Global Warming proceeding faster than predicted. This is a ride nobody is going to enjoy.

[JohnWxy]

This is a ride nobody's going to enjoy. Actually the warming is accelerating so rapidly, scientists are having a very hard time getting their models updated fast enough to keep up with it.

Also, here's another interesting feature of Global Warming. Don't think Global Warming is going to continue in a nice steady rate. THe scientists know we are in for incidents of abrupt climate change, where the temps can move up significanly faster, over a very short time period. But the interesting thing is, because of the complex interactions of melting snow and ice (lowering Earth's albido), the defrosting of the permafrost (adding methane to the atmosphere) and movement of ice sheets off land (e.g. Greenland, South Pole) which will raise the levels of the world's oceans, nobody knows just when these "step-ups" are going to happen. Will the first one occur in 30 years, or 20, or perhpas in 10 years? Nobody knows. .....But they are coming.

To put it bluntly we are sliding toward the "Event Horizon" of Global Warming...the point beyond which we will not be able to slow it down, no matter how much we reduce our emissions of GHGs.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto">Global Warming proceeding fasater than predicted

~~
~~


_Temperatures over the past 12 years are 0.4 of a degree warmer than the dozen years leading up to 1997.

Even the gloomiest climate models back in the 1990s didn't forecast results quite this bad so fast.

"The latest science is telling us we are in more trouble than we thought," said Janos Pasztor, climate adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

~~
~~

Back in 1997 "nobody in their wildest expectations," would have forecast the dramatic sudden loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic that started about five years ago, Weaver said. From 1993 to 1997, sea ice would shrink on average in the summer to about 2.7 million square miles. The average for the last five years is less than 2 million square miles. What's been lost is the size of Alaska.

(more)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


James Hansen has said President Obama may have four years to "save the world". Other climate scientiest have said we have about 10 years to start achieving some appreciable reductions to our GHG emissions - they said that about 5 years ago.


We do not have 20 years to wait for electric cars to be on the road in large enouogh numbers to achieve significant reductions to our CO2 emissions.

Approaches that can produce reductions in the near term:

1__ Conservation efforts.

2__ Efficiency improvements in appliances, and residential and commercial buildings. (retrofits for current structures can yield good results .. e.g. improvements in insulation, increased shade trees reduces demand for power for A/C, reduces wind impact on houses, results in Carbon sequestration.

3__ Incentivize mass transit use.

4__ Quickly and dramatically increase ethanol use. Import more from Brazil and combine with domestic production to achieve 20% displacement of gasoline in perhaps 7 years. Support investment in Combined Heat and Power for ethanol production facilities (increases GHG reduction of ethanol over gasoline from current 51% to approx 78%). This could be achieved in 5 years (with a real commitment). That would be like increasing domestic production of ethanol 50% without growing one additional bushel of corn to make ethanol. This would also require quickly and dramatically increasing the number of E85 pumps available.

Along with this effort, Auto makers should make Flex-fuel cars with turbo-charging and to optimize for E85's much higher octane than gasoline. the result would be smaller engines producing the same amount of power resulting in comparable mileage to gasoline powered cars with comparable engine power.

In Case 3, CHP reduces total net fuel consumption by 55 percent; CO2 emission reductions from displacing central station power, exceed the CO2 emissions at the plant itself, resulting in NEGATIVE net CO2 emissions for the CHP system ...compared with base case conditions. (see Table 6. CHP Total Energy Consumption Comparison—Natural Gas


Witbout reductions of CO2 emissions starting in the next few years, the 20% to 36% GHG reductions potentially achieveable with Plugin Hybrids and electrics (depending on how many are actually sold) will not matter. If we do not get more reductions much sooner than 20 years from now, the Warming of the Earth will be proceeding so rapidly in 20 years that it will be beyond our ability to bring under control.

[amborin]

1. scary! and worse, due to deniers, recently empowered by the cherry-picking hackers

[amborin]

2. this is really not an editorial, but rather a news article; hope you post on GD

[90-percent]

3. some info

Rachel had on some guy swimming in garbage and he has a show coming up about it, some discovery channel animal guy, and he said that the world's oceans have already risen SEVEN INCHES from glacier melt. A couple of feet is due in the immediate future.

Frank Luntz has got to be so proud of this news right about now!

-90% Jimmy

[Duer 157099]

5. Jeff Corwin, and it's on tonight, on MSNBC n/t

[harkadog]

49. If the oceans had risen 7 inches many cities would be flooded.

Who is this "some discovery channel animal guy" and where did he get his evidence??

[lapfog_1]

4. "In chaotic systems the evolution of initially coherent states are sensitive to perturbation".

put another way, in high school chemistry we've all done experiments where we add acid drop by drop to a base solution and we are looking for a color change... We can add hundreds of drops with no apparent change to the color of the solution, but when we add just one more, bam, the whole test tube turns color.

We've reached that titration point with our planet.

[northernlights]

47. titration nt

[notesdev]

6. How convenient

This is what desperation looks like. This is the same Hansen whose data relies on cherry-picked tree cores, ignoring a larger set that contradicts his claims. The same Hansen that the Hadley CRU whistleblower document drop exposed as being willing to alter data in support of a predetermined conclusion.

Let's see some independent voices in this matter, not people who are paid to whip up climate hysteria.

[JohnWxy]

8. Laughing till I ...FRY.

[notesdev]

11. Typical Chicken Little response

Unable to address the incontrovertible fact that Hansen's conclusions rest on the Mann analysis, and the Mann analysis in turn rests on precisely 15 cherry-picked data points (Yamal scandal) designed to support a predetermined conclusion, the only responses that can be given are appropriated directly from the liturgy of dishonest argument.

Let's see some imagination. Throw out a strawman, or some ad hominem, or perhaps practice one of them more advanced techniques. Accuse everyone who looks closely at this very dubious data as being an agent of Big Oil. Do anything you can to obfuscate the key issue, which is that anything that is based, directly or indirectly, on the fraudulent Mann "hockey stick" data - which includes all of Hansen's cited work - must be revised to ensure integrity, or it is not science.

[JohnWxy]

15. We're looking at a future climate beyond anything we considered in Climate models - Chris Field, -

founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University

Full quote:

"We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[notesdev]

23. Pure speculation

Let's see the basis for his claim.

[JohnWxy]

16. “We need a much stronger sense in our societies of urgency,” John Ashton, UKs top climate negotiator

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/march/11/yehey/top_stories/20090311top6.html


But a welter of new research suggests the impact could be even worse, and will arrive sooner rather than later.

“We need a much stronger sense in our societies of urgency,” John Ashton, Britain’s top climate negotiator, told journalists as the meeting got under way.

[notesdev]

24. Political advocacy

not a scientific conclusion, a political one.

Keep trying. But be aware that I have prepared myself for this conversation with a reference for logical fallacies which my experience has taught me comprise the vast majority of the AGW argument.

[JohnWxy]

30. maybe you can use that to persuade the several hundred scientists on the IPCC

that they don't know how to interpret their data? LOL

[notesdev]

35. Appeal to authority fallacy

And specifically an authority which has gotten caught red-handed in deliberate fabrication of results.

Keep going, there are still a few dozen logical fallacies you haven't used yet. If you're running out of ideas I'll throw the names of a few techniques you can practice.

When you get tired of being exposed for having nothing but dishonest arguments to show, and would like to discuss the validity of the facts or the validity of the conclusions that are based on those facts, I'll have a serious conversation with you. Right now you are arguing a position based on the assertion that a picked set of 15 tree cores, data which was deliberately hidden for many years and only recently exposed by a freedom of information request, is a valid basis on which to fundamentally re-order modern society. Since you have no facts to work with it is no surprise that the only arrows in your quiver are classical, well-documented dishonest argumentation techniques.

[tex-wyo-dem]

42. notesdev...

"to fundamentally re-order modern society."

Boy, you're quite conspiracy theorist. What you are suggesting is that thousands of scientists from around the world, as well as the scientific institutions they represent, all collectively are pushing an ideological bent to reorder societies and make money doing so. That's a pretty far out concept, especially when science and the processes and procedures that must be followed to be taken seriously are probably the most rigorous you will find anywhere. The denier class, however, has a very clear goal, to inject enough confusion into the public debate to, hopefully, maintain the status quo...yes, to keep the gravy train rolling.

In any case, if you think that the data supporting man- caused climate change is dependant on one set of data, you're crazy and must think the entire climate science community has decided to take a hietus from the normal, well established and rigorous, process.

Personally, I am not a climate scientist, but do have a masters in engineering with a minor in physics, so I am quite familiar with what scientific hypotheses and theories must go through to gain credibility in the scientific and/or technical community.

As I said, I'm no climate expert, however, it seems intuitively clear to me that all of the earth's systems depend on maintainong equilibrium. This is true wil the levels of atmosphereic gasses including CO2 and methane. In the hhistory of the earth, when cathoclismic events such as large volcanoic eruptions occurred, the carbon sinks built into the system could usually regain equilibrium. However, with our reletively very recent explostion of population, burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, agricultural activity, etc., we have, at one time, destroyed and overloded the earths capacity to compensate. This has been show in data gathered from the earth's largest carbon sink (the oceans) that have reached such a kevel of sturation that it's ability to absorb more carbon is greatly diminished.

I would love to debate you at another time, but I'm on my backberry (please forgive the typos and mispells). Just pm me to discuss.

[JohnWxy]

52. I didn't see this until just now. THis is not an appeal to authority it's an appeal to science.

conservatives seem to have a affinity for rules of rhetoric and debate.

NO, this is not an appeal to authority. It is an appeal to science.

[JohnWxy]

34. You need to splain this to all those scientists around the world who don't see it your way.

I guess they ALL arae confused. LOL

[notesdev]

37. Now three appeals to authority - is your intellectual quiver that empty? n/t

[JohnWxy]

10. Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401757.html


CHICAGO, Feb. 14 -- The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday.

"We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Unexpectedly large amounts of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere as the result of "feedback loops" that are speeding up natural processes. Prominent among these, evidence indicates, is a cycle in which higher temperatures are beginning to melt the arctic permafrost, which could release hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, said several scientists on a panel at the meeting.


The permafrost holds 1 trillion tons of carbon, and as much as 10 percent of that could be released this century, Field said. Along with carbon dioxide melting permafrost releases methane, which is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
(more)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[notesdev]

12. Again it traces to the same fraudulent data set

The IPCC report relies on the Mann data set - the one that was held secret for seven years in order to prevent anyone from seeing the raw data from which they drew their conclusions.

This is the same small group of people citing and relying on each other with no independent verification of their assertions. And now they've been exposed for what they really are.

[JohnWxy]

20. You tell'em, Curly. YOK--YOK--YOK--YOK

[notesdev]

25. Ad hominem

Keep going, there are many more techniques of dishonest argument you have yet to display. I encourage you to continue to expose the lack of actual fact or reason behind your politically motivated and anti-scientific position.

[JohnWxy]

31. maybe you should devote your time to listening to the scientists around the world

who know Global WArming is real. For my part, you're an idiot, and I can't ignore that either. You can live in your fantasy world, and I fully expect you will, but don't expect rational people to react to you like you're making any sense.

[notesdev]

36. Another anti-scientific appeal to authority

Come on, you can be more varied than that.

Any real scientist knows there is no such thing as authority in science. Either the science stands on its own or it does not; this is why the motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in verba, which translates to "take nobody's word for it".

Let's see the evidence behind the claims if you want to be taken seriously. I can guarantee you that anything you can come up with is going to be derived from the Yamal scandal or one of the other proven fabrications (Wang, Jones) of climate science.

[JoeyT]

45. Technically that's not an ad hominem.

Ad hominem would've been more along the lines of "That's what we'd expect a denier to say!".
The picture of Curly was more of a plain old insult.

Virtually all scientific arguments are going to be appeals to authority unless you're willing to read hundreds of pages of sometimes conflicting data or you're actually publishing papers yourself.

Perhaps you're familiar with the "argument from fallacy"? The formal fallacy that states that an argument is fallacious if it assumes a false conclusion based on a fallacy in the argument.

Pointing out logical fallacies is rarely a good way to debate. There's thousands of the bleeders and it's virtually impossible to make any statement without violating at least one. (Which is probably a hasty generalization and exaggeration for effect. Heh.)

[ralph m]

27. Two questions for deniers

1. Are atmospheric CO2 levels increasing?
2. Do higher CO2 levels increase overall temperature and ocean acidification, or do they have no effect on temperature and the oceans?

I don't think most of us have the time or the patience to wade through the smoke and mirrors mumbo jumbo of statistics that the deniers toss up to create confusion on this issue. The key issue seems very simple to me and doesn't require degrees in mathematics and climatology to understand: are the almost 7 billion people living on earth today altering climate in a manner that will lead to our destruction? Or can we just keep sailing along, burning down more forests, raising more livestock, burning more oil and coal, popping out more and more babies -- and expect the planet ecosystems to just adjust to the way we want to live and exploit our environment?

I don't know if we can do enough to undo the damage and prevent a catastrophe that could lead to the extinction of the human race, but it's ridiculous to think we can let present trends carry on, and it's criminal for oil and coal companies to be financing third party advocacy groups that cause confusion and lead people to give up on what should be the most important issue today!

[notesdev]

29. The deniers are those who refuse to examine the root of the AGW claims

In regards to your questions they fall under the logical fallacy Ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant thesis.

CO2 is well established as a lagging, not leading indicator of temperature. With regards to the assumption fallacy buried in CO2 arguments regarding the "greenhouse effect", one should note that the major greenhouse gas is not CO2, but in fact is H20.

There needs be no mumbo jumbo and confusion. As I am clearly establishing here, the only such arguments are made by those who support the AGW hypothesis. I am addressing the core scientific issue which underlies all AGW claims, which is the integrity of the Yamal data. The consistent refusal of pro-AGW arguments to address this clear scientific fraud, and the requirement of rigorous science that all data and conclusions that rely on a known falsehood is the mumbo jumbo.

Show me an independent study that does not rely on the Yamal data and we'll be able to have a more serious discussion of the legitimacy of AGW predictions.

[ralph m]

43. Speaking of lagging indicators....

I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that water vapour would be the ultimate lagging indicator, since the amount of water that the atmosphere can hold depends on temperature. Cold air is dry air.

As for CO2 being a lagging indicator, I've heard the claim before that after the last ice age, CO2 levels didn't rise until after the temperatures started to increase; well does that prove that CO2 doesn't cause warming? Or does it just mean that CO2 wasn't the cause of the initial warming at the end of the ice age, and CO2 levels rose after permafrost started melting.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane, are not the only things that would affect overall temperatures. There are variations in the earth's orbit(Milankovitch Cycles), and there may be evidence that the variations in solar output, measured by sunspot activity, indicating that the sun goes through longer variations in activity than the traditional 22 year cycles.

I haven't heard any climate scientists say that greenhouse gases are the only factor in atmospheric warming, but it seems simple that the higher the concentrations of gases which trap heat, the warmer things will get.

But, what about ocean acidification? The 2nd part of my earlier question. Even if rising CO2 levels don't raise temperatures, killing off sea life could be a bigger problem to deal with: http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/

[Uncle Joe]

46. Do you mean this H2O?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x406398

[tabatha]

50. co2 lagging

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

When I read this article, I see a mind prepared to look at all evidence.

When I read a GWD response, I see a mind fixated on a theory that supports their mindset (yes mind set), without taking into consideration anything else, or an attempt to look at the bigger picture with all factors considered.

For example, if CO2 lags warming in a certain period of history, possibly there is another factor that was responsible for warming, and until a certain temperature or level is reached, warming by CO2 is not a factor. (As a long ago chemist, I learned that sometimes two compounds do not interact unless a specific amount of water is added. Another example, while water is necessary for the body, too much can be fatal, just as the body can tolerate CO2 at levels less than about 1000ppm, but anything over about 4000ppm is catastrophic.)

Arguing with a GWD is like :banghead: - they do not want to see beyond their narrow anchor facts, or consider thinking out of the box to see what is really going on.

(Don't know how I found this read rather late.)

[northernlights]

48. huh?

I thought that was the result of 2 independent scientific expeditions into Western and Eastern Siberia back in the summer of 2006, when each team independently reported finding thawing permafrost. But I suppose in your world, that will be flipped off as references to "authority" as opposed to your repeated claim of fraud around a set of data with not one link to support it. :shrug:

s'okay, notes. If you want to believe the climate isn't changing, by all means do. The gardeners and farmers don't need to look to scientific authorities. Plants and animals tell us what's happening...

[JohnWxy]

13. Global Warming accelerating scientists say.

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/march/11/yehey/top_stories/20090311top6.html


COPENHAGEN: Only months before make-or-break UN climate talks in Copenhagen, an extraordinary conclave of climate scientists gathered here Tuesday to warn that global warming is accelerating more quickly than forecast by a key UN report for policymakers.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in early 2007 that global warming, if unchecked, would unleash a devastating amalgam of floods, drought, disease and extreme weather by century’s end.

But a welter of new research suggests the impact could be even worse, and will arrive sooner rather than later.

“We need a much stronger sense in our societies of urgency,” John Ashton, Britain’s top climate negotiator, told journalists as the meeting got under way.

Biggest concern

Most worrying, scientists say, is the possibility that human activity—mainly the burning of oil, gas and coal—could trigger natural drivers of global warming which, once unleashed, would be nearly impossible to reverse.

The shrinking of the Arctic ice cap, and the release of billions of tons of greenhouse gases trapped in melting permafrost are two such “positive feedbacks” that could become both cause and consequence of global warming.

The three-day conference is also likely to unveil a new scientific consensus that sea levels are set to rise at least a meter by 2100, more than double the IPCC estimate, which failed to take melt-off from the Greenland Ice Sheet into account.

[notesdev]

26. Same source

Show me a source that does not derive from the fraudulent Yamal data. The IPCC AR4 report depends on the validity of Yamal, which is easily shown to be anti-scientific fraud.

Outright lying isn't technically a logical fallacy, but nor does it support the argument. Next?

[PaulaFarrell]

18. Who is paying to whip up climate hysteria, and why?

If you you really believe such a phenomenon exists, then you'll know who's doing it and why. Who's running the show and exactly what are they getting out of it? The main problem with the whole 'hoax' theory (aside from the fact that it ignores 97% of the world's climatologists) is that there is no plausible reason that sauch a 'hoax' would be attempted - there's no payoff, no benefit, and quite frabkly, no one powerful enough to do it. On its face, it makes no sense.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that Exxon et al pay big money to whip up denialism - that's been documented and is impossible to deny. And they have a plausible reason - if we reject fossil fuels, their businesses die.

As far as independent people, I trust the UN to be independent. You may not, but then you seemed to be inclined to believe in consiracy theories, so maybe your judgment is not the most relaible.

[notesdev]

28. Follow the money

AGW is a multi-billion dollar industry. Look to the investors in these industries and others who stand to profit from the adoption of the AGW fallacy.

To say that one party is motivated by money and the other is pure of heart and soul is not an objective analysis of the situation. There is an enormous amount of money on the line for both pro- and anti- AGW camps. Everyone with a financial stake involved has reason to lie - that is why we must rigorously check the facts.

The facts in dispute are the Yamal core data and works derived from them, which includes the entirety of those claims that form the AGW hypothesis. All the IPCC claims are derived from the same, extremely limited data set, which itself fails several tests of objective scientific inquiry (cherry-picking, post hoc observational selection, and quite a few others).

Since I'm cataloguing logical fallacies in this conversation, for the record this falls under both ad hominem and association fallacies.

The search for truth requires no dishonest argument.

[ralph m]

44. I'd rather support the AGW industry!

If man-made climate change is fake, and is a conspiracy concocted by the builders of windmills and solar panels at the expense of all of the CEO's of Exxon and Chevron, I'll go with the guys making the windmills. There are many side benefits to weaning us off of fossil fuels and factory farming raising of livestock, so I don't see the great harm to taking action now, before it's too late, rather than continue on the path to destruction.

[bread_and_roses]

38. Oh, what nonsense. But even if it weren't, so what? Even without GW, we're creating hell on earth

First, I've read all about Hansen and his tree cores and it's a big yawn as regards its impact on the determination of human-caused global warming, which is not based on ONE piece of evidence.

And OF COURSE we're appealing to authority! An "appeal to authority" is invalid when it references mere opinion - NOT when it references actual expertise. No, I cannot debate DNA research, nor can I debate climatological research - I am not a scientist. But about 97% of the global scientific community - virtually everyone who's not in the pay of Exxon, etc., is good enough for me.

But say you are right - so what? As we have currently arranged our society, commerce, law, we are causing a mass extinction due to our pollution and habitat destruction of the oceans, air, and groundwater, we're stripping away the topsoil, depleting the aquifers, and destroying the rainforests. In the process, we are displacing indiginous peoples, using many thousands of literal work-slaves, especially in developing countries but not unknown in US, creating a global Oligarchy unlike nothing ever seen in human culture, and and and.... You think these are good things? Remedying them is not a matter of eating tofu and driving a Prius, it's a matter of fundamentally moving away from a market/consumption/industrial based society. So, no, it does not much matter if we are not actually going to steam the earth like a fish or a pot of green beans - which we are, you're arguements are nonsense, but even without the very mechanisms that are contributing to global warming are creating a hell on earth.

And yes, I read your other posts downthread so don't bother. I have no intention of reading any of the other nonsense you're spewing or replying to you.

[bertman]

39. Well said, bread_and_roses.

[endless october]

7. copenhagen is worthless if China doesn't participate in good faith.

i have zero expectation that China will do anything more than sign it and then go right back and cheat.

what i would like to see is an end to interventionism, police actions, and undeclared wars. bring them all home, immediately. use the money to fund single payer and to build nuke plants. more than we need, in fact. once the nuke plants, wind, and solar are online, shut down the coal plants.

in the mean time, if China doesn't do the same, we tariff their goods at the US border.

we either do or do not want to address this problem in an effective way. Kyoto, Copenhagen, and whatever city the next carbon trading scheme meets at will do exactly nothing to fix the problem. my plan will fix the problem. i vote for my plan. some will say that my plan is too extreme. if that's the case, the problem isn't fixable.

[bertman]

40. There will be no tariff against China. Even if they sent a memo declaring "Fuck You, America"

we are not going to tell the people who hold our national mortgage that we're placing a tariff on their goods. President Obama would publicly declare George W. Bush to be a terrorist and war criminal before he'd try that maneuver.

[elocs]

9. I don't believe that anything effective will be done to stop or slow global warming

and neither will anything effective be done to deal with its consequences.

[cutlassmama]

14. then we're all doomed.

[JohnWxy]

19. yes, we are...if people continue to ignore those actions I listed in OP. IF we do those

things that will yield GHG reductions in the near term then the impact of Electric cars in 20 years will be meaningful - along with what can be done with increased installations of wind farms and solar farms to replace coal as rapidly as is technically possible.

But only if we do those things that can yield results in the near and intermediate term. Otherwise, the longer term technologies won't be enough given the time required to realize their potentials.

[tabatha]

51. deleted

[Gregorian]

17. I agree. Only minor incremental changes will be made.

Furthermore, I have been asking myself just what actions caused the global warming we're currently seeing. We have a good sense of that answer. But I have to wonder if what we're seeing now isn't the result of for example the 1950's. Meaning that we're in for exponentially increasing warming as the later years of activity catch up with us. I know part of that isn't true, because we can actually see the carbon dioxide concentration. But I just have this sense that there are other mechanisms involved that in combination are helping for more rapid change.

People should stop having children. That is the only solution to the problem. And no one wants to hear it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. K&R

thanks for posting.

[Kievan Rus]

22. We can't curb greenhouse gases! It's one less mansion for a CEO!

:sarcasm:

[JohnWxy]

32. of course, that's not what OP said.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[bertman]

41. As a user of AOL mail I read their news blurbs and often participate in their surveys.

This week, following the revelations about the emails among the British scientists, they polled their readers regarding global climate change. 58% of the respondents said that they DO NOT feel that global climate change is a real threat.

To give you a sense of the folks who participate in these surveys, in 2003 73% of people responding to a poll about whether the U.S. should invade Iraq said YES. Then, in 2006, 70% said we should be pulling our troops OUT OF IRAQ. FWIW

Recommend.