatures and a dangerous human impact on climate are undeniable.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
129 Comments
Add CommentDavid your little article is weak because you fail to describe whether or not recent global warming is simply a cyclical phenomenon or a truly unique event. The planet has been around for billions of years. How does our current warming compare to warming trends 100,000s of years ago or millions of years ago? The glaciers have receded to current points in the past. In my opinion it is irresponsible journalism to suggest that short term warming trends a part of a bigger, longer term problem unless you know this for sure and you can substantiate. You're losing your credibility with this type of writing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe man made causation is NOT a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscarface - Of course YOUR extremely verbose pronouncements and titanic mental abilities are clearly more valid than thousands of scientists that have done many decades of research (which is backed by data) in many different countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you believe that I have a bridge for sale ...
Wow! I shrink in the shadow of your monstrous intellect. Typical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscarface - At the risk of engaging an unarmed opponent I will make one final reply: it is not MY intellect I spoke of (either you did not understand or intentionally misdirected your post), but rather the collective intellects of thousands of scientists I posted about. Reading comprehension counts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCo2 appears to be the problem. In the last 150 years humans have put massive amounts of carbon back into the atmosphere. The Earth stored this carbon over the last several hundred million years. How can any one say WE have no influence on climate change? You can argue the semantics it you wish. But the devil is in the details. Personally I don't think any one really knows what the coming decades will bring. But the evidence of a warming trend is pretty solid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if the warming slows. Lets band together and push our technology. Lets create a greener, cleaner world. It will only be a benefit to our future. Otherwise We really will be living in a dingy polluted world. That is certainly the world I wish on our children.
Al Gore certainly did the world a favor by demonstrating to us the reality of excess global warming to all of mankind. Unfortunately he also did a great disservice to mankind by blaming it all on CO2. All global warming gets it's energy from the Sun. But the amount of global warming derived from solar energy absorption by CO2 is miniscule when compared to all the other solar energy absorption occurring on Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur atmosphere absorbs most of it's solar energy in the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum. That is why our upper atmosphere heats up and expands so much during solar maximums as the sunspots produce more ultraviolet light. For as long as we have been taking measurements our Sun has never changed it's solar energy output more than 0.1% yet that extra UV output during solar maximums measurably warms up our atmosphere.
But our land and oceans absorbs solar energy in the visible and infrared portions of the solar spectrum as well. And mankind has certainly affected the land's ability to absorb solar energy as any barefoot boy running across asphalt can attest to. This is where mankind can make it's biggest impact to control the amount of global warming we experience for better or for worse. If we plant more perennial forests and grasslands a lot of that solar energy would be used to fix carbon from CO2 turning it into wood, grass, and eventually humus as it rebuilds our vanishing topsoil. The shade would also cool off the soil and the water which would preferentially and safely absorb more CO2 that was driven out by warmer water conditions previously.
For those concerned with the chemically deleterious effects of excess CO2 this is the most efficient and economical way to sequester excess carbon in a safe manner. In fact it is the only method that MUST be used as all other methods couldn't accomplish the ultimate goal unless this method was applied as well.
To recap, CO2 wouldn't even be considered as a greenhouse gas if it's entire solar absorption spectrum needed to be considered. It is only considered a greenhouse gas because it efficiently absorbs in a couple narrow low energy frequencies in the infrared portion of the spectrum. Also, CO2 is very preferentially absorbed by cooler water which also means it will release comparatively more CO2 than other atmospheric gases like oxygen and nitrogen when it warms up. The excess CO2 is an effect, not the cause of global warming. The cutting down of trees and burning them up literally will warm up our atmosphere by solar absorption and release of heat.
meme . . . worships at the "alter" of vapidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@bagsjr
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes the planet does have cyclical trends that correlate CO2 and temperature, as shown by Vostok ice cores. The cores also show that the max global CO2 concentration was 300 ppm. Within the past 50 years, global CO2 has reached 375 ppm, breaking a 400k years trend and a 100k year cycle.
Here are some graphics you may find interesting:
http://mrwashy.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/some-graphics-of-global-climate-change/
Yes Yes! Look at all angles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we work together we can slow the change.
But from what I really see we humans really do not have the "time". We are all absorbed in our own little worlds.
Sometimes more concerned with being correct or more intelligent than the next guy. Its the ape in all of us.
lets through out our competitive nature and get things moving. The problems are vast.
Let me make this simple for you doubters. When you burn fuel, you get heat. Agreed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's why the hood of your car gets hot when you drive, right?
Well, that heat does not just disappear. It dissipates. It spreads out, causing "local warming" in the atmosphere nearby. Multiply that by many billions and you get "global warming."
Or, look at it this way. Fossil fuels contain stored solar energy. Biodiesel contains stored solar energy. Burn these, and you get heat. Burn enough and you warm the entire atmosphere.
If one cannot understand fundamental thermodynamics, one has no business attempting to discredit this article.
In the Dark Ages, the church kept peasants ignorant and illiterate, indoctrinating them by means of didactic stained glass windows while fleecing them of their money.
In the new Dark Ages, big business provides the same service for indoctrinated masses of ignorant consumers, miseducated as they are by oil and cheeseburger company commercials and conservative high priests like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
Yes, they are "right." The earth has cyclical trends. These normally operate on the magnitude of thousands to tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.
Problem is, when those cycles stop cooling and start warming, global warming caused by an unnatural, non-cyclical, relatively short-term Industrial Revolution compounds those effects.
Imagine a store that sells apples. They know they sell about a case a week, so they order case a week to replace them. The apples have a "natural cycle." Sometimes there are more, and sometimes less, but overall about the same amount. If a capricious third party decides to sneak in extra apples every day, eventually he's going to upset the cycle. If someone doesn't account for his behavior, the apples will end up being overstocked and start to go bad.
If it gets too hot and stuffy in your house, you can open a window. The earth's atmosphere has no window. So, stop using so much fuel ... and put a cap on all that "hot air" while you're at it.
JUST SAY NO TO IGNORANCE
Say hello to my little friend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's called "knowledge."
Well said,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the new Dark Ages, big business provides the same service for indoctrinated masses of ignorant consumers, miseducated as they are by oil and cheeseburger company commercials and conservative high priests like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh."
The sad thing really is that people listen to these crackers. We "rational" humans may well destroy ourselves after all.
But I really hope this movement will swing the other way.
It is the corporate monster we need to fight. Our President may only be a figurehead. The scale of this problem is far larger than we all may realize. We are all pawns in the great corporate machine. If we react with sublimeness they will continue to control us, feed us ideas and possessions that we think we need.
We all need to step outside the box. If only to find ourselves in another box.
why not try debating assertions with fact instead of insults?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world is warming? Indisputable.
The cause? I'm sorry but the jury is still out. Dead zones in the pacific, as well as massive deforestation of the rain forests.
Landfills, Bovine gasses, manufacturing, power production and combustion engine exhaust I feel all all contribute to the problem.
So how many of you walk to work, stopped eating beef, and canceled your Con Edison accounts?
Why dispute assertions with insults? Anyone try using factual data to support their point as opposed to saying something about someone's mother (per se)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIe; The Planet is warming. Part of a normal cycle or the affect of deforestation and industrialization? The is no concrete data to support either assertion.
We should still act as if it was caused by us.
All I need to do is look at motives - most of the warming naysayers appear to have economic interests that would be threatened by having to cut back on green house gases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"san francisco onion", you would have to be a grade school teacher to be able to talk to such dumb bos with such clarity. It amazes me that some people are so blinded by greed that they cannot see their nose in front of their faces. If they cannot understand it after you explained it to them, give them a big fat "F" and kick their sorry asses out of class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing that amazes me is that the federal government listens to these idiots that somehow managed to weasel their way into Congress and the Senate and it seems like it is the Republicans that lead the way on global ignorance and stupidity.
If the federal government can somehow order all our auto manufacturers to start mass producing electric cars and make them affordable, say at the 1970's price range, and quickly build a geothermal power plant in each state large enough to supply that state with the electricity it needs and start mass producing solar panels; I got a solar power adding machine free when I bought a pack of cigarettes the other day, so I know solar panels are not that expensive - and also make them affordable, we can curb this global warming by 'probably' 60 to 70% in less than five years.
For those anti-environmentalists who want to hollow and scream that geothermal causes earthquakes and that makes them too dangerous to build, let them realize that 14 states already have geothermal power plants and they have not caused not one earthquake on the earth or on the moon, and geothermal power plants have not opened not one black hole in space neither. Consider how dangerous fossil fuels are; coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear and geothermal would be the six-month old baby when it comes to pollution since its pollution factor is about 2% or less. For what it will take to build one nuclear power plant, you can build five or more geothermal power plants. So why is America being so stupid when it come to green clean energy???
"Al Gore" - you mean the crazed sex poodle - the father of the man-made global warming religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMrWashy, what about the comparison of water vapor, which has hundreds of times the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, as a "greenhouse" gas? Isn't CO2 insignificant in comparison?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone with any sense could not possibly argue that pouring billions of tons of waste into the air and water every year would have any effect in any way on the earth and the people who inhabit it. Let's be done with this ridiculous argument and get back to making monolithic corporations as much money as its owners can accumulate in one lifetime. Global warming is a sham.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, NOAA, US EPA and the UK’s MET Office, will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.
But this part is simple.
Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator.
In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
That is adaptation.
One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
@teebark
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile H2O(g) is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2(g), we generally do not affect water vapor concentration in the atmosphere. It has been shown that we can affect CO2 concentrations. While the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas may be less, the effects it has are multiplied via feedback loops.
And while atmospheric H2O is probably rising, it is because warm air holds more moisture than cold. So we have the following: increased CO2 leads to increased heat leads to increased H2O(g).
Let's look at a scenario where H2O is driving the process not CO2. Putting H2O first leads to some problems: why is it increasing and how can it cause an increase in CO2?
Well H2O(g) won't increase without a source of energy as vaporization (and evaporation) is an endothermic process, so where did that thermal energy come from? Putting water first actually puts energy first, not second.
As for water affecting CO2, I'm not sure that the H2O can cause the amount of increase of CO2 we're experiencing. Warming via H2O would release CO2 from the oceans (warmer liquids dissolve less gas) but we've seen an increase in oceanic CO2 not a decrease. This means that higher concentrations of CO2 are driving it, not H2O.
So ultimately while water vapor is a major contributor it is not a driving force; it acts to multiply CO2's effect.
@orkneygal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAverage temps are in a direct relationship with CO2, not an inverse relationship. In simpler terms: the hotter it is, the more CO2. Not less.
CO2 is definitely plant friendly, my own houseplants love it actually! Life giving? No. I'm sure the Apollo 13 astronauts will confirm for us that breathing CO2 does not support life.
In the 1950's, Rachael Carson wrote about global warming, its 1850(+/-) year cycles, the last cold low in 1430 AD and the next climatic high point due in 2400 AD. She also gave very impressive references to the original data collected by Otto Pettersson over his life time and his and subsequent work that ties these climatic variations to fluctuating solar radiation. We need to stop pretending that these cycles do not exist and that man is the prime cause of the climatic cycles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, global warming is always driven by "climate science". It's hard to deny its happening, its somewhat easier to deny its man made, its even easier to ask why we care, because we don't seem to care about millions dying from less glamourous ailments like dirty water or lack of food at present, and if food production does drop we in the west will just outbid the poor like we do now. And I hate to say this but here goes question - even if its happening, its man made, and I think millions will die as a result, its extremely easy to ask why I should act when the biggest polluter the USA, and its asian consumer good factories (China, Indian) do not. So you see the first question of whether it is happening is probably rather moot, and the logical link between climate science and action tenuous at best, and the reason is I can't hear anyone answering the next questions with any degree of authority
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all know global warming is happening, but what we don't know is whether humans are causing it. Prove that, then you could come to me with some policy suggestions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know why you anti-environmentalists, and Republicans, insist on continuing with spreading the same old lie over and over and over again. It is not the CO2 that is causing the global warming, dim-wits; it is CO1 (carbon monoxide), the deadly gas that you find in coal smoke, natural gas vapors when burned, and coming from the tail pipes of vehicles. That is what is killing our environment: air, water, land, and now - health.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo get your heads out of your "little black book of lies", clean out your ears so you can hear what is actually being said and stop spreading the lie of the century that (oil loving) Bush and his administration started to discredit the real global warming that humans are causing with the burning of fossil fuels.
It doesn't matter if global warming is anthropogenic or not. Those that oppose the idea also resist any evidence in its support - but they don't know one way or the other. Those who promote the idea are too prone to believe blindly anything presented as evidence - and to write vapid articles like that presented here. Throughout all of human history civilizations have risen, and fallen, often as a result of self-destructive environmental practices. Daniel Suarez, in his book "Daemon", suggests that there are no examples of civilizations that have managed to save themselves from themselves. Social and cultural momentum, and the greed of the elite, prevent necessary change. Our civilization is more informed than any previous. Perhaps there is some hope. Whatever the cause of global warming, if we are able adopt practices - technological and non-technological - to ameliorate its effects, we would be foolish not to. The societal and economic consequences of doing nothing could be - shall we say - nontrivial. This whole pseudo-debate is tedious in the extreme, and ... what the hell ... there are anyway too many people on the planet. Humvees for everyone!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who deny the facts, are doing for political reasons and fooling themselves and everyone else. http://jdbapat.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's obvious to me that global warming is occurring when you add a little common sense to the data, even though people in regions throughout the world can verify their personal regional climate has cooled. What can we do about global warming? Nothing. It has already be set in motion, the die has been cast. In order to reign in our affect 0n the climate, we would need to abruptly stop being human. And that isn't going to happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I took the first graphic from MrWashy's page, dropped it into photoshop, and slowly scanned across it with a vertical line. I don't know how accurately it is drawn, but in that graphic, the temperature appears to be leading the CO2 levels. That being said, we are pouring the stuff into our atmosphere and living an unsustainable life in many ways that aren't even connected with global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrshoff - I agree that little if anything can be done to effectively halt global warming, short of significantly reducing atmospheric CO2 levels if that is dependably achievable and that is the only cause of global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if humanity's influence on atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming, if humanity disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, how long would it take for the warming to moderate? A few hundred years? A few thousand?
I don't have the energy to take this argument to its conclusion tonight...
@MrWashy - Good information. However we need to look back further than 400k years. In the greater scheme of things, that's not too long ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point in my comment was that David is not writing for real discourse. He's either purposely writing a skewed perspective to force a point that may or may not be true or he's simply an idiot. I'm not sure that I can believe the latter. If the former is true, this tactic is unethical and only harms the credibility of The Scientific American(because it's not) and only harms the "cause" of reducing man-made co2 emissions.
I wondered about all the CO2 from oil we were burning when I was in high school in the 70's. I am sceptical of warming being caused *solely* by human action and even more skeptical of some ideas I hear to counter the warming. Changing the globe's abledo, orbiting reflective material to decrease insolation, fertilizing the oceans with iron, etc. We need WAY more study before anything like that is tried. It is much easier to do than undo something like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am also worried that this has become a name calling issue and a mutual admiration society on both sides. Some people feel if you haven't been published in a peer reviewed journal your opinion (and data) are worthless. But if your "peers" consider you a crackpot, then it's hard to get published. I think it is more important to fund skeptics than to put all the research funds behind basically one line of thought
Just my $.02
This has basically become a political debate. Here is the first line in the paper, "Global warming first emerged clearly in the 1990s and has become more evident with each passing year." How can you possibly be sure if it only emerged in the 90's? Weren't folk keeping track of the weather for the last two centuries and no one noticed till 15 years ago? Sorry but this does not make sense the way this is being forced in the media and constantly the number one science topic. This seems to have a much greater agenda than the study of the climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis debate all boils down to one question. The question isn't "does global warming exist" but "should we putting toxins in our environment for our children to breathe, drink, touch, eat, etc.?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know I wouldn't want to live next to a coal burning plant or a major highway because of the pollution.
There is no doubt that we've already screwed up a lot of our planet. Now we need to fix what we've messed up. Smog, deforestation, rivers so polluted that much of the wildlife is dying (example: the Yangtze river in China), the list goes on. Heck, I've stood next to semi trucks and had coughing attacks because of the pollution they belch out.
Whether or not this stuff causes global warming isn't the issue. The issue is whether we're going to do anything about saving the wonderful creatures that we live with before they die out. It bothers me that I might have to show my child pictures of aye ayes, mountain gorillas, Asiatic tigers, or golden eagles because there will be no live specimens for her to watch.
So lets stop arguing about global warming. Let's just all agree that we need to stop messing up our environment and fix what we've already screwed up.
global warming is NOT true because we hate Al Gore. its too late to stop the catastrophic events that will come soon because of global warming induced by human activity. i hope the nay-sayers will at least have a sense of guilt and responsibility for it; that they look back at this time with hearts full of regret and grief. but, it is a wish that I probably won't get. those folks inability to connect their actions and ours with effects to the world around them will also give them the ability to deny it all and their own actions with any sense of responsibility for the consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@mememine69, you are mentally ill. You are suffering from paranoid delusions. Get help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo all of you walk to work? Do you all still use plastic bottles? Do you turn on your a/c when it gets hot? Do any of you volunteer to clean up the local waterways? Have any of you planted a grove of trees lately? Bet the answers are NO, YES, YES, NO, NO. I walk to work, dont use plastic, clean up at the beach by Lake Erie and the Grand River, planted trees on a plot of vacant city land and still have yet to be convinced that carbon dioxide is the cause of the so called warming. I am all for making the world a better place but Cap and Trade was designed to take money from existing coorparations and give it to new ones invented by U.S. Poloticians. Do all you can to help the enviroment but please understand that there is no possible way to determine our forth coming climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anyone else notice the Seimens ad at the top of the page? It states that their superfast trains can help cool the earth down, what a crock! No wonder I see more articles about AGW on this page than any other, Sci-Am is directly profiting on your fear and it is right in front of your face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is with all the trolls on this site? I suppose the internet and it's anonymity makes it easy for the idiots because they don't have to worry about their opinion coming back on them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still laugh at conspiracy nuts suggesting scientist are trying to distort public opinion. All one has to do is look at science funding and then compare that to the amount of money lobbyist typically spend to influence government officials. Maybe it's easy for republicans to imagine misuse of media with money because they wrote the dirty trick book in that department. Unfortunately for the naysayers though funding channels don't lie. Scientists rountinely have to disclose their funding sources and any potential real or percived conflicts of interest. Non-scientists have successfully published in scientific journals. Because their methodology was sound and they met all the requirements. I mention this because some of you deniers say that science journals simply refuse to publish dissenting views. The absense of such views is mostly due to the failure of individuals submitting papers to meet basic science requirements and not a consequence of the politics of the writer. The vast majority of dissenters 'information sources' don't pass muster on little things like full disclosure of funding.
It would be absolute madness to suppose scientist are conflict of interest free. Just as it would be madness to suggest that their interests and personal beliefs did not make themselves felt in their work. That's why there are such rigorous requirements for publication in the first place. On top of that their results need to be able to be duplicated by other scientists. I find it extremely unlikey that every nation on earth has banded together to stick it to republicans in the United States.
I'll simply ask those who do not agree with the existing evidence or think they have evidence to the contrary to look at where the funding came from. Follow the money see what you find. If finding that the majority of funding for dissenters comes from organizations that stand to take a major financial hit on climate regulation doesn't make you wonder then there is little hope you have the capacity for critical thought.
@PabstyLoudmouth, so you are a kind hearted idiot. I would suggest putting some of your time into studying the issues on which you intend to have a strong opinion. It is unbelievably idiotic to claim that the AGW hypothesis is the result of a global conspiracy of scientists motivated by greed while at the same time ignoring the greed of the petrochemical industry. We have a current example of the petro chemical industry putting the environment at risk by cutting corners to save costs. And that is no invented conspiracy, it is a fact. You are a classic example of confirmation bias. It just amazes me these right wing nut jobs who claim that their opponents on the left are guilty of all these evils when the evils of the right are clear for everyone to see. In fact the right is motivated only by evil; hate, intolerance, greed, deception, ignorance, apathy, and so on. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes I have stopped using petroleum as much as I can. I do not drive and I use as little plastic as possible. I do plant trees
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand help clean up our area water ways. How does that make me an idiot? What do you do? Read Sci-Am, post a few meandering posts and go back to your gas guzzling throw away lifestyle. Do things yourself, quit makeing multi-billion dollar goverment programs to apease your souls.
@PabstyLoudmouth, "How does that make me an idiot?" your self-professed good deeds don't make you an idiot, making claims that sciam is part of the global AGW conspiracy because they have adds for technology companies makes you an idiot. Making claims that companies that make money while championing the cause of defeating AGW are proof of corruption while ignoring the continual greed and lack of respect for the environment shown by the fossil fuel industry makes you an idiot. Being a hypocrite makes you an idiot. Choosing to know nothing about the subject in which you seem to think you're an expert makes you an idiot. Thinking that because you have chosen to do some good things, that profit motivated corporations will do the right thing when left to their own devises makes you naive. I could go on and fully expect this post to be censored but it is time to state things as they are. If you come here and make claims of corruption, bad science and conspiracies but have not done one bit of research or taken the time to read the actual science on the subject then you are an idiot. Plain and simple.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have studied the science and if you look at the vostick ice core samples and the trends following warming and CO2 you will notice that the warming began before the rise in co2 making it a coralation not a causation. And furthermore directly from the article is states we only started noticing a warming trend 15 years ago when we have been pouring co2 into the atmosphere for 200 years and now we are seeing a warming trend? Why the emergence of this information now when this should have been plain to see all along? I am not disputing that it is getting warmer, we are coming out of an ice age after all, aren't we? And what about the other planets with atmospheres getting warmer also? Cosmic radiation and solar activity have a much greater influence on our climate than co2. Go ahead and pay your carbon tax, bet you it never does any good except line someone elses pockects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason it wasn't really noticed until the 1990s is that climate takes a while to change, and it wasn't until then that there was sufficient data to rule out random fluctuations as the cause of unusual weather phenomena. Also, climate is nonlinear, more change in climate will happen for certain stretches of CO2 increase than in others of the same size, so it is entirely plausible that the difference between 450 ppm and 380 ppm will be much greater than 350 ppm to 280 ppm was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelating to other planets warming: they aren't. Certain parts of Jupiter's atmosphere are warming, but others are cooling, there is no net warming there. Triton's southern hemisphere is entering its summer, and Triton has a very polarized surface in terms of color and composition, so it is warming there because of the change in seasons. Pluto may or may not be warming, but it's not the sun's fault, because if the sun raised Pluto's temperature a little we'd already have fried due to the increased sunlight.
Regarding solar activity: in the last 10 years, average temperature has risen a little bit, meanwhile sunspot activity has dropped significantly, to the point that some scientists think we may be entering a new Maunder Minimum. More sunspots mean higher solar output, and the inverse is also true. So even though solar output has dropped, Earth's average temperature has held steady or even risen a little bit.
@PabstyLoudmouth, "I have studied the science" you have not studied the science you are parroting back B.S. from deniers blogs. The problem with people who are incompetent is that they do not have enough sense to know they are incompetent. You think you've got it all figured out and you're going to floor us with your carefully acquired insights into something you've probably read less than ten pages about. What we hear is the same old B.S. that has been refuted long ago. You have nothing new to contribute except to show that there are still alot of gullible people out there who are willing to change the facts to agree with their world view. I guess there will always be those who believe the world is flat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@rtaylortitl, "You do NOT have one piece of evidence that PROVES this current cycle (there have been many before) is caused by man....not ONE scintilla of proof." Hey Ahmadinejad, didn't you mean to say "ONE iota of proof"? Yet another fanatic who thinks if he says a lie with enough emphasis it suddenly becomes the truth. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that global climate change is being caused by human activity, and none that indicates that it is natural, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to know anything about it. People like you have no interest in the facts. The only thing you care about is advancing your agenda. The fact that you people have chosen to be ignorant of the facts, lie and misrepresent the science and make unsubstantiated accusations about the motives of the people involved, clearly demonstrates what you stand for. I once believed that people were generally good, just sometimes misinformed but the people who have posted their anti-science agenda here have changed my mind. There are truly evil people in the world who will gladly sacrifice the lives of millions just to pad their pockets or preserve their delusions. I guess one shouldn't be surprised that the republican culture of hate, fear, greed, ignorance and intolerance spews out people of low moral character.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe arguments over global waring have gotten so escalated that it is hard to read anything that discusses the facts logically so the "rest of us" who are not sure can form an opinion. Maybe someone can help me:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sure most people agree the earth is warming. The cause of the warming appears to be the issue.
1) Is CO2 a cause or an effect of increasing global temperatures?
2) If CO2 is a cause, what are the possible reasons for the increase in CO2 (in addition to man)?
4) If CO2 is a cause, what drove CO2 levels to the levels needed to heat the planet many times in its history before man?
5) Are there other current causes, such as carbon black (soot), that both man and nature nature produce that could have driven global temperatures higher in the past and in the present?
6) I have read of studies of ocean core samples that indicate that about 13,000 years ago, the earth's temperature appears to have risen almost 18F in about 50 years (many times faster than is happening today). Do we know the cause of that increase and could that cause be operating now?
I would appreciate any input on these questions. Thanks in advance for your knowledge.
Sorry you can comprehend the phrase "...one piece of evidence...". That's what public screwls will do for you. Tremendous amount of evidence? I said name one, not an allusion to "tremendous amount of evidence." Why are you so full of hate...upbringing, mean parents or just bad DNA? Calm down, mature and focus. BTW, not a GOPer...strictly libertarian. If any of the above grammar or syntax offends your sensibilities...live with it, grow up and stop hating others. It'll affect your heart and blood pressure one day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Robertschmidt- you seem to be a zealot who believes that if someone does not see the situation as you do then they are idiots. Here is a summary of the situation as I perceive it:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Is the earth warmer today than it was recently- yes, there is evidence that the world is warmer
2. Is the warmer earth caused by humans? In all likelihood humans have had a significant impact, but this is not known with certainty.
2. Is a warmer earth bad for humanity?- There is no reliable data upon which to base an answer this question today. Some areas of the planet would be drier, while others would get increased rainfall. Net arable land would most likely increase as a result of a warmer planet.
3. Is a warmer planet and/or higher ocean levels historically rare? No, in fact todays oceans are near to there historically low levels when looked at over a 500 M year basis. temperatures have also been much higher in the past
4. Are humans demanding ever increasing amounts of energy production worldwide? - yes
"Global warming first emerged clearly in the 1990s and has become more evident with each passing year. The last decade was the hottest such span on record and is very likely to be surpassed as the 21st century progresses."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this********************
But.....we constantly see the denialists spewing their anti-science rhetoric which is becoming more and more political all the time.
Are any of you warming alarmists doing anything in your own lives to prepare for rising sea levels or famine? Buying property inland? Making sure you have access to food-producing land? I always wonder whether you believe this stuff, or whether it's just a convenient reason for policies you support for entirely different reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko, "you seem to be a zealot who believes that if someone does not see the situation as you do then they are idiots" of course you would see it that way because I don't see things the way you do. Does that make you a zealot too? Funny that you don't call the deniers out when they accuse science of perpetrating a global conspiracy. Or is it ok for the people you agree with to resort to any sort of dirty trick to advance your ideology? Ultimately I don't care what people believe the only thing I care about is how they got there. With the denialists it is obvious that they didn't get there from reading the actual scientific literature or following intellectual process. It is clear they got all their knowledge from blogs and other opinion pieces. So one has to ask, if a person has a strong opinion about a subject but hasn't actually researched it, rather they are spouting politically motivated sound bites, what is their real agenda? Obviously not knowledge. If you come to a science site with the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda you can expect to be called out on it. As to rtaylortitle's statement, "I said name one, not an allusion to 'tremendous amount of evidence.'", the evidence is easily accessible to anyone. If deniers have chosen not to read the science then there is nothing I can do to educated them, not that I am an expert on the subject. A closed mind cannot be opened by facts. So if you have a closed mind, fine, share your ignorance with people that celebrate it, but leave us free thinkers alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW your own statements demonstrate the evolution of the deniers' strategy and their true agenda;
1) There is no global warming
2) There is global warming but it isn't caused by human activity
3) There is global warming and it is caused by human activity but it isn't harmful
What do these lines of thought have in common? Do Nothing! That is ultimate agenda of the deniers and not coincidentally the right wing movement in general. Maintain the status quo at all costs. Do not change the system because we like it the way it is, even if we have to delude ourselves into thinking that it is what is best for us and our children.
Once again, I don't care about people's beliefs, but I do care when people slander science, lie and manipulate in order to advance their archaic world view.
@Texan99, actually the area where I live will likely benefit in the short term from global warming. Regardless, I don't base my assessment of the global impact of AGW and policy decisions on how things will affect me personally. I know that is a difficult concept for someone from a red state. Like you I always wonderedif those across the floor believed the stuff they said about things like big government and welfare handouts. Of course we learned soon enough when the economic crisis hit as well as natural and unnatural disasters the right wing was right there with their hands out complaining that the government didn't act sooner. Perhaps you should clean up your own backyard before making insinuations about others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert Schmidt -- I didn't ask whether you base your assessment on how it will affect you personally. I just wonder whether the people who claim they want carbon taxes really believe catastrophic warming will happen (as would be suggested by their taking personal action to prepared), or whether instead they just find it a convenient reason for policies they support for other reasons. In your case, you claim there's no need to take any personal action -- but you expect other people to take a great deal. It hurts your credibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for your "common threads" argument, the burden is on climate alarmists to establish not only that warming is happening but that humans are causing it and that humans can prevent it. If your evidence on any one of these three points is weak or corrupted by politics, your corrective policies make no sense. And you left one issue out, which is whether the cost of the corrections you propose will actually cause more death and misery, with more certainty, that the warming you predict.
bdawson - I'm just a passing pedestrian, but as I understand, greenhouse gasses (GHGs) like (especially) CO2 are both a causal factor and an effect: increased atmospheric CO2 generally 'traps heat', increasing temperatures; increasing temperatures releases CO2 sequestered within both oceanic and terrestrial minerals, among other things. This stuff is complex. IMO, no one can reasonably predict the climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the Eocene Epoch, ~56M-34Mya, CO2 and global temperatures were extremely high, but the equatorial region was still tropical, as was the polar regions, with palm trees growing in Alaska and Northern Europe. However, things were different then, continents were closer and there was no circumpolar current. I wouldn't predict a climate like that, or like any other, for our future no matter what contributing factors are expected. But there are plenty of experts...
By the way, how long would it take for global temperatures to 'normalize' if humanity suddenly disappeared? 100 years? 1,000 years? What if we all buy electric vehicles instead?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease kindly note that the PACE with which we are consuming non-renewable source of energy has increased exponentially in the last 400 yrs and growing. In the past, without doubt there have many instances where temperatures did vary naturally (without interference from Mother Nature calamities), but time span was much more than 400 years.
Also just thing pragmatically that we are sitting on the same planet and using renewable energy (like solar, geothermal with least environment impact) will be a win-win situation. Off course it will raise the energy cost initially and will not appease the oil lobby but in the long run it will benefit one and all.
We humans (losing human nature faster then the speed of light by our stark selfishness) have a definite responsibility of preserving all living creatures, so please kindly WAKEUP before it is too late. Please think of living in harmony with the nature, although it is hard to implement in our current Stark Capitalist environment.
@Texan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you read the article and go to the links at all? I ask because you keep on bleating about a lack of evidence when you are commenting on an article that presents that evidence.
At what point are you going to recognize that no amount of banging on about politics is going to change geophysics? The evidence HAS been presented the problem lays not with the evidence but with the political ideologues such as yourself who ignore the facts and will buy into the multitude of lies peddled by the fossil fuel industry.
What I find particularly interesting is that you pretend that a lack of inaction as you propose will have no consequences. That is some peculiar thinking indeed.
@Robert extreme LOL at your thought that my comments demonstrate "the evolution of the deniers' strategy and their true agenda".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment seems to demonstrate a mental health issue that you should look into and have treated. You have no data to lead you to the conclusion that I am a part of some "denialist group" that has formed a "strategy" to "delay" any type of actions. Your jumping to this conclusion is really indicative of your seeing non existent conspiracies and your need to stand up against them.
Sorry to burst you bubble, but I am not part of any group, not religious, and not republican. What I am, is an individual that does not believe there is sufficient evidence to implement the proposed solutions that would restrict carbon emissions and make energy production much more expensive in the United States. Neither you, nor anyone else has presented sufficient evidence to justify this expense.
The key question that needs to be answered 1st -- "Is a warmer earth bad for humanity"- There is no reliable data upon which to base an answer this question today. Some areas of the planet would be drier, while others would get increased rainfall. Net arable land would most likely increase as a result of a warmer planet.
Since this question has not yet been answered, it is clearly premature to go to the type of expense you seem to propose. Taking drastic actions without data to justify the action is clearly not based upon science, it is purely an emotional response.
WE fail to see reason as people because we forget our most basic element of survival as procreation. We keep preaching recycle consume less reuse more. My generation currently lives with what was reported when the economy was strong 40% less t income equivalent than previous generations. That tells you that we by nature of abuse have learned reduce reuse recycle et cetera.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk so for your consideration:
1) we cannot reduce reuse or recycle enough to count in the long run.
2) the real issue that needs to be addressed is a species that has reached beyond apex. It has managed to dodge the natural rules of nature... time will come where that will not work even if we reduce reuse recycle.
2) the population of said species is eliminating many other species in its endeavor to stop the natural laws of nature. Stripping oceans of nutrients creating dead seas. Why all to make it so we can feed an overpopulated species. that species is of course homosapiens. They have managed to skip the laws of nature for to long. We are reaching a point where we can no longer ignore those rules. Even if we should reduce reuse recycle we still one into one major catastrophic problem. Ridiculous population growth. With that said unless we control and reduce population growth all tings that sustain our lives will diminish to a point of starvation.
Our societies, governments and cultures need to really think of this question when we think of controlling factors that are contributing to the loss of survivability long term. When do we stop or reduce growth. Even if we reduce emissions or consumption at some point the population will reach the boundary that we have set. Then what we starve to death. So we have to ask ourselves do we wish to watch ourselves or loved one starve to death or make the right decision as a species that is beyond apex to stop and control our own population.
Until we address this issue I am going to eat my steaks drive my gas guzzling truck and let cows fart when they want to. For the generations that come with and follow mine good luck life may get interesting soon.
I don't think it's really as drastic action as you portray sisko. Just imagine what the world would look like if renewables got the same subsidies that the fossil fuel industry does today. Not only would we calm any fears of climate change (valid or not) and mitigate tons and tons of pollution, we'd also be stabilizing our economy and avoiding a peak oil crisis. As far as I'm concerned, it's a win win situation. However, the risks associated with no action are far too dire to even consider it an option.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, as xlander mentions, if we could only get our population under control...
@gervster-- I completely agree that human population control should be environmentalist #1 issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding United States energy production and a potential carbon tax- If there was a comprehensive program/bill that lead to the US being energy independent within a fixed timeframe, it would be one thing, but that is not the case. Many people are against virtually all forms of enery production as all forms do some harm. Unfortunately humans do want/need more energy produced.
Agreed, I don't think a national carbon tax is completely necessary. However, if it were only applied across the utilities I think it would be a pretty clean cut way to transition to renewables. Of course, this opens up a whole other can of beans.. can renewables truly provide 100% of the nations energy demand with an ever increasing population? Perhaps we'll be lucky enough to find out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was hoping the current government would invest heavily in energy production and would lead in the elimination of the red tape associated with the construction of these facilities. That would have helped our long term economic situation. Unfortunately, the administration did not want to implement somthing not fully supported by their poltical base (say building a couple of hundred nuclear power plants) and spent their political capital on other issues and failed on the economy and energy policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt wasn't exactly their own political base that had issues with the bill. It would've only taken a handful of republicans to pass a serious energy policy. But what can you do when all they're saying is "Drill, baby drill".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@gervester-- I disagree with most of your last assessment. Yes, the party out of power does seem to stupidly tend to be against almost anything the party in power wants. That said, the current administration really did not have any inititive to drastically speed the construction of new US energy production. They could have, but did not advocate the construction of "X" number of new facilities by the end of their 1st term. It has been widely stated that the reason this was not done is that so many within the democratic base are against nuclear power production and the other alternatives are currently so much less efficient
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess we'll agree to disagree, then. Because it seems as though the democrats are still heavily pushing for the RES to go through. Granted, the standard would not directly create facilities, but it would force utilities to back renewables thereby creating thousands of clean energy jobs. Only one republican supports this standard. Moreover, other alternatives are currently cost-competitive with nuclear (see source below), and will likely become much cheaper and efficient over the years (PETE anyone?). And just think what the alternatives could do given the same subsideis as the FF industry.. Anyways, it seems we've gotten off topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar is cheaper than nuclear
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
Fossil fuel subsidies
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html
PETE (Solar breakthrough, just for fun)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-energy-breakthrough-power-fro-2010-08
@gervester- thank for the links. I did check them out. Please consider
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The link you provided compared the cost of a solar facility to a nuclear facility and showed that solar was less expensive. This is true solely due to the delays and current administrative costs associated with building a nuclear facility. If policy was changed and there was a governmental approval for a "standard" plant, then nuclear plants costs would be reduced by over 60%
2. The energy bill currently being proposed is very poor. Any bill needs to immediately lead to construction of new facilities. This would employ the same types of people as does defense work (similar multiplier effect) but with the benefit of having built US infrastructure that would benefit society for decades. It is the only type of deficit spending that makes sense today.
Personally, I am not 100% certain that nuclear facilities are the best that we should be standardizing and building, but it does seem that way based upon what I have read. What I am 100% certain of, is that we need new electricity production and distribution facilities built as soon as possible, and the current regulatory process is counterproductive to achieving that goal. The current situation is not good for the environment and is terrible for the economy.
@gervester btw-- the last link which tries to show that the fossil fuel industry is more heavily subsidized than renewable is really a misleading use of statistics. The article compares the total worldwide subsidizes for fossil fuel to what is given to renewable energy production. Unfortunately, the numbers used includes the amount some governments pay to keep fuel cost low to their individual citizens as an end use product. This makes it appear that the fossil fuel industry is getting a subsidy when it really is not. Both Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (as examples) sell gas domestically below market price. The article tries to portray that the oil industry is getting something that makes their product lower cost than renewable energy production, but that is not really true based on what was presented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko, "You have no data to lead you to the conclusion that I am a part of some "denialist group" that has formed a "strategy" to "delay" any type of actions." Please show where I said you were part of an organised "denialist group". Seems your talent at misinterpretation isn't limited to scientific data. The deniers as a group or as individuals have an agenda. That is clear. They have used a number of tactics to advance that agenda. The initial tactic was to deny climate change existed. But when it became impossible to hold that proposition without being a complete idiot deniers changed their tactic to denying humanity was responsible. Again, when that became impossible to support the tactic changed to, "is climate change bad". Ultimately the deniers' agenda is to prevent change to the status quo in regards to the fossil fuel industry, the tactics are irrelevant. I never claimed that you invented the strategies or that you colluded with others to come up with the strategy. I merely stated that your propositions illustrated how the denialist strategy has changed over time, or "evolved" or don't you believe in evolution either? Regardless, the evidence that climate change is harmful has been well documented. There have been a number of articles posted here on the subject. A simple understanding of ecology would tell you as much. Furthermore, it is only necessary to demonstrate a significant risk in order to justify action. The denialist demand that proof be absolute is self serving and idiotic. The Russian Roulette analogy has been used often enough to demonstrate how stupid that position is. Ultimately it is irrelevant whether or not you, texan or any other denier accept the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW and the potential consequences. Fortunately science isn't ruled by the lowest common denominator, rather it is ruled by process. Your inability to understand that, and your willingness to make ridiculous claims about things you have clearly not taken the time to understand are a reflection on you and not the subject matter. You are an aggravating factor in one the greatest problems humanity has ever faced. Congratulations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko: Definitely. In fact, the first article also goes on to say that if we were to remove current subsidies for solar, nuclear would still be cheaper for just under a decade. Also, what is true for nuclear is also what is true for solar - standardizing. As a nation we seem to be hell bent on finding the next big breakthrough, which is all fine and dandy.. we all need R&D. But we should also consider finding a model that works, and mass market said model. Europe has had great success with this in both nuclear and solar. It seems we're behind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, although I definitely agree that the current proposal is very poor, and hardly capitalizes on our opportunity to become a world leader, I don't think it's dead yet. Several democrats (25-35 I believe) are still trying to at least get the RES in there, quoting various success stories from other states. Here's hoping.
As far as the subsidies go, I think the article still draws very good comparisons. Essentially it lumps anything that makes both products cheaper and compares the amount of real dollars spent, be it through FIT's, subsidies, tax breaks etc. Even accounting for what you previously mentioned (though I disagree), scrape 100 billion off the top (generous) and you're still looking at 8 times more funding. I think the same attention should be given to both industries, and then show how they compare. I'd also be curious to see the funding given to the nuclear market versus solar market compares. Heck, if Europe and China can do it, we certainly can too.
The following calculation shows the effect of human produced CO2 on our atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is approximately 860 GT of carbon in the atmosphere which is approximately 2.2 GT per ppm. A very conservative estimate of the total carbon cycled in and out of the atmosphere is 215 GT per year which is 25% of the carbon in the atmosphere, personally my calculations are closer to 400 GT per year. Break that down into weeks and you get 0.48 % per week of all the carbon in the atmosphere.
Now construct a simple Excel program which starts with 100 GT i.e.45.5ppm of anthropogenic carbon, deduct 0.48 % and on the next line you have the balance remaining after 1 week of the original amount i.e. 99.52 GT just repeat that calculation ( copy and paste ) and you have 78.24 GT of your original carbon left after 52 weeks.
This means 21.76 GT of the original anthropogenic carbon has been removed from the atmosphere but our output is only 9 GT per year so that does not balance.
To achieve a balance one must reduce the anthropogenic carbon to 18.8 ppm i.e. 41.36 GT. Now 21.76% of 41.36 is 9 GT per year thus the CO2 levels are not increasing because of human emissions they remain in equilibrium. Now if you assume a 400 GT carbon cycle per year the human contribution really becomes insignificant.
If you think my numbers are way out go to page 515 of IPCC AR4 fig 7.3 and check them out.
@Bam,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amount of CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium. While the yearly contribution of humanity is small the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 now stands at 40% of the content of atmospheric CO2.
This is because over time even a small added amount of CO2 builds up over years. You may be interested in learning about the Suess Effect and the Keeling Curve:
Suess Effect
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/2009/05
/suess-effect.html
Keeling Curve:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_history/keeling_curve_lessons.html
David, I think that if a universal law was passed that would prevent anyone, anywhere for any reason to make a profit form Global Warming, including scientists, most people would be behind the movement. Most are in their own way. I am. But, in truth, just exactly and with specificity can anyone or governments truly do to prevent this soon enough not to cause damage and, will anything anyone does do any good?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJules from Pulp Fiction: Say "climate change" again. SAY "CLIMATE CHANGE AGAIN". I dare you, I double dare you. Say Climate Change one more time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Poor Robert Schmidt- I should not respond since it will probably get your blood pressure up, but your posts are so laughable I just can't resist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote:
"The deniers as a group or as individuals have an agenda"- Isn't this equally true of all individuals (including you)? Any person expressing an opinion has the goal or (agenda) of explaining or defending that opinion. You seem to imply that those who do not agree with what you believe have gotten together to form a "common agenda" or conspiracy....which is silly and may indicate you have a mental health issue
"They have used a number of tactics to advance that agenda"- Don't all individuals (including you) use varying tactics to support what they believe is true unless or until their belief is found to be factually unsupportable? ok, religious nuts continue to defend their beliefs regardless of no factual support......
"Regardless, the evidence that climate change is harmful has been well documented." -- Here you are operating as an unscientific alarmist. Climate Change is not necessarily harmful, but is is certainly unavoidable. Climate Change IS inevitable. All who have studied the earth's history understand that the climate changes over time. The concern over AGW involves the rate of that change and the belief that humans are causing the climate to change faster and differently than if we had not changed the environment, and that those changes are bad for humanity. In spite of your hysteria, there is no model available today that that reliably shows what the earth will be like if it is several degrees warmer in say 200 years. Yes, some areas would be worse off, but others would be better off. The issue should be "is the overall change to the earth's environment negative for humanity as a whole, and is the degree of that negative impact worthy of the expense required to change that outcome". For instance if 1 million people are worse off and 500,000 are better off, and it would cost $1 trillion to prevent the change; it might not be worth the cost to avoid the change
"Furthermore, it is only necessary to demonstrate a significant risk in order to justify action. The denialist demand that proof be absolute is self serving and idiotic." LOL-- no see above, and really....think about seeing a mental health professional
"Fortunately science isn't ruled by the lowest common denominator, rather it is ruled by process." -- But Robert- the scientific process is to understand the most probably outcome or result before coming to the conclusion to implement something that would cause (economic) harm. There are no reliable models today that accurately predict the effects of a warmer climate worldwide.
@Sisko, "You seem to imply that those who do not agree with what you believe have gotten together to form a "common agenda" or conspiracy" You think that because you are irrational, attaching convenient interpretations to whatever your opponent says. The truth is, people who work for the fossil fuel industry or who are heavily invested in it have a common agenda to maintain their income. Is that yet another concept that is too difficult for you to understand? It doesn't mean they get together to discuss how they are going to undermine science but it does mean they will latch on to strategies that advance their agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Don't all individuals (including you) use varying tactics to support what they believe is true unless or until their belief is found to be factually unsupportable?" to a degree. Those who believe in science and who are rational will use those intellectual tools to first determine what is more likely to be true. They then follow the evidence to a conclusion. The conclusion may or may not agree with their initial hypothesis. People such as yourself start with the answer they want, then find the evidence that confirms it, disregard the evidence that denies it, lie and deceive when all else fails. That's the difference, not the answers but how we get there, and like I said, people of low moral character or diminished intellectual capacity use your way of getting to wherever they want to be.
"All who have studied the earth's history understand that the climate changes over time" yes and the mass extinctions the earth has experienced have happened during those changes.
"The issue should be 'is the overall change to the earth's environment negative for humanity as a whole'", asked and answered. There is considerable science that shows how ecosystems will be affected by climate change. Once again your deliberate ignorance of the subject doesn't change the facts, it just reveals your agenda.
"There are no reliable models today that accurately predict the effects of a warmer climate worldwide." There are no accurate models today that can accurately predict if a bullet is ready to fire in a revolver which had its chamber spun. So before asking the world to play Russian roulette why don't you show us by example how it's done?
What this comes down to is that you are ignorant of the facts yet think you know more about the subject than those who actually study it. Ignorance and arrogance is a bad combination. But I guess that's who you are.
To quote the "Princess Bride," "I do not think it means what you think it means."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is simple: we all need energy. If by switching to alternative energy sources the alarmists get to feel good about mother nature and the deniers get enjoy a strong economy so be it. But in the end we all want the same thing, and whatever motivates us to get there doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo quit beating the dead horse. If the effects of a peak oil crisis aren't enough to make humanity reconsider its way of life, I'm pretty sure we're all doomed anyways.
@Robert ok I acknowledge that I am picking on the poor guy now
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally, large doses of medication should be in your future. (or perhaps your comments are written after you have self medicated)
You wrote: You think that because you are irrational, attaching convenient interpretations to whatever your opponent says.
My response- I can't understand your incomplete thought.
You wrote: The truth is, people who work for the fossil fuel industry or who are heavily invested in it have a common agenda to maintain their income.
My response- I agree that is logical, but there is no evidence that most people (or any of them) who are commenting here and do not agree with your thoughts have any financial interest in the fossil fuel industry. Personally, I do not, but I would sure accept their (or anyone else's) money if they want to offer it....LOL
Your wrote: People such as yourself start with the answer they want, then find the evidence that confirms it, disregard the evidence that denies it, lie and deceive when all else fails.
My response: Wow, what a prejudiced statement you made. I certainly have not lied in any way. I am reasonably knowledgeable of the data and do not agree with your conclusions for the need for immediate action.
Robert- in order for you to justify action, don't you agree that you 1st need to do what I outlined previously? You position is that we should take drastic action now, but there is no evidence that a warmer world is worse for humanity overall. There are several models that were developed to try to show a dramatic case for a dire future, but all have been shown to be inaccurate so far.
BTW- it would be quite simple to develop a model to show what happens if/when a bullet is fired from a revolver. There are not many variables. Climate, on the other hand has many, many variables and is very difficult to model. It will get accomplished, but with difficulty.
Robert, practically speaking, how do you believe electricity should be produced?
I accept global warming is true. I can also go one step farther and say most likely man's activities are causing global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what?
I ask the above not to provoke attacks but as a thoughtful question. If the world's temperature increases there will be winners and losers. If you live on an island 3 feet above sea level and the glacials all melt, well that is most likely bad. If you life in northern Canada and an artic sea passage finally becomes a reality because the sea ice completely melts each summer, well then you might be a winner with increased job opportunities.
Who is to say a warmer world than we have experienced in the last 5,000 years is better or worse. I live in Michigan and would argue that the climate from 12,000 years ago when there was massive global cooling was much worse, because my home, if it had been here at the time, would've been under 1,000 feet of ice.
He is not losing any credibility, he does not need to describe anything there is enough evidence already, he just needs to make people be aware. He would if he was in an argument but hes not, hes making a statement. When you post stubborn things like that that go against the quality scientific data it undermines your credibility. He does know that for sure and he can substantiate along with most of us informed people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAndy in Michigan says: So what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not know Andy but mass starvation, depopulating whole areas of the planet and increasing the general misery of the poor might be considered items of concern for those of us who call ourselves human being.
"If you life in northern Canada and an artic sea passage finally becomes a reality because the sea ice completely melts each summer, well then you might be a winner with increased job opportunities."
You think that making coastal regions and entire island nations uninhabitable is a good trade off for the potential of jobs in Arctic Canada is a good trade off? Tell me, you are joking.
"Who is to say a warmer world than we have experienced in the last 5,000 years is better or worse. "
The experts who study it say so. I would consider that losing coastal cities and the water for agriculture that so many areas of the world get from glaciers a problem. But I am guessing that you and your Godlike perspective are not really concerned with increasing human suffering. What am I saying? It is not a guess you are demonstrating that callousness.
"I live in Michigan and would argue that the climate from 12,000 years ago when there was massive global cooling was much worse, because my home, if it had been here at the time, would've been under 1,000 feet of ice."
So what? We are not faced with the imminent advance of glaciers in Michigan. This is like saying that since people have frozen to death in the past we should have no concern for the guy on fire now. Complete and utter nonsense.
CO2 theory for global warming has been sinking faster than BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig did over 100 days ago. That may be why Al Gore and David Suzuki have clamped up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a heavy gas when cooled (MW 44), CO2 spent its entire life 50 Km underground busy making diamonds. If the lawn can't hold the rain, how can it stop gases ? Atmospheric CO2 never exceeds 300 ppm because it is simply not there. How can a subterranian CO2 trap solar heat ? Would be real magic.
Global warming is real alright, but CO2 is the biggest red herring ever foisted on the gullible. Besides, low temperature heat below 200 C cannot radiate to save its life. CO2 or any such heat barrier is sheer fantasy and scientificalkly baseless.
I just submitted an article (global warming 101) to Toronto Examiner.com. Have a read and share your views. Regards.
CO2 theory for global warming has been sinking faster than BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig did over 100 days ago. That may be why Al Gore and David Suzuki have clamped up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a heavy gas when cooled (MW 44), CO2 spent its entire life 50 Km underground busy making diamonds. If the lawn can't hold the rain, how can it stop gases ? Atmospheric CO2 never exceeds 300 ppm because it is simply not there. How can a subterranian CO2 trap solar heat ? Would be real magic.
Global warming is real alright, but CO2 is the biggest red herring ever foisted on the gullible. Besides, low temperature heat below 200 C cannot radiate to save its life. CO2 or any such heat barrier is sheer fantasy and scientificalkly baseless.
I just submitted an article (global warming 101) to Toronto Examiner.com. Have a read and share your views. Regards.
Nismail, last time I checked atmospheric CO2 is at about 380-390 something ppm and quickly rising. Moreover, your assumption is very flawed as it can take several years (experts often tag it at 100 years) before atmospheric is "absorbed" into one of the many CO2 sinks we have on earth. From the time it is emitted to the time it is sunk, CO2 has been shown to absorb heat - plain and simple. Also, I'm not too sure you understand exactly how the greenhouse effect works - but that's for another day I'm sure. Links below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html (see below for accepted lifetime of CO2)
@nismail- gervster is correct- atmospheric CO2 levels are currently abound 386 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa and they have been on a steady trend upward. Over 98% of atmospheric CO2 is caused naturally, but it is assumed by many that the "variable" in CO2 levels is that humans have increased releases. This seems entirely logical, unless a natual source can be found where it's output level has also changed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere has actually been recent studies that have shown that CO2 levels being released from the soil have increased, by it is not known why this has happened with any certainity.
And for those that want to site the Suess Effect....please try to understand what you are talking about before you do. C14 can not be used as a measure, and I challenge anyone here to explain the calcualtions and the margin of error examining the relationship between C12/C13 and atmospheric CO2 overall. It is an indicator, and not a smoking gun.
@Sisko, "ok I acknowledge that I am picking on the poor guy now", go ahead, with every post, you make a bigger fool of yourself. Trying to deflect onto me is just another tactic, one that reveals how devoid of substance your arguments are...LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I can't understand your incomplete thought.", my thought wasn't incomplete, your reading comprehension is...LOL
"I certainly have not lied in any way." Yes you have. Your comment, "but there is no evidence that a warmer world is worse for humanity overall" is a lie. Whether or not you agree with the science is irrelevant. There is substantial evidence that indicates that rising sea levels will displace hundreds of millions of people, changes in resource distribution will result in an increase in regional conflicts, desertification will destroy arable land, and ecosystems will collapse taking with them many important food sources. The effects are already beginning to be felt with the vast majority of events having a negative impact on humanity. What is your evidence it won't harm us? You seem to be under the delusion that you don't need to support your assertions with facts...LOL
"I am reasonably knowledgeable of the data." if you do say so yourself. That fact that you are completely unaware of a large volume of work that has been done on the very subject on which you have determined you are uniquely qualified to pass judgement, indicates you have no clue what you are talking about...LOL
"it would be quite simple to develop a model to show what happens if/when a bullet is fired from a revolver", that wasn't the problem to solve, the problem was predicting if a bullet is ready to fire. Just as with predicting future climate. We don't know with absolute certainty when the worst effects of climate change will hit us. We do know that if we keep going the way we have been the effects will be compounded. Whether it will be us or our children or our grandchildren that get worst of it, we are uncertain, but it is coming, and we can do something to mitigate the effects. But I guess if you stick your head in the sand it will all go away...LOL
Did adding LOL to my comments make them more valid? Just curious because you seem to think it works for you...LOL
Actually I'd be interested to hear what those more knowledgeable in the subject have to say about the Suess effect. As a student studying clean energy engineering, I don't tend to delve to deep into climatology. Heck, maybe there's even a few climate scientists in the crowd that would care to shed some light. Maybe some quality discussion topics will get rid of all the LOL'ing going on here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"nismail- gervster is correct- atmospheric CO2 levels are currently abound 386 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa and they have been on a steady trend upward. Over 98% of atmospheric CO2 is caused naturally, but it is assumed by many that the "variable" in CO2 levels is that humans have increased releases."
It is not an assumption but an observation. Just where exactly do you think that the billions of tons of CO2 humans have released over the centuries is going? You seem to think that it just disappears into the ether or something.
"C14 can not be used as a measure, C14 can not be used as a measure,..."
Says you. I am sorry but you do not get to declare such statements with out a logical argument that is substantiated by a large body of empirical evidence.
Can I meet this criteria? Why yes I can:
Papers on Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Observations
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/papers-on-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-observations/
Now what you need to do is find a similar BODY of work that ADDRESSES these papers findings and has been published in peer reviewed journals.
Now can you explain using this criteria the the declining C14 and C13 ratios?
Can you explain the depleted oxygen in the atmosphere that matches the amount of carbon burned by humanity?
Can you explain why the Keeling Curve keeps on climbing without resorting to human activity? As has already been noted we are at 389 ppm. What empirically based peer reviewed explanation do you offer as an alternative explanation?
Where exactly do you thinks Anthropogenic emissions are going? What reservoir or resovoris is taking up 100% of the excess anthropogenic CO2.
What is the source of the excess C12?
I want a empirically based peer reviewed body of work.
ust waving your hands and declaring it aint so will not cut the cheese.
@Robert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote: Your comment, "but there is no evidence that a warmer world is worse for humanity overall" is a lie.
My response- My statement is certainly not a lie as I believe it to be true. If it is inaccurate, then I will acknowledge that... if information is provided to demonstrate that fact. Please provide a link to any study that can be shown to be reliable showing that a warmer world is worse for humanity overall. Please do not show studies of potential harm to individual areas or models that have been demonstrated to be inaccurate. Models that you discuss that point to potential change to individual areas are sensational, but do not evaluate the impact to the overall planet. My understanding is that no models have yet been shown sufficiently accurate to even reasonably accurately predict the conditions of a warmer planet.
You wrote: There is substantial evidence that indicates that rising sea levels will displace hundreds of millions of people.
My response: Over what timeframe do you (or does your evidence) expect sea levels to rise that would effect "hundreds of millions of people? Do you agree that current ocean levels are near to their historically low levels when looked at over a 500 M year basis??? Given that as a FACT, are not ocean levels likely to rise regardless of human actions? A human caused warmer planet may well cause ocean levels to rise, but it certainly is not going to happen so quickly that people can not adjust to the change.
You wrote: desertification will destroy arable land, and ecosystems will collapse taking with them many important food sources.
My response: Isn't it also true that other lands will become more productive and other eco systems more productive? The climate will change, but change is not all bad or good. It is the OVERALL impact that is of concern.
Your wrote: the problem was predicting if a bullet is ready to fire.
My response: That would also be easy to model. In fact that type of modelling is done as a part of weapons design. Climate modelling is FAR more complex.
Overall, human population levels are of greater concern to the environment than are CO2 levels.
Suess Effect
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the key points of global warming is the idea that humans are increasing the amount of earth's atmospheric CO2. This theory is centered around what is called the "Suess effect". This compares the ratios of carbon 12, carbon 13, and carbon 14 to the overall levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon 14 decays rapidly and does not exist in the carbon in fossil fuels because it decays so rapidly. The ratio of carbon 12, 13 and 14 had been found to be largely stable for over a thousand years up until the 1800's. The percentage of carbon 14 in atmospheric CO2 has been shown to have decreased between the 1800's up until the 1930's. This decreased percentage of carbon 14 has been theorized to be due to more CO2 being released into the atmosphere by humans. Human released CO2 via fossil fuels does not have carbon 14.
Prior to 1940, it is believed by many scientists that carbon 14 on earth was produced predominately by the interaction of cosmic radiation with the upper atmosphere. Beginning in the 1940's the ratio's of these three isotopes changed dramatically due to human actions (hugely due to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, but also other causes). Since the 1940's there is no stability in the ratio of the three isotopes. Since the early 1940's we can not use the ratio of these 3 isotopes to estimate the contribution of human released CO2 to total atmospheric CO2.
Because we can not look at the ratio of C14 to total atmospheric CO2 levels to determine human contribution to CO2 growth scientists began to evalute the ratios of C12 and C13 to total CO2. This was much less reliable and was determined based on calculations of the preformed 13 C/ 12 C of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) distributions on isopycnal surfaces in the main thermocline of the Pacific
Although there is a correlation between CO2 levels and the earth's temperature, it has certainly not correlated to that high of a degree.
"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."
nismail says, "Atmospheric CO2 never exceeds 300 ppm because it is simply not there."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*********************
Hmmmm.......seems indisputable by scientists that atmospheric CO2 is well over 300 ppm, and has been for decades, since it is currently at 391 ppm and rising steadily.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics, and even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859.
While 95% of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35% since 1832.
Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas, but water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect. Since water vapor enters and leaves the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2, and tends to preserve a fairly constant level of relative humidity, climatologists categorize H2O as a feedback, whereas CO2 is the main driver or forcing factor.
Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem.
@Sisko, "My statement is certainly not a lie as I believe it to be true" you have no reason to believe it to be true as you clearly have not taken the time to research it. The fact that you have chosen to lie to yourself first, does not make it any less of a lie. If I claim that cigarettes cure cancer I cannot defend that statement by saying, I believe it to be true because I have not taken the time to find out if it is false, despite the fact that the medical community has clearly stated that it is false. You are playing with words to hide your inability to defend your position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A human caused warmer planet may well cause ocean levels to rise, but it certainly is not going to happen so quickly that people can not adjust to the change." yet another lie. Current trends indicate sea levels could rise by a metre by the end of the century.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070129/full/news070129-13.html
So where do you suggest we move NY? How about the 17 million people of Bangladesh?
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/potential-impact-of-sea-level-rise-on-bangladesh
People can move, buildings & infrastructure cannot. Money spent on relocating populations could have been spent on more worthwhile things such as medical research.
"Given that as a FACT, are not ocean levels likely to rise regardless of human actions?" that is an amazingly idiotic thing to say, even for you. The fact that things change naturally does not mean it is ok for us to change them at will. That is called the naturalist fallacy, one of the many you have mastered. You are talking about 500 my! The issue is not so much change but the rate of change. It is the extreme rate of change we are inducing that is unsustainable.
"Isn't it also true that other lands will become more productive and other eco systems more productive?" some yes, but there is nothing to indicate there will be enough land made available to offset what is lost. Moving farms around is not free either. Another unnecessary expense to maintain the status quo, not improve it.
I am wasting my time discussing climate science with someone who doesn't even understand the concept of Russian Roulette. You have done nothing to justify your position. Instead, you have repeatedly lied and misrepresented the science. Your ignorance of the subject and your inability to form a rational argument also make it abundantly clear that you have no interest in the facts. I personally don't care what you think. I just want others to see what people like you represent.
@Robert- You are so sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou site a 2007 article about rising sea levels and comment about the devastation. Sorry fool, but the study you site was old, and was updated by another 2009 study that was completely debunked and withdrawn by the author.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
The data you base your conclusions upon is wrong (now proven). In any case, I also believe that humanity can easily adjust to a 1 meter change in sea level, if that change occurs over 100 years.
@ robert: "Your ignorance of the subject and your inability to form a rational argument also make it abundantly clear that you have no interest in the facts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*******************
Don't forget, this is the same person that thinks that defense contractors that are never on time with anything, and always over budget by billions on every project, will deliver nuclear reactors cheaper and faster than anyone will believe in the future! Sorry, but I just don't believe that political rhetoric!
@Sisko, From Skeptical Science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA new skeptic argument has emerged that upon close inspection, is a polar opposite to the scientific reality. This week, scientists who published a 2009 paper on sea level rise retracted their prediction due to errors in their methodology. This has led some to claim sea levels are no longer predicted to rise. This interpretation was helped no doubt by the unfortunate Guardian headline "Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels". However, when you read the article and peruse the peer-reviewed science on future sea level, you learn that the opposite is the case.
The IPCC 4th Assessment Report predicted sea level will rise between 18 to 59 cm by the year 2100. Many consider this a conservative estimate as observed sea level rise is tracking at the top range of IPCC estimates (Rahmstorf 2007, Allison 2009). However, a study led by Mark Siddall examined how sea levels have changed over the past 22,000 years in response to temperature change (Siddall 2009). This enabled them to predict how sea level would respond to future warming, estimating sea level rise between 7 to 82 cm by the year 2100. Siddall's paper concluded that this increased confidence in the IPCC projections.
However, a later study using similar methods to Siddall 2009 came to dramatically different results, estimating sea level rise of 75 to 190 cm by 2100 (Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009). Why the discrepancy? Judging by the acknowledgement in Siddall's retraction, one speculates that Vermeer and Rahmstorf discovered flaws in Siddall's methodology and notified the authors. Siddall saw that the errors undermined their results and retracted their paper. So we have two papers using similar methods - one predicting low sea level rise, the other predicting high sea level rise. The low sea level rise is found to be in error. While some are spinning this result to imply no sea level rise, in actuality it increases our confidence in high sea level rise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Misinterpreting-retraction-of-rising-sea-level-predictions.html
I provided a link to the Rahmstorf paper which was not retracted. You linked to the guardian article on the Siddall paper. I guess your inability to think is compounded by your inability to read.
"In any case, I also believe that humanity can easily adjust to a 1 meter change in sea level", the opinion of a proven liar and all around idiot is worthless.
@lakota2012, agreed. When given the wrong data it is possible for even the best computer to be wrong. But when there is a defect in the program or hardware, then all the results the computer spews out tend to be wrong. Sisko is one broken computer..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko why is it you can even met the most basic of requests? You were asked the following:
Now can you explain using this criteria the the declining C14 and C13 ratios?
Can you explain the depleted oxygen in the atmosphere that matches the amount of carbon burned by humanity?
Can you explain why the Keeling Curve keeps on climbing without resorting to human activity? As has already been noted we are at 389 ppm. What empirically based peer reviewed explanation do you offer as an alternative explanation?
Where exactly do you thinks Anthropogenic emissions are going? What reservoir or resovoris is taking up 100% of the excess anthropogenic CO2.
What is the source of the excess C12?
I want a empirically based peer reviewed body of work.
just waving your hands and declaring "it aint so" will not cut the cheese.
You failed every request. You have simply chosen to make unsubstantiate assertions. Why is it chose you to write in a verbose manner instead of dealing in facts? Much of what you write is simply false, e.g
You wrote:
"The percentage of carbon 14 in atmospheric CO2 has been shown to have decreased between the 1800's up until the 1930's. Since the early 1940's we can not use the ratio of these 3 isotopes to estimate the contribution of human released CO2 to total atmospheric CO2. "
The above is blatantly false. I linked to you a whole body of work that show a continuing decline of C14/C13 isotopes. Why do you feel you can ignore this body of work? John Adams once said " facts are stubborn things" perhaps you should pay attention to that bit of wisdom.
"This was much less reliable and was determined based on calculations of the preformed 13 C/ 12 C of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) distributions on isopycnal surfaces in the main thermocline of the Pacific "
Once again false. Why is it that you fail to address that body of work I linked too? Do you think that some anonymous commentator on a web site is going to hold more weight than several decades of peer reviewed findings?
"Although there is a correlation between CO2 levels and the earth's temperature, it has certainly not correlated to that high of a degree."
Once again a demonstration of ignorance. Perhps you take a look at last years American Geophysical Union Honors lecture and tell us all what you object to in that lecture. Please Google the following:
"The Greatest Contrlol Knob"
I would like to hear from you a detailed critique of this lecture and the works that he cites
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko why is it you can even met the most basic of requests? You were asked the following:
Now can you explain using this criteria the the declining C14 and C13 ratios?
Can you explain the depleted oxygen in the atmosphere that matches the amount of carbon burned by humanity?
Can you explain why the Keeling Curve keeps on climbing without resorting to human activity? As has already been noted we are at 389 ppm. What empirically based peer reviewed explanation do you offer as an alternative explanation?
Where exactly do you thinks Anthropogenic emissions are going? What reservoir or resovoris is taking up 100% of the excess anthropogenic CO2.
What is the source of the excess C12?
I want a empirically based peer reviewed body of work.
just waving your hands and declaring "it aint so" will not cut the cheese.
You failed every request. You have simply chosen to make unsubstantiate assertions. Why is it chose you to write in a verbose manner instead of dealing in facts? Much of what you write is simply false, e.g
You wrote:
"The percentage of carbon 14 in atmospheric CO2 has been shown to have decreased between the 1800's up until the 1930's. Since the early 1940's we can not use the ratio of these 3 isotopes to estimate the contribution of human released CO2 to total atmospheric CO2. "
The above is blatantly false. I linked to you a whole body of work that show a continuing decline of C14/C13 isotopes. Why do you feel you can ignore this body of work? John Adams once said " facts are stubborn things" perhaps you should pay attention to that bit of wisdom.
"This was much less reliable and was determined based on calculations of the preformed 13 C/ 12 C of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) distributions on isopycnal surfaces in the main thermocline of the Pacific "
Once again false. Why is it that you fail to address that body of work I linked too? Do you think that some anonymous commentator on a web site is going to hold more weight than several decades of peer reviewed findings?
"Although there is a correlation between CO2 levels and the earth's temperature, it has certainly not correlated to that high of a degree."
Once again a demonstration of ignorance. Perhps you take a look at last years American Geophysical Union Honors lecture and tell us all what you object to in that lecture. Please Google the following:
"The Greatest Contrlol Knob"
I would like to hear from you a detailed critique of this lecture and the works that he cites
A new report from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lists 10 indicators that global warming is happening: rising humidity; rising sea-surface temperature as well as heat stored in deeper waters; shrinking sea ice, glacier and springtime snow cover; rising temperatures over land and sea; and rising sea levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll point to a rapidly warming world. And all are based on actual observations, from satellites high in the sky to meteorological stations in the middle of a Kansas cornfield.
You can debate how bad global warming will be or what to do about it, but it's hard to deny it's happening anymore. The physics of greenhouse gases trapping heat are clear.
***********************
What's actually quite hilarious, is that the denialists are still predicting global cooling while still trying to debate the physics of greenhouse gases trapping heat in our atmosphere.
Or yet others, still trying to spin the outcome of global warming as being beneficial to our planet.
@trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read more about the Suess effect on your own and you will understand the measurements and you will see that my summary is correct. Here is a link to a very simple primer that is independent since you doubt me.
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/2009/05/suess-effect.html
I have not indicated that I do not believe the earth is warming, it is warming. I am doubting that it is the degree of problem that many here believe BECAUSE there is no reliable data yet to support those dire predictions.
I absolutely believe that humans are adding carbon into the atmosphere and that carbon in the atmosphere is contributing to a warmer earth. I also believe it is difficult to determine how much the human added carbon is contributing to the total carbon increase because what humans add; makes up a small percentage of total carbon released; and we know that the other sources of carbon being released also change over time. Current propositions of a "carbon tax" do not address the problem rationally in that it would cost a lot and do little to correct any problem.
Sisko why is it you can even met the most basic of requests? You were asked the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow can you explain using this criteria the the declining C14 and C13 ratios?
Can you explain the depleted oxygen in the atmosphere that matches the amount of carbon burned by humanity?
Can you explain why the Keeling Curve keeps on climbing without resorting to human activity? As has already been noted we are at 389 ppm. What empirically based peer reviewed explanation do you offer as an alternative explanation?
Where exactly do you thinks Anthropogenic emissions are going? What reservoir or resovoris is taking up 100% of the excess anthropogenic CO2.
What is the source of the excess C12?
I want a empirically based peer reviewed body of work.
just waving your hands and declaring "it aint so" will not cut the cheese.
You failed every request. You have simply chosen to make unsubstantiate assertions. Why is it chose you to write in a verbose manner instead of dealing in facts? Much of what you write is simply false,
@trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote:
Sisko why is it you can even met the most basic of requests? You were asked the following:
Now can you explain using this criteria the the declining C14 and C13 ratios?
I respond- Your basic understanding of the measurement called the Suess Effect is incorrect and thereby all your questions relating to it are deeply flawed. I previously posted a simple link that confirms that nuclear testing, as well as other factors disturbed the natural ratio of C14, but you will need to do quite a bit of reading to understand how measurements of the relationship of C12 and C13 to total atmospheric CO2 is being used today to estimate the contribution of humans. It is quite interesting and complex, and if you do the reading you will find that I am correct.
Can you explain the depleted oxygen in the atmosphere that matches the amount of carbon burned by humanity?
My response- No, I can not but I would be interested in reading the calculation you write about. A relationship between two numbers certainly does not necessarily mean that there is "cause and effect". More humans are also breathing more oxygen for example, was that in the calculations?
@Sisko, "More humans are also breathing more oxygen for example, was that in the calculations?" 'cause the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is based on how many humans are breathing it!!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are we even talking to this idiot? He's a liar. He posts crap from deniers' blogs that he hasn't even read beyond the headline. He assumes that because he doesn't understand something it means no one understands it. The only justification he has for his arguments is that he doesn't know enough about the subject to understand that he is wrong. He is a perfect illustration of the word troll and Trolls are the cancer of the internet. We shouldn't be giving him more facts to ignore, we should be giving him chemo.
@robertschmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe link you posted is now shown to be incorrect in the degree of sea level rise as I stated. Your link was wrong and I was correct. You are a fool who equates a rise in sea level of 1 meter over 100 years as killing hundreds of millions. That is beyond fooling it is simply stupid. people would adjust.
The larger problem is the number of people.
And does the fool Robert have any productive ideas about how to generate electricity>
Robert Schmidt- Your lack of understanding is amazing. How you throw around the word lie is a simple example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLIE- The definition-- a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
So when a person posts something here (for instance Trend1492's belief about he Suess effect) they may be incorrect, but it is not a lie, because there was no evidence of intent.
You seem to read about issues superficially and are not open to discuss points outside of your limited frame of knowledge. I have brought up factual points, accurately. There is no point in responding to your comments since they show absolutely minimal depth of knowledge or thought. I am done with you.
@Sisko, "The link you posted is now shown to be incorrect in the degree of sea level rise as I stated." NO! I have answered this already. Read the article! I posted a link to the Rahmstorf paper which was NOT retracted. Your link referenced the Siddall paper which was retracted and which claimed less of a rise in sea levels than the Rahmstorf paper. This proves my point again, that you are only copy-and-pasting headlines and understand none of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The larger problem is the number of people.", yes that is a contributing factor to our environmental problems but it isn't because we are breathing too much oxygen. Although, to be on the safe side please do your part and stop breathing so much.
"And does the fool Robert have any productive ideas about how to generate electricity" that is irrelevant to this discussion! Whether or not there is a solution to the problem does not determine whether or not there is a problem. Again you demonstrate an inability to form a rational argument. The fact that you call me a fool is a sad joke. I have substantiated my claims and you have done nothing of the kind. A fool is someone who goes on making a mockery of himself even while everyone is laughing at him.
@Sisko, "LIE- The definition-- a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth" making a statement that there is NO evidence that contradicts your assertions, then defending that statement by claiming you don't know enough about the subject to know if you are wrong, can be nothing more than a deliberate intention to deceive. You had no reason to believe you were correct because you had done nothing to try and prove it and you had every reason to believe you were wrong, yet you made the self serving comment anyway. You intentionally, disregard any evidence you don't like and intentionally fabricate erroneous conclusions to things you have intentionally chosen not to understand. I stand by accusation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelax. There's no substance to this discussion anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting that those who believe that AGW is truly an impending disaster often offer little discussion about practical solutions. While I personally doubt that it is the degree of problem to the United States that many here do, I think we could/should agree on potential future actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would guess that most all here would agree that the USA will require far more electricity production in the future. I would also guess that all would agree that the current administrative approval process for building new facilities is excessively long and expensive. I would recommend the immediate standardization and construction of new power generation and distribution facilities. Having a goal to design and build new facilities within the next 3-4 years would be a boon to the US economy and better for the environment.
My questions to the readers here is: What form of electricity production should be standardized? If we were to build 100 new facilities please give your thoughts regarding what percentage should produce electricity via what means...ie 50 should be 4th generation nuclear, 25 should be wind, and 25 should be hydro...(just an example). I suggest the goal should be to eliminate the need to import fuel, and to generate electricity as cleanly and economically possible.
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I reppond- Your basic understanding of the measurement called the Suess Effect is incorrect and thereby all your questions relating to it are deeply flawed."
I am sorry but simply making that declaration does not make it a fact. You have continually ducked my presentation of a large body of peer reviewed evidence and will not even go as to even acknowledge its existence pretty pitiful if you ask me.
"I previously posted a simple link that confirms that nuclear testing, as well as other factors disturbed the natural ratio of C14, but you will need to do quite a bit of reading to understand how measurements of the relationship of C12 and C13 to total atmospheric CO2 is being used today to estimate the contribution of humans. It is quite interesting and complex, and if you do the reading you will find that I am correct. "
How could you make such a declaration when you simply will not even address the body of work I presented. News Flash: Pretending a large of scientific work does not exist does not make it go away.
Here is another news flash for you. Above ground nuclear testing ADDS C14 to the atmosphere which would mean that if people did not take that it into account we would then be UNDERESTIMATING the human contribution. That you do not understand this very simple concept is astounding.
That you fail to understand that above ground nuclear testing pretty much ended by mid-1960's and that C-14 has a measurable half-life. If you understood these things then you would understand why I consider you an incompetent. That you fail to understand that it is the sun's interaction with C in the atmosphere that continually creates C-14. Yet here we are with DECLINING ratios of C-14. That you understand none of this utterly unsurprising.
That you utterly fail to understand that large body of peer reviewed empirically based work has confirmed these observation is not surprising in the least.
You have been provided with a large body of peer reviewed work that stretches back over decades and yet you fail to acknowledge it is beyond pitiful.
That you refuse to explain my questions and wave your arms around saying that testing renders these question moot is the stamp of an incompetent.
I have asked and have never received the following answers:
Can you explain why the Keeling Curve keeps on climbing without resorting to human activity? As has already been noted we are at 389 ppm. What empirically based peer reviewed explanation do you offer as an alternative explanation?
@Robert Schmidt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why are we even talking to this idiot?"
Because it is fun. Well at least for me. I get so many giggles from his squirming around. I mean come on this is a person who thinks that the ADDED C-14 from above ground nuclear testing of the 40's to mid-60 explains its DECLINING ratio in the atmosphere as has been observed in the present and the past decades. You can ask for better buffoonery. I truly am entertained by this willful ignorance.
"He's a liar"
Yes, that has been shown over and over again. So just relax and have fun with ideologue.
@trent1492- I have provided links to explain the measurements known as the Suess effect and the impact of nuclear testing. You clearly have not read about the effect in much detail. Those links confirm what I have written here. You have provided no links to demonstrate what I have posted to be incorrect, because you can not...they do not exist. Please read about the effect and you will understand better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was also correct in response to the previous posting that claimed that sea level would go 100 meters by 2099. The link posted in no way supported this alarmist claim.
Are you incapable of addressing practical solutions to the potential problem?
www.radiocarbon.eu/carbon-dating-bomb-carbon.htm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm
http://www.jstor.org/pss/77628
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/2009/05/suess-effect.html
@ternt1492 You wrote: You have continually ducked my presentation of a large body of peer reviewed evidence and will not even go as to even acknowledge its existence pretty pitiful if you ask me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy response- I have in no way "ducked your questions" or the "large body of peer reviewed evidence". Your evidence suggests that the earth is getting warmer. I have stated that I agree that the world is warming, but there is uncertainty as to the rate, the root cause(s) and the ultimate impact. I even agree that humans releasing carbon have likely contributed to the problem, but I also say that it is a complex issue and other factors are clearly also having an effect. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soils-emit-carbon-dioxide
I quote from that article- "The researchers found that soil respiration had increased by about 0.1 percent per year between 1989 and 2008, the span when soil measurement techniques had become standardized. In 2008, the global total reached roughly 98 billion tons, about 10 times more carbon than humans are now putting into the atmosphere each year."
My largest concern is that I am not at all certain that a warmer planet is necessarily worse for humanity. Today there are not any models that reliably predict what a warmer world will be like for specific areas. That is critically important to understand if a warmer planet is worse or better overall. Some people like to throw out dramatic statements that "millions will die" due to sea levels rising by 1 meter over 100 years. Those types of statements are dramatic but not at all factual. Clearly people can adjust over that type of time scale.
So again, the real issue is what should be done, and how should electricity be generated.
sisko says, "I would also guess that all would agree that the current administrative approval process for building new facilities is excessively long and expensive."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this******************
I'm not sure that is accurate at all, since the jury is still out.
Seems as if Westinghouse first submitted the AP1000 design in early 2002, which was approved and certified in 2006 -- 4 years later. One year later the company modified the shield building's design to meet aircraft-impact design standards. After long talks, the NRC said the sandwich module approach would not stand up to severe external events, so Westinghouse returned to the drawing board . In May the company submitted a more robust shield building design, and the NRC anticipates completing the overall design certification review around September 2011.
On June 18, Southern Co. accepted a $3.4-billion conditional loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy for the twin Plant Vogtle reactors and continues early site construction.
Set to go online in 2016, Westinghouse's AP1000 and other third-generation nuclear reactors are on the verge of design approval by the feds--but not quite there.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=slow-reactor-safety
**********************
Seems as if the past administration's NRC started the AP1000 certification process 8 years ago, and IF the target date of 2011 is met, it appears that approval took quite a bit longer during the previous administration than the current one.
"So why choose the AP1000 reactor when four other next-gen reactors—the economic simplified boiling water reactor, the EPR (for European pressurized reactor), the U.S. advanced pressurized water reactor, and the advanced boiling-water reactor—are going through the same design certification process?"
********
I agree, and would much rather see GenIV reactors being certified and going through the long approval process if it takes so long, instead of antiquated GenIII reactors. Let's get with the program, to add to all that wonderful renewable energy that's sprouting up all over America today!
@lakota- I am not faulting the current administration for the current regulatory process. It would however, be very beneficial to the US economy, both it the short term and long term if actual construction of new facilities could be started on a large number of new facilities within two years. It seems so obvious when something would be good for both the economy and the environment, but unfortunately it does not get done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand actually what you posted makes me even more frustrated at the way thaings are done currently. The plant is schedulled to go on line in 2016. It could be completed by 2013 if the regulatory process was more efficient. Wasn't the Empire State Building completed in under 18 months?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissisko says, "The plant is schedulled to go on line in 2016. It could be completed by 2013 if the regulatory process was more efficient."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*****************
We agree on that.......but, there's always been government red tape for everything, and then you have to take into account these plants are being built by "defense" contractors, which are notoriously slow and always over budget on everything.
Do you think that means that GenIV reactors are decades away, when those are our best hope in my opinion?
BTW, the Empire State Building was completed in 14 months by 3,400 mostly immigrant workers during the Great Depression, and didn't have to pass structural qualities to survive kamikaze aircraft or nuclear accidents. About the time construction was being completed, a joint venture named Six Companies started building the Hoover Dam, which took over 5,000 workers and about 4 years to complete.
We live in different times today, for example, One World Trade Center or Freedom Tower was begun in early 2006, and not expected to be completed until 2013, after years of design.
Sadly, I do think that if we do not change the process for building nuclear power plants, then yes 4th generation plants are decades away from being built. I also believe the defense industry is not bad, it s really how the government often awards contracts that is wasteful. (my field don't get me started)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would just like to see the government spend money on capital infrastructure improvements that will reduce our outflow of capital vs. spending on pensions, inefficient health care, and a bloated military bureaucracy
CO2 readings are meaningless unless ALL other variables are held constant and under control. It is first rule in science. Failing that, it is nothing but heated frivolous apple versus orange debates for nothing. It happens a lot, sadly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a gas in an ocean of air under constant forces of wind and many factors, any CO2 reading collected continually over a VERY long time is at best an average and transient point.
It is particularly true in temperature measurements if there is humidity fluctuations. Know the difference between relative from absolute measurements. If not, you got problem
sorry sisko, but your highly contradictory statements of believing "the defense industry is not bad," while calling it a "bloated military bureaucracy," certainly is funny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but nothing the "defense" contractors do is on time or even close to being on budget, and with the "defense" budget doubled since 2000, they have already won along with their lobbyists, and the American people are the big losers!
First nismail says, "Atmospheric CO2 never exceeds 300 ppm because it is simply not there," and then an equally absurd comment like, "CO2 readings are meaningless.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*********************
Instead of spewing more ridiculous and equally absurd statements easily proven wrong, just explain to us why because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians like you, holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming, that CO2 is not compounding the problem in your particular scenario.
Go ahead......take a stab at it, nismail, instead of more rhetoric from the Canadian conservatives.
One begins by understanding temperature and what it represents. A parked car under the hot sun is the ONLY true greenhouse effect. Heat is continually pumped into a FIXED amount of moisture trapped inside. Without ciculatory cooling possibility, temperature climbs in an attempt to find radiation as the other only alternative for relief. Open a door or window to allow air movement, temperature falls faster than a lead balloon as ciculatory cooling kicks in rapidly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCo2 is used as stage fog and heavier than air - a sinker gas that dissolves moderately into oceans that cover 72% of our Earth. Its biggest damage now with rising fossil fuel burning is making our oceans acidic destroying marine ecosystems and corals. Its impact on Earth surface is minimal as it seeps underground faster than falling rain on a lawn.
When Joseph Fourier did his crude glass cover-on-a-box experiment 186 years ago to discover "greenhouse effect", he hadn't a clue about moisture in the air. The rest is a tragic piece of scientific history with error piling on top of error for nearly 2 centuries.
Still think Sahara is the driest place on Earth ? No !
Antarctica is by a mile. The largest piece of solid ice that is surrounded by more oceans than elsewhere, but not a drop of moisture in the air. All frozen out by the extreme cold.
If Sahara were bone dry, the brightest sun would not even break a sweat. Now, go figure.
Scientific American is selling the global warming orthodoxy (i.e. the carbon tax that will loot Americans for some $20 trillion dollars) but fails to mention that NOAA just admitted that the NOAA-16 Satellite, launched in 2000, has been confirmed as returning faulty temperature data, over-stating temperature by some 10-15 degrees F. NOAA just yanked a decades worth of temperature data from their servers; data that was the prime foundation of the claim for a hot 2010. Meanwhile we had snow in Wyoming in June, Calgary and Alberta got hammered with blizzards in July, and both Los Angeles and San Diego reported record cool temperatures this summer!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI miss the good old says when Scientific American could be relied on to be scientific!
As somebody who has yet to be convinced of the problem can somone explain to me the mechanisim for the sea level rise. My education includes school physics to 18 years old so ideas of thermal expansion of water and such are OK but refering me to data sets is not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fundimental question I have are;
1 How much non-polar glacial ice is there?
2 By how much is ocean temperature expected to change this centuary?
3 Is Greenland increasing or decreasing it's total mass of non-floating ice?
michaelrivera says, "Scientific American is selling the global warming orthodoxy..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this****************
Thanks for more NOAA conspiracy theories and the usual SciAm attacks, but ONE satellite hardly makes your outrageous claims anything but fiction from the usual blogs.
Instead of trying to explain that numerous methods and datasets are being used that makes your "one satellite" claim completely ridiculous, I'll just let a lead skeptic, Dr. Roy Spencer, do the talking from his own webpage:
"I’m getting more and more questions about the daily global temperature updates we provide at the NASA Discover website. I suppose this is because 2010 is still in the running to beat 1998 as the warmest year in our satellite data record (since 1979). Most of the daily record high temperatures were set in 1998. As can be seen, 2010 has also been quite warm."
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remained high, +0.49 deg. C in July, 2010, although the tropics continued to cool as La Nina approaches.
As of Julian Day 212 (end of July), the race for warmest year in the 32-year satellite period of record is still too close to call with 1998 continuing its lead by only 0.07 C:
YEAR GL NH SH TRPCS
1998 +0.62 +0.73 +0.51 +0.90
2010 +0.55 +0.74 +0.36 +0.63
To exceed 1998 as the warmest year, the daily global average temperature for the remainder of this year (1 Aug to 31 Dec, 2010) will need to average above +0.466 deg. C.
"Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of early 2010, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and providing data since late 2002.
The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer record of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/