Finally, Someone Admits the Truth

the link doesnt work

Try this link, it is a documentary about about how the global warming issue became the issue of the day.
It epxlains how water vapor is the major 'greenhouse' gas, how the sun is our source of heat and how it drives glbla warming and cooling [see the 60s & 70s], how the "science" of global warming change as the government and private grants became much easier to get when a project was claimed to be about global warming. A co-founder of Green Peace is in it an explains how Green Peace move away from trying to improve the enviroment and be came a political organization.
Try this link, search it on Google.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=global+warming+swindle

boooring!

I've heard for a while that there are parts of climatology that we do not understand, and that some scientists totally refute global warming and say it's just a cycle we are going through. I do what I can to reduce my carbon footprint, by recycling, using as little electricity as possible, and such, but considering that over half of April was is the 30s and 40s where I live, I don't know how bad it really is.

Joseph, I not sure if you were commenting on the link in my note. I copied and pasted it with success. You might try a Google search for "Global Warming Swindle" it is dated March 19(?) 2007.

Napolean, you may want us to go back to the mud huts, foraging in the woods for food and animal skins for clothing, and burning tree for heat and cooking. But I like the more leasurely live we have today, and the opportunity to sahre thoughts on Gather.com.
I must admit a bit of consternation that some so committed to preventing "global warming" is uisng the elctricity from burnig coal to be online. Could that be considered gluttonly?

Seen it and its garbage. The main scientist that was interviewed has since complained that the movie was misleading.

Joseph,
How is the video garbage, is CO2 leading the warming or is it following, is the sun more active or is it less, are the reseachers seeking money to continue their work not driven by money, has there not been global cooling cycles before the industrial revolution?
I simply tend to question blind faith in those that aren;t able or willing to address questions in there logic.

Try another link, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

This one says that the ice caps on Mars are also melting. If this is true, Iwonder where the CO2 is being generatedated.

A staple arguement of deniers is "You want me to trust climate data that only goes back 5000 years! That not long enough" Now all of a sudden they are in love with data from the sun that monitors climate for only 6 months. Ill put my "blind faith" in science before i put any kind of faith in hanity or limbah.Weve been over this duane, its boring.

Im tired of giving chris points, his link doesnt even work.

Joseph, I missed an opportunity the article about Mars also had some reaason not to put too much faith in the simple data of the ice caps. That is my point the climate is too complex to say there is only one cause and it has only happend in the past 60 years. A good scientist will question and question some more. I don't hear any of those who believ that man (USA man) are the only reason we are experiinceing global warming having had any such doubts and describing what cause them to overcome those doubts.

Would you trust your health to a medical system that did that?

I see you turn to Al GOre (the inventor of the INternet) and Sheryl Crow (the promoter of using a single sheet of TP to save the trees) for your scientific laws.

"climate is too complex to say there is only one cause"

list one scientist that has claimed that. You dont know what your talking about.

gore never said he invented the INternet. Talk about believing everything you hear... Ill let you take it back in your next comment before I debunk that.

Your boring duane. Where have you been? Weve already covered all this. Why am I debating a second-stringer and giving chris all these points. At least switch to my article on why jesus hates polar bears. You gotta admit, its a great title.

Geez...I just tested my link. Works fine.

Suggestion, Joseph: you have to "click" on it with the left mouse button to activate it.

Finally it works.Ill even give you a 10! It was worth the wait though because this was his conclusion,(did you even read this chris?)

"I wish to end this column in a way that may surprise you. In spite of my slight skepticism, global-scale impacts are indeed beginning to loom. We are perturbing
earth's cloud cover with human-induced condensation nuclei and over exploiting. Concern about the environment is needed and is a clarion call now adopted by increasing numbers of the world's great spiritual leaders. The interest in "global warming" might yet prove to be a good cause if its end result is promoting conservation and better stewardsmanship of this gorgeous planet."

Chris, you dont think that al gore claimed that he invented the internet do you?

In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

There is much more in climate science that we simply do not understand. Believe it or not, nobody has any sustainable theory, other than a few clues, about the causes of the ice ages. They are resonant with some of the orbital movements of the planets, but only roughly so and other things are going on that cause and end these spectacular events. We do not know.

That was a quote from the same article.

You take out of context his overall claim that we need to be responsible stewards of the environment and that global warming is merely the vehicle to do it.

In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Joseph, I am boring, I admit to my ignorance. But, I do think its appropriate to be sketical and challenge a "black & white" descriptions of our climate that seems so complex. I am alos concerned abuot the potential commitment of our scarce assets.

I apologize, I believe Gore said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." And I erroneously equated creating to inventing. What about Sheryl Crows' recomendation saving trees? I know who Hannity is but don't listen to him and I periodically do listen Limbach, but I don't credit him with being a climatologist or any science expertise.

As far as a second-stringer, I am surprised anyone even considering me on any string. I am old timer simply trying to understand the new science, with some skeptism. Based on your knowledge, I am I wrong that back in the 50s, 60s that they weren;t claiming a 'public' worry about a global cooling?

I am still looking for data that shows me that CO2 is the single most important driver for our climate changes. I am having a tough time breaking with the notion that the sun is the major driver of our climate, and that water vapor is the next major infleunce.
If you can help me understand how CO2 allows the sun heat in, but stops the heat from escaping. What is the mechanism that I don't understand?

Thank you for the time yuo are giving me. Think of this as your contribution to the cause, and you may even convince a few others that are listening.

"If you can help me understand how CO2 allows the sun heat in, but stops the heat from escaping. What is the mechanism that I don't understand?"

How the hell should I know? Im not a scientist. I do have a deep appreiciation for the nature of science however and that means that I leave the science to scientists. I accept the concensus of the scientific community whether for or against this idea of global warming. The gather global warming deniers cant say that. They will deny until the end because global warming means more to them than the science. It means politics, religion, taxes, economics, socialism,and the "damn liberals". Oh, it means al gore too.

Joseph,
I am not a scientist, but I don't blindly leave anything to others. When I see the doctor and he tells me what my problem is and gives me treatment plan I ask what the alternatives are and why he chose this one. When he prescribes a medicine for me I want to know what to expect it will do, what the side effects maybe, and how I should take it. I am no pharmaceutical scientist, but I surely want them to be reviewed and held accountable. I don;t see why we should leave the science to the scientists, they are people just like the rest of us, they are sensitive to the same desires and pressures, and they should have to make their case to us.
I can;t calculate how to get a rocket to the moon, nor the design the rocket that can do it, but I can understand the basic of how a rocket engine has to burn fuel to release enough energy to over come the earth's gravity, and how the moon's gravity affects its flight, and so on.
So why can the scientists give a similar explanation of the CO2 effect? They have explained how the ozone filters out uv radiation from the sun, at least I think they have. I understand how the clouds shade us from the sun just as the volcanic ash from an active volcano does. They can explain how the trees take in the CO2 and convert it to O2 and organic plant material. So why can;t they explain how the CO2 works on the climate?
I believe the globe is warming, I just question why it is warming, I want to know if the globe has warmed before and cooled [as I recall it was cooling in my life time] then why shouldn;t we expect this to be a simple cycle and that we will see cooling again (in my lifetime).



AS boring as I am, I think Al Gore is funny, he is so serious and says somethings that tend to test his credulity. Call me what you will, but you won't hear me spewing any venom on this subject or any other.

High Flying,
I don;t believe there is any such thing as common sense. Nothing is intuitive unless it is breathing and I believe many of us had to have a whack on the bare bottom to get that started. So that means each of us had to learn how to think. And at least for me I had to be taught the tools and how to use information so when I do think I have something to think with. {My wife will attest to the fact that she hasn;t yet met someone who's thinking process works the way mine does.}
Because each us of is different and our lives and learning are unique to each of us, I don't believe there is any such thing as "common sense."

AS an example of my thought process, people claim that cutting down the trees is destroying the planet, this is especially so for "old growth" forrests. I have been led to believe that "we" have planted so many trees that there are more today then there was in the 19th century. Albeit the "old growth" is becoming few and far between. My sense is that the biology of "old gowth" and new growth trees is the same for converting CO2 to O2 and organic materials, so whether the tree is over 100 years old or only 10 years it is still doing the same work environmentally. If there are more trees today then before that seems to be a good thing.

If you support the theory of evolution and want an example of why I question such a thing as "common sense", go to the Darwinawards.com website.

"AS an example of my thought process, people claim that cutting down the trees is destroying the planet, this is especially so for "old growth" forrests. I have been led to believe that "we" have planted so many trees that there are more today then there was in the 19th century. Albeit the "old growth" is becoming few and far between. My sense is that the biology of "old gowth" and new growth trees is the same for converting CO2 to O2 and organic materials, so whether the tree is over 100 years old or only 10 years it is still doing the same work environmentally. If there are more trees today then before that seems to be a good thing."
Yeah I saw that garbage on stossel too.Its science for morons.

Monoculture tree plantations have replaced diverse communities that supported complex ecosystems. These ecosystems collapse as food webs are interupted when species-specific producers are harvested and replaced with 1000s of pine trees. Yeah,more pine trees. Sorry, everything else.

Your right, it is a good example of why there is no such thing as common sense.

Duane...
It is an excellent question... How does CO2 play a role in warming... how does it let sun in but trap the heat...
And it has a very good answer as well:
The sun's energy leaves the sun in the form of Radiated WAVE ENERGY which includes LIGHT (or what might also be called the ELECTRO MAGNETIC SPECTRUM which includes VISIBLE LIGHT and other forms of WAVE energy Radio Waves, X-Rays, Ultra Violet, Infra Red... Long, Short, and Medium Wave energy). The Term LIGHT Energy used here and below includes INFRARED LIGHT Energy, which is HEAT Energy in Radiated form.

So ... to summarize that last step ... the sun sends off LIGHT (no big revelation there...aye? or Illumination... as it were) ...

...And the Earth is bathed in that LIGHT... The Earth receives the LIGHT Energy...
When LIGHT Energy strikes objects, it activates its molecules... It TRANSFERS some of its Energy into HEAT... (HEAT can be considered the degree of 'vibrating' or 'active molecules. The greater the HEAT the more 'virbrational' energy something has: An ice cube has less and a hot rock has more... The temperature called "Absolute Zero" refers to an object that has NO HEAT energy at all... That is the temperature on the Kelvin Scale of Zero ... whereas the temperature of zero on the Celcius Scale, or 32 Farenhite, is the physical point where pure fresh water freezes).

So to summarize that last point: The LIGHT Energy strikes the Earth and some of its energy is transformed into HEAT Energy...

When saying "it strikes the Earth" that is refering to the Earth in the All Inclusive sense: Atmosphere, Clouds, Rocks, Trees, Oceans, Critters, Us, Etc.)...

LIGHT Energy's transfer into HEAT energy depends to a degree on the characteristics of the object or substance that the LIGHT hits: Hitting a black rock or asphault generates a lot of HEAT Energy in that object. Some things reflect more light ... some things absorb more heat (It depends to a degree on the Wavelength of the LIGHT Energy and on the molecular nature of the substance to retain or shed HEAT Energy).

The Atmosphere lets LIGHT energy pass through to a great degree, though some atmospheric constituents (molecules) do absorb HEAT Energy this way and some absorb more than others, but this is not the Primary way that the Atmosphere is warmed.

Most Air Molecules are transparent to LIGHT Energy and lets it pass through unchanged. Some Higher and Lower Wavelength LIGHT Energy is blocked by certain types of Air Molecules.

The LIGHT Energy that is not reflected/absorbed by clouds, dust particles, or air molecules makes it through to the Earth's surface and strikes solid and liquid objects.

The LIGHT Energy that strikes solid objects on the Earth's Surface (including liquid water) gets 1) Reflected (this is the light we "see" objects with) 2) TRANSFERED and ABSORBED as HEAT Energy, and 3) Used as an Energy source to Drive Photosynthetic reactions in Plants. (It can also be used, among a number of other things, to 'activate' solar-voltaic cells in solar panels to create electricity).

That LIGHT Energy that gets reflected travels on whichever new trajectory/direction and either is itself Transfered/Absorbed into HEAT Energy somewhere else, Reflected again off another object, or Reflected off into Space as LIGHT Energy (this is the LIGHT Energy that Astronauts, Satellites, (and Aliens if you prefer) see when they look down on Planet Earth. Essentially, the light gets Reflected, Scattered, or Transfered into HEAT and other Energies...

This LIGHT Energy that I have been talking about can be called Radiative Energy... It travels in Waves (for the most part).

So to summarize thus far: the Sun's LIGHT Energy has left the sun, traveled through space as Energy waves, hit the Earth, passed through the transparent atmosphere, and a great deal of it has struck objects on the Earth's Surface and been both Absorbed as HEAT and Reflected as LIGHT.

The LIGHT Energy that has been Transfered/Absorbed into solid objects is Now HEAT Energy (Which I have described above). HEAT Energy is considered to travel in three ways: Conductive, Convective, and Radiative.

Different Objects hold HEAT Energy to different degrees depending on the nature of their molecules. Some Objects/Substances are good holders of HEAT Energy, Some are good Takers and Transferers of HEAT Energy, and some are just plain good Blockers of HEAT Energy.

The material substances of the Earth now has an amount of HEAT Energy that had been transfered to it from the Sun's LIGHT Energy. That HEAT Energy is now Transfered among and between the various objects and substances of the Earth (solids, liquids, and gases) and out into space. HEAT Energy generly moves most easily in a downhill direction. That is, it ends up moving from places with more HEAT Energy to places with less. So HEAT Energy ends up diffusing, or spreading out.

HEAT Energy that moves by Conduction is passed on from adjacent molecule to molecule within objects/substances and onto other objects/substances that are touching. HEAT Energy in Solids and Liquids can warm the overlying Atmosphere by Conduction.

So:The LIGHT Energy that passed through the Atmosphere without warming it generates HEAT Energy in Solids and Liquids of the Earth which then are able to Warm the Atmosphere through Conduction. The Atmosphere passes on that HEAT Energy within itself through further Conduction of the HEAT energy as well as by Convection.

Convection occurs in Liquids and Gases, where the nature of those two states of matter allow a higher degree movement of the molecules within its own volume. This movement is described as 'currents' of various sizes and intensity. The Molecules not only Vibrate in place, as in a solid, but the molecules themselves travel around, vibrating and carrying their HEAT Energy as the go.

Primarily by these two means, the Atmosphere is warmed.

Each of the types of molecules within the Atmosphere has its own characterisics that describe how well it 'holds on' to HEAT Energy (just as every other type of Substance does). The ones that hold on to HEAT Energy well are called "Greenhouse Gases." Within that Group of Gases, the ability to 'hold on' to HEAT Energy varies. Some are 'better' than others.

The mass of air in the lower Atmospher overlying the Earth's surface, Absorbs and Holds On to HEAT Energy.

All together, however, The given amount of those gases in the lower Atmosphere of the Earth can be considered to have a corresponding "HEAT Capacity."

If you change the volume/percentage of any of those 'Greenhouse' gases in that total volume of the lower Atmosphere, you have changed the HEAT Capacity of that volume of air.

Why is CO2 the Keystone molecule in this situation and not other stronger or better Greenhouse Gases? For one, It is a matter of which one is changing the most. Two, You cannot just look at what is GOING INTO the Atmosphere but you have to look at the NET effect of those various GAS CYCLES: Carbon is Being added in great amounts from sources outside of the 'Natural' Cycle of Carbon. Three, CO2 lingers in the lower Atmosphere longer than some other gases and so has a tendency to build up and contribut its warming effect longer: Methane disipates more quickly. Four, the amount of water in the Atmosphere is controlled by Temperature and air pressure whereas CO2 is not limited by those factors in the same way: At a given global Atmospheric Temperature, the global Atmospheric content of water is in equilibrium to a degree (The air will NOT hold MORE water UNTIL the overall temperatures RISE - A Primary Driver must kick the Water-Warming Cycle into Gear- THEN Water DOES act to Increase Temperatures, but only because the Second Party - CO2 - has Allowed the global Atmospheric Temperature to Rise - CO2 is the CONTROLING DRIVER in that Relationship - We do not want to reach the point where the Temperature allows Water in the Atmosphere to Become a "RunAway" Greenhouse DRIVER).

So, CO2 is a gas we have control over. It is a Keystone Gas. It lingers in the Atmosphere. And It's volume in the Atmosphere (and in the total current Carbon Cycle) is being greatly supplimented by sources outside of the current Carbon Cycle.

HEAT Energy is also Transfered by Radiation. This is the InfraRed Radiation (for example - what you see with night vision goggles). Some really hot things even give off visible LIGHT Energy, such as hot stove coils, or ... flame.

Radiated HEAT Energy can inturn Transfer HEAT Energy back into other objects/substances. Or ... It can travel off into Space. All things that have HEAT Energy, release a portion of that Energy as Radiated HEAT. Radiated HEAT Energy can be very strong.

Conduction and Convection of HEAT Energy does not occur in the Vacuum of Space, since there are no (very few) molecules to accept the Energy or Vibrate with the Energy.

All HEAT Energy released from the Earth leaves in the form of Radiative Energy: The portion of HEAT Energy that is Radiated from objects/substances of the Earth (solid, liquid, gas) and that is not Absorbed by other objects/substances travels away from the Earth into Space.

Note that Radiated HEAT Energy is Wavelength Energy and it is included in the Term LIGHT Energy, which includes all the wavelengths of the Electro Magnetic Spectrum (Visible Light is a subset of that Spectrum). So the LIGHT Energy that left the Sun and struck the objects and substances of the Earth included Radiated HEAT Energy from the Sun.

So: Radiated Energy left the sun, encountered the Earth, much of it passed through the atmosphere, some of it got reflected in the atmosphere by clouds and dust particles, some of it got reflected on the surface of the Earth, and some of it got absorbed as HEAT at the surface of the Earth. The HEAT at the Surface of the Earth got transfered to the Atmosphere and Oceans (among other solid objects on the Earth). The Atmosphere Held and Transfered the HEAT according to the Characteristics of its molecules. The Earth as a whole let off some of its HEAT through Radiation (the same form it arrived in) into Space. HEAT also diffused into the Deep Ocean and into the Upper Atmosphere through Conduction and Convection.

The NET effect of increasing the HEAT CAPACITY of the LOWER ATMOSPHERE by increasing the amount of HEAT Holding molecules in it is a NET INCREASE in GLOBAL Atmospheric Temperatures. The Increase in Global Temeratures affects Climate Regiemes on a GLOBAL SCALE as Various Earth Systems Absorb and Respond to the Increase in HEAT Energy and those climate Regiems work toward a New Equilibrium for the New and Changing Given Temperature. All this Occurs on top of and in the context of "natural" current Cycles and Earth Dynamics.

The current increase of HEAT Holding molecules in the Atmosphere is considered "UN-NATURAL" or "Outside the Natural CARBON CYCLE" because its source is the MASSES of LONG Sequestered CARBON from FOSSIL FULES being brought to the surface and release by Humans. If you consider Humans as part of the Natural shceme of things on Earth, then you can look at it from the perspective of realizing that the effects of Human Activity have begun to work on global and geological scales.

David,
Thank you for taking the time to explain this. However, rather then clear it up it has raised new questions and reinforced an old one.
I have to change my view of global warming from one of the surface and atmosphere to include the whole earth. If I understand the conduction of heat properly then the energy absorbed on the surface is conducted to all of the elements in the planet. That is a significant change for me in how I have been approaching this issue.

Have a bit more patience with me as I describe what you have explained, as Joseph indicated I am challenged.
The Sun's energy is striking the earth, that energy is absorbed by the earth and the elements in the atmosphere, and what isn't absorbed is released by radiation. And this has been going on for time immemorial. The change today is due to the creation of CO2 and its introduction into the atmosphere. The reason the CO2 is the problem is that it is absorbing additional energy based on its heat capacity, and the retention of that energy is the causing the elevation of the temperature.

That raises new questions; how much greater is the heat capacity of CO2 then that of the oxygen and carbon, and of nitrogen? Haven't the O2 and N2 been absorbing the energy already? Or is that the balance is so fine that in spite of their comparative volumes that the CO2 absorption is so massive that it has tipped the balance?
You mentioned the clouds reflecting the sun rays, and I hear how the ice is melting, but doesn't the rise in temperature cause water vapor enter the atmosphere? Is there a potential that the water vapor will tend to mitigate some of the CO2?

One solution I have heard much about lately is the injection of CO2 into the earth; can you explain how that changes things? Does the injection change the amount of energy absorbed? Doesn't the injection require additional energy, and won't there have to be a significant compression of the CO2 to remove effective quantities from the atmosphere and won't that cause its temperature to rise?

The old question; if the sun has cycles of higher and lower activity can't that be increasing the energy striking the earth and wouldn't that increase energy also have the potential for changing the balance of energy absorption and elevating the temperature? Wouldn't this be especially true if the energy absorption balance is so fine that the current change in CO2 levels would affect the temperature?

On a personal level, which is always the most difficult to overcome, is my recollection of concerns in my youth (50s & 60s) of a pending mini ice age. I know the memory is the second thing to go so if you or anyone can definitively say I am wrong then I will have to let the idea of cycles in the earth's temperature go.

Thanks again for you time and patience, you have cause me to think more about global warming and consider additional issues.

Oh Challenged One...
I agree with Joseph's assessment...
I will not explain further...
The answers you ask are already explained in the portion I've written above...
Do not worry, I did not write that description necessarily for you...
I've been wanting to lay that description of HEAT Energy out and you gave me an opportunity to do so... Thank you...
Do not worry, Oh Challenged One, the fate does not rest on your shoulders, Physical processes do not rely on your understanding of a situation...
There is a majority of Americans who do understand and are concerned, A growing number of Americans, your personal struggles are admirable (if sincere) but not pivital...
The US Supreme Court has ruled... The EPA must act...
Numerous Cities, Increasing Number of States of this Nation, Industry, Private Business, and many many local, state, and national Citizen Groups are talking seriously and taking action... with or with out the Executive's Support...

Reread What I wrote above....
Your questions are answered above and elsewhere by many other people that are familiar with and have studied the many facited aspects of this situation.
Consider this, Oh Challenged One... and even those not Challenged... The questions you raise and any questions you feel you or others might raise have also been considered by those who study this situation... Consider that those that study this are familiar with the many aspects of it and are capable of asking and investigating those questions themselves... Consider that those that study the situation also write and report on it... And you, Challenged or Not, can do your own investigation of those writtings and reports... So what exactly is your question? Is it really those questions you asked above? or is it about the folks who have studied and reported on the answers? That's a different nature of question and that would be a different discussion...

You present a contradiction in your questions: You claim to be Challenged, but you persist in re-questioning answers that are established by experts (not me... those who study and research these questions)... It's a natural and fair thing to do, but you've got to put some sense into it at some point... some perspective.... And in presenting your contradictory postition, you reveal the vulnerable nature of any situation under discussion, especially complex ones. The vulnerability which the Virus of Doubt seeks out and attaches itself to. But really, the body of evidence is robust enough to shake that virus.

Visit these sites to help you understand, but you won't unless your really want to:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976962278
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976964356
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976952976
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976897923
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976781610
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976774574
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976766668
http://www.ipcc.ch
http://www.realclimate.org
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/


Also... I believe you misunderstood what the High Flying One was saying...
Humans use resources... It's what we do... to sustain and advance ourselves...
It is 'common sense' that at the scale at which we humans are working across the board, that activitiy with out consideration of consequences negatively impacts the envronment in which and from which those resources are used...
The trick is to be clever and mesh the resource needs of a society with the desired and necessary state of the envornment...
Do you think we are clever enough?
I think we are... But we have to want to be ... Do you want to be Clever? Do you want to live in a society that is Clever?

Self analysis: Do you feel that the situation as described in the IPCC Report is within the Relm of Possibility? Ask yourself that and go from there...


This Administration's Handeling of the Global Warming/Climate Change situation (among many other things) is FUBAR ... And Many Many People are
Fed Up with Bush and Rove (and the rest of them).

Peace

The Volume of some of those who appear to have continued difficulties in grasping the current global climate change situation seems to be getting louder (and greater, as if in flood or deluge... or rising waters as it were...) ...
... and I wonder why that is ...
Is it a case of desperation... ??? Railing against the torrent? Clambering to escape engulfing seas .... (oooh ... sorry to be getting Scary there... children... please avert your ears..... oooogy booogy booooooooogittty!!!) ... ?
Or is it a case of true frustration of those who are so absolutely sure of their... rightness...? Desperate to reach a sensible ear ... to hear the reason in their call???

I certainly have my opinion as to which case rings truer... as I am sure anyone else who is curious may have one (for opinions are indeed free to be had)

But that brings me to a question I have: How does one Know what is "right" ... ???
What is the process that someone...anyone... goes through to arrive at "right" ... ??? ... Does one ever truly ARRIVE at "right" ? or, rather, does one only ever APPROACH "right" (for isn't the domain of absolute "RIGHT" left to god alone? (or some such concept) and not to be annexed by mortal beings of flesh and bone? ( Interestingly, that is why mathematics can be such a rewarding/satisfying endeavor: anyone can solve an equation and get a "right" answer... to reveal a truth... revealing what was already there...)
By the way, for those dealing with personal ... hubris issues... (heeeoooobrrriss) ... I will clarify the difference here between "right" ... the direction (like my right toe hurts (actually, it's my left toe because a horse stepped on it a week ago but I'll go with right for the sake of this explanation) ... AND "right" the qualitative descriptor (as in ... yes, that feels just right...yes put it right there.... (ooops, was that another use of the word "right" ? ehhh, let's skip that one for now, alright?)

From what base does one start with to determine "rightness" ???
What does one use to measure up against???

Is it personal desire? ... "I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it!!!"
Well... That certainly can be powerful ... and can feel like that is it... But that just doesn't do the trick...

What about those beliefs that one just knows is "right" ...
Well... if one thinks about it, why would anyone hold a belief if they didn't think it was "right" ...
Well ... there has to be some system of openness... right?
To measure what one holds as seeming to be "right" with what seems to work as "right" in the immediate world and beyond.
So... "I hold a belief that seems right to me as a ... working hypothesis... or theory ... and I will choose to hold on to that belief until it is dis-proven, that is ... proven not to be right..."
But, in measuring one's belief for its "rightness" one must be open to input...
But in being open to input ... one must be careful in what to accept as real and relevant...
So ... How does one determine what to be open to?
So ... Really ... How DOES one determine what to accept as worthy information?
... as relevant and accurate?

Is it Volume??? ... I Really don't think it is...

I would say that source and context are very important ... fidelity and continuity are important too... and, without saying, there is validity and accuracy...

but there is smell too, amazingly ... if it just smells rotten and out of place ... it does deserve caution and a red flag ....

Chris Akins ... your stuff fails to meet any reasonable standards to be considered seriously ... (if you skipped down just to read the end here, you really should go back and read the rest).
But also, the icky, gooky, venemous, kookieness of your stuff just doesn't smell right... as it were... and its volume is just annoying...

Wonderful comment david but I think its going to be lost on the deniers. You should have started a new thread with it.

Mr. Evans, you'll get over it and if you don't, well, who cares?

I won't stand by and watch basic freedoms be destroyed with faulty science by those who feed at the government trough with a political agenda that includes higher taxes, increased restrictions on industry, and limits on families.

Okee Dokee Chriss...

Thank you Joseph... I might...

David,
There was a quote that encourages me to question and question again; "Please go slowly. I do not comprehend quickly."
As much as I am considered challenged by Joseph, I still feel that I should try to gain some understanding of the issue before and taking a final position.

Let me try to reframe my question. We have heard for a long time the earth referred to a the "big blue ball" so I will use that idea.

If this big blue ball is floating in a vaccum and has been recieveing a steady stream of energy from the sun for time immemorial (I like the that word) and based on your explanation of conduction then that ball should have absorbed all the energy it that it has the capacity to absorb, that is presuming no new mass has been added. If that is the case, then as that energy stream continues to flow to the big blue ball, it seems to me, that by now the amount of energy that strikes the ball is either reflected by or radiated off the ball or the ball continues to rise in temperature.

Now to what I think you would call 'my hypothesis", it seems to be like a pot of water if you put more energy in the water temperature rises and if you reduce the energy the water cools. And there is a point at which the amount of energy added will be equal to the energy release from the pot and the temperature will be maintained, simmers. Now if I were to have had some carrots in the pot the carrots would rise to the temperature of the water, it make some time but it would.

This is where I begin to wonder that if the sun had cycles of activity that released more or less energy, say sun spots, wouldn;t that change the level of energy striking the earth and as a result the earth's temperature would rise or fall accordingly?
Now if the energy from the sun does not change then what I am to understand is, because all of the scientist agree, that with no change in the mass of the big blue ball that a simple change is a combination of two its elements that are a very small part of the mass will change the temperature of the whole mass in a blink of an eye releative to the time the total mass has been exposed to a steady stream of energy.

First help me disprove the analogy of the earth as a big blue ball and the pot of water. The next thing to help me understand is how the change of carbon and oxygen to CO2 are now abosrbing more energy when they released so much energy when they were formed.

First, I am doubtful that anyone one can find what is 'right' or 'wrong', I am looking for the most probable. Second, I must admit I am not as concerned with the source of the information as I am to the content. I believe that there are some formally educated people that can't figure their way out of a "paper bag" and there are some not so 'well' educated people that can have some brilliant insights. I simply try to sort out the content and be less sensitive to the formal credencials.

The quote that encourages me to be presitent in my questions is atributed to Albert Einstein. If someone that brilliant can admit to being challenged then I surely can accept my being challenged.

Challenged One...
(That title need not be judgmental, it could merely reflect a state of being... You decide)
I very much meant what I said, each part of it:
Your personal struggles are admirable
If sincere
But not pivotal...

Ask Questions, Indeed...

Ask Questions, Indeed
I have never Opposed Learning
(But note that I said Learning, One must want to Learn, Einstein in His desire to Learn and Understand, and to See regardless of Pre-set notions)

But I also Meant when I said:
It's a natural and fair thing to do,
but you've got to put some sense into it at some point...
some perspective....

Consider this: Einstein is tinkering with the engine under the hood of a car... A woman comes up with her child in her arms. The child is limp. The woman pleads for Einstein to take her with her child to the hospital... Einstein says "now wait, I've been trying to understand how this engine works and I'd like to understand how it works before I drive you, myself, or anybody in it. Especially for such an important trip is this seems to be!" The Woman looks at Him incredulously. A mechanic comes out of a nearby building and says "Uh, Al... I just parked that car there. I looked at it, changed it's oil and even washed it's tires (no extra charge)... The car works..." Would you expect Albert to wait until he understand how that car works before he takes the woman to the hospital?

If you prefer an analogy with a little more connectiveness between the issue of understanding and the urgent need... consider: Einstien says he has been studying some medical biology and will not let the doctor help the child until he understands more. The Doctor said that the child had an asthma attack and needs medicine and treatment. Eisntein says he's been studying the mechanics of the CO2:O2 Ratio in the blood and its feedback mechansim that controls breathing rate in people. He said he has not quite nailed it yet and the Doctor should wait until he does. Would you really expect Einstein to do that? Do you think He would have some Sense and Perspective in that situation? Should Einstein trust this doctor? Einstein's desire to learn the biological function of CO2 in the body is admirable and his ability to understand it is not in question, Challenged or not...

Whether you understand or not... The train will leave the station...
Your quest to learn is admirable... whether you are on the train or not...

This is not a new issue, it's been around for a good amount of time and for a good amount of questions and Learning...

See this link for some more answers (when I get a chance):
Consider This: Thermo Dynamics on the Third Rock from the Sun (or Challenges on the Little Blue Planet)
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976970129

David,
First let me restate, I do believe that the globe is warming. My reservations are with the cause of the warming and the expected duration.

Reading your article, it makes a lot of sense to me. The sun transfers its energy to the earth through the light rays. The Earth reflects the energy, absorbs the energy, or it radiates it back into space. The CO2 absorbs energy by increased movement of the particles in the molecule, the more energy it absorbs the more movement and with more movement higher temperatures. And CO2 is the only thing changing in our atmosphere then you feel that must be the cause of the global warming.

Where I am still having difficulty is where you say, "Two, You cannot just look at what is GOING INTO the Atmosphere but you have to look at the NET effect of those various GAS CYCLES…" I still feel that what goes in does affect the earth. If the amount of energy coming from the sun increase, it seems to me, that that has the potential of changing the balance and driving the "net effect" to change, and raising the temperature. Back to the pot of water; raise the heat in, the water molecules begin to absorb the heat by moving faster, and then the temperature of the water rises.
And I cling to this idea because I don't believe that the temperature of the earth has been constant over time and only recently has started to climb to an emotional level. I mentioned earlier that as I recalled from my youth that there was concern about global cooling, the following is a quote from a 1975 Newsweek article that suggests that was the case.
"Dr. Murray Mitchell of NOAA reveals a drop of a half a degree in the average ground temperature of the North American Hemisphere between 1945-1968." And it goes on to talk about large increases in snow cover. Here is the link to the whole article in the 1975 Newsweek; http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Such a recent down cycle is only credible if you trust the scientists at NOAA. And to be up front, anything credited to the UN or under their auspice I immediately put in question. This is a personal issue, they have been know to focus more on their agenda then on the facts.

As I believe I understand what you are saying about the CO2 and how its retention of energy is contributing to the rise in temperature. I am still resistant to credit with all of the change.
In addition to my belief that the earth's temperature has cycled over time independent of human activity you have also caused me to wonder about the "natural" cycle of carbon. I hadn't thought of that in the past. I assume by "natural" cycle of carbon it that all the carbon being consumed today was at one time organic and decade was compressed and is now being released today as CO2. It makes me wonder where did all of the carbon that formed the organic base we are using come from and how much of it was CO2. If the carbon we are consuming were at one time CO2, then that creates a whole new path that I need to think on. But some how it suggested that the amount of carbon in/on the earth has always been here and this "Natural" cycle of CO2 to carbon to CO2 has been happening without us.
The "natural" cycle of carbon does suggest to me that there is a new point of balance of carbon and CO2, and with the calculating capacity we have to day it should be possible to estimate the amount of carbon available for conversion to CO2 and the amount of energy that CO2 can absorb, and determine the maximum temperature the globe will reach with our current practices. Are you aware of that being done?
That leads to my next question. I see model data overlaid on historic data, is there a place I can go to see the model projection for the next three to five, ten, twenty years?

I am still struggling with how the net energy of carbon and oxygen versus CO2, but that is something I will have do some more reading on, I am open to a suggested book to read.



I checked out the links to other article that in your article. Some of the secondary links didn't work for me, I couldn't play the IPCC article. I did notice none of the article challenged any of your views on the issue. I am still trying to figure out the value of "The Wink Heard 'Round the World" in this discussion.
With all of the thinks you are I can only claim to be one who hates to see waste, doesn't feel anyone should purposely abusing anything, and albeit not being a scientist feeling it is appropriate to questions what they say. I feel scientists are human and can get so intoned with others of their expertise that they can forget to challenge the prevailing consensus. As you mentioned scientist have at times been placed in precarious positions because of their views, it must be nice for scientists on this issue to be held up as the icons of knowledge by the so many politicians on this issue.
Jeff Servinhaus says [in RealClimate], "The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data." That is the strongest data explanation for CO2?
I admit that Frontline has such a bad history of distorting the truth I didn;t even try to read there article.

I think everything we have talked about, even the concerns I have, are in the realm of possibility. But I want to be better informed before I am willing to accept some of the actions currently being proposed. I want to have confidence that those actions will have a sufficient impact to make the necessary change and the hardships that they will entail will be worth the impact.

I your question of why the seeming change in the prevailing view on global warming, it may not have as much to do with what is right and what people understand. Persistence and volume can overcome a lot. I have experiences with group think and am driven to better understand the issues when emotions become what carries the issue. I become especially sensitive when the politicians start using an issue to move their career.

Again let me thank you for your time and patience. Hopefully you will have seen that you have caused me to put more thought into the topic and that I am changing in how I look at this and discuss it.

Challenged One...
I Expect and Accept that I will not Change your Ultimate View. I expect that you will continue to 'consider' more points along the way, as you have already, but that you will ultimately not come to accept the degree of probability that human activity is THE primary driver here and the Responsibility we have that goes along with that understanding. (by 'We' I mean humanity as a whole, but also understand that We, The US, has a responsibility for what We do).
I accept that, and that is OK, because as I said, the Train is Leaving the Station with or Without you...
The Thing about being Undecided, and coming to a forum such as this, is that you present your doubt and your questions to an Audience. Therby perpetuating uncertainty in an already resloved issue, presenting a position of hesitation and inactivity. A postion that no longer is viable or 'playable' through direct oposition on the merit of the body of evidence.

But I will play this Tack for a time in the process of explaining the questions you have posed. I wholey expect there to be more questions and uncertainty, but know that as there are reasonable explanaitions for those you have already asked, there are also reasonable ones for those ones that you will ask. I'll not continue this ad infinitum, or ... really not any more after this (though as I said... You will Remain Undecided, It is your role...after all).

First, I will explain the reason I included the piece about the "Wink." http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976952976
(And I will tie it into your point about asking questions.)

As I stated in a follow up comment after that Poem, I do not propose that I, personally, know that actual intent and meaning behind that curious action during the last State of the Union Address, in front of Congress and the Nation. I do Say that that Particularl action is an amazingly acurate (and Poetic) reflection of the actual Behavior of Chenney and this Administration. In the Spirit of Asking Questions, I ask (and you must certainly agree to this relevance, no?): What was the nature and actual interaction of the Energy Task Force Meeting that took place early in the Administration's First Term? Why is that Really information on a need to know basis? And why do the American People not Need to know. As Chery Crow put it... Doesn't the administration, including Rove, Cheney et al work for the American People? Do you not see the many tentacled relevance of that Meeting to our current Lives as Americans?

I will come to another point you made and ask a question. You said... "And to be up front, anything credited to the UN or under their auspice I immediately put in question. This is a personal issue, they have been know to focus more on their agenda then on the facts."
Was it not the UN, among others, that Said that Saddam Hussein most likely Does NOT have WMD at this point and that a call for Imediate Invasion is not called for (and in follwing, not legal by International Agreement of the Laws of War)? Which Government Was it that Led the Charge on that one? Based on their set of Data, and chosen Views of that Data? This Administration is one of only a handful in the world that refuses to fully accept the current state of the stituation. Each one has its reasons: A growing superpower counting on fossil fule energy to prop it up (China). A densly populated "third world nation" with nuclear arms and cutting edge technology in areas (India). A few others... And US.
Can we trust this Administration in its position on this issue? Are they being forth right? Are they Being Honest? Can we trust this Administration that gives Tacit and Blatant Succor and Encouragement to the Denier Segment of this nation and the world (we are looked up to whether we like it or not) by their behavior? What Credibility do they have?

To say "...they [the UN] have been known to focus more on their agenda than the facts..." does not ring hollow to you?

To look at the UN and say that it is a dysfunctional body, it is nothing but a hinderance to us and not worth dealing with... is like giving public shool teachers ridiculously low pay, putting little real energy into making the public education system the strong institution that it should be... and then saying... Public Schools in this Nation are not worth investing in with the full force of resources at our disposal (how much has this Iraq War costed so far? Cash Money?)... Let's let people go to private schools using public money. The system will only be as good as resources and energy we put into it... Other Countries are not the Only Ones that Play "games" at the UN.

The Administrative branch of the UN is not the same as the "on the ground" support agencies of the UN.

If anything... The Administrative Branch of the UN Watered DOWN the Scientific agencie's findings for the sake of World Diplomacy and Playing the Game. (They did so in part at the Behest of the US's non-scientific representatives there).
But You will continue to believe what you want to... (Or rather... Present the Belief that you want to be heard)...

As for scientists not finding their way out of a bag... That goes for any proffession...and the exception(s) do not make the rule... (nor does the "CHALLENGE of getting out of a bag necessarily reflect on their ability to do their field of Science. Einstien once got lost in his own town and had to call home to get directions...).

Consider James Hansen... A fellow I take to be able to find his way out of a bag as well as around the physical aspects of this Little Blue Planet's Climate system. And has in all likely hood and actuality asked and pondered all the questions you have or will present. He does not strike me as a Political Player... In fact he seems quite a "straight shooter" as it were... Where exactly do you feel his shortcomings might lie in his being convinced of the story the data is telling us? Does HE work for the UN?

You indicate that you are concerned with "Content" not Credentials... But you turn that around when it is convenient. You might say (and I am supposing) ... Well look at what these "Other Scientists" are saying... They are saying "nay nay nay" ... Well their Content and their Credentials have been Discredited, but you might keep saying "well they are scientists though... we should listen."

Of Course Content needs to be considered. That goes without saying doesn't it? It is BOTH Content and Credentials (and Process) that need to be considered.

And, you may not have brought this up, but I will... Of Course it is not the FACT that there is a Majority of folks who may believe something that makes that belief "valid." That there may be a majority of people who believe one way or another is a REFLECTION of the events that brought them to that position. That is where Validity of Content and the Character of the Process come into play.

How do you feel "Group Think" came into Play in the IRAQ WAR? Especially Given what we know now...

Think about the Black Hole of Logic you have just created with that statment you made about "group think" ... A black hole that stops momentum of anything in its tracks, even Light itself...

But You Forget one Point that POPS the creation of that particular Singularity (much to your disappointment, I would assume): CONTENT and CREDENTIALS (oh is that two? Well it behaves as one, as I pointed out above):

Colen Powel had the Credentials but not the right Content: And the "Yellow Cake" from Niger had Neither the Right Content Nor the Right Credentials.

Can you say the same thing about the data and studies involving Human Induced Global Warming/Climate Change ... ?

Do you see where "Group think" is appropriate in one instance, but not the other?

Do you see where the LACK of the Credential/Content Complex created the IMPLOSION known as the IRAQ War?

Do you see how the Credential/Content Complex provides substantial footing for Positive Activity?

If you truly do not see that, you will remain stuck in the pull of that Black Hole of Logic you tried to create... My Guess is that you would rather suck as many people into that Black Hole as you can...

The Content Is there and the Process Supporting it is Solid.

I repeat what I said before (twice now):
It's a natural and fair thing to do (to question),
but you've got to put some sense into it at some point...
some perspective....

Regarding HEAT loss from the Big Blue Ball in the Vacuum of Space: Why would you assume that the Earth has reached its capacity of HEAT? I indicated that HEAT loss occurs by Radiative Means, regardless of the Vacuum of Space. HEAT Gain Radiative Energy on the Earth occurs only half of the time (during the day) and HEAT loss occurs all the time, by Radiative Energy (Day and Night... Radiative HEAT loss is not slowed by a HEAT Gradient as Conductive HEAT loss is, so its rate of loss during daylight hours roughly equals the rate of loss at night). Radiative HEAT loss is only slowed by Re-Absorption or by Reflection.

Consider the whole Mileu of the Earth's HEAT Absorption, Condcution/Convection, and Radiative Emission to be either in some degree of equilibrium or on whichever trajectory it happens to be on at a given time in the Earth's History for whatever given reason at that point in time.

In this system, is it POSSIBLE that the Earth or any body in space, might be 'warmed' by an increase in the sun's radiative output? Of Course it is possible. The appropriate question is: Is an increasing in Solar output what has accounted for this warming event? All evidence indicates that the answer is no. An increase in Solar output would have a corresponding "Signature" on Earth. The nature of the recent/current warming on Earth does not strictly match changes in Solar Output.

It takes at least Two things to have "Climate." One, there has to be Energy input (Radiative Energy from the Sun); and Two, there has to be an Atmosphere.

The MOON DOES NOT HAVE A CLIMATE... It has no Atmosphere.

Let's Construct a Climate on the Moon, Shall we? Well, We have the Sun, We have the physical material (the sphere of the Moon), but we have no Atmosphere. Let's keep the Solar output CONSTANT for this experiment...Yes? Now Let's add Atmosphere... Ok, What are the Ingredients of an Atmosphere... What we Like to Call "Air" ... ? Well, really we get to choose, but It has to be a GAS, Right? So lets pick gases with low HEAT Absorption/Retention qualities. Let's call them "weak" Greenhouse Gases (Weak GHG's). Now, We have added these weak GHG's so the Moon now has an 'atmosphere.' That new Lunar Atmosphere has a temperature that relates to the HEAT Absorbing/Retaining qualities of that first GHG we used. That will be the first or Base Temperature of the Moon. Now Let's add another Gas. Let's Add a Mild GHG this time. This Mild GHG holds HEAT more readily than the weak one did. And, Remember, we are keep solar output CONSTANT. Do you think that the Mild GHG will increase the temperature of the Lunar Atmosphere from that first temperature? Now lets add more of that Mild GHG. Will the Temperature continue to rise with the added HEAT Capacity in the Lunar Atmosphere? Do you see how Regardless of Solar Output, We can Warm a Lunar Atmosphere?

Consider this about the Sun... It is MASSIVE. Consider the Volume involved in the Sun... The Sun does not surge in intensity, in the way a heating element on a stove can be made to do. On a stove, you can turn the dial from Lo to Hi in a matter seconds, the water will respond accordingly. Think of a light bulb with a dimmer switch, you can increase or decrease its intensity at will and see the immediate results. The Warming Signature of the Earth in the Recent/Current Global Warming Event DOES NOT MATCH ANY ASSOCIATED INCREASE IN SOLAR OUTPUT.... The Sun DOES NOT warm up that way.

Solar Energy Does change over shorter periods of time on its Surface through what we call "SunSpots" and/or Solar Flares: The greates energy change that occurs through sunspots/solar flares is the change in particle emission and various lengths of wave Energy. InfraRed (HEAT) Energy is NOT the main output of SunSpots/Solar Flares. SunSpots are actually more associated with a Cooling effect on the Planet via Cloud formation rather than a Heating effect.

SunSpot/Solar Flare Activity is "short term" and even when there is considered to be High Sunspot Activity, the Earth moves outside of their range of influence as it moves in its Orbit around the Sun (There is no Constant Exposure to Sunspots, even during periods of "high activity"). Because of this, SunSpot effects on Earth's Climate Tends not to be Global in Nature, but more local... being related to the seasons of the year during times of 'sunspot exposure.' Some extremely cold winters in Europe during the end of the Middle Ages, are thought to have been caused by a period of "high sunspot activity."

Consider this: Understanding that it takes Two to Tango in our Global Temperature Dance with the Sun... Even were the Sun hypothetically to be increasing to some given degree, would we want to be adding more HEAT Capacity/Retention to our Atmosphere? Does that Make sense? In the Summer, do we send our Kids off to school dressed in sweaters, knowing that though it may feel comforatable before the sun rises (not on the Gulf Coast though) it will get increadibly UnBearable by Noon or before?

How Much CO2 Does it Take to feel the effects? We seem to be in a Global Sized Experiment to Answer that Question in Real world Terms.

Sorry... Size Does Matter: larger objects retain more HEAT and Require Less Insulation. Consider the Dinosaur... Often Considered to be "Cold Blooded" animals. That may have been true in terms of their metabolism, physiological regulatory mechanisms, and insulation layers (lack of blubber or furr), but the large ones, through shear size, might be considered "Warm Blooded." Why? Because their Metabolism/Physiology, Reptilian as it might have been did produce some heat and that heat was shed to a great degree through the skin... the creature's Surface Area. As The Dinosaur Gets Larger, the Ratio of Surface area to Volume decreases (The Volume increases by the power of three-'cubed'; while surface area increases by the power of two-'squared'). The Large dinosaurs just didn't have as much surface area to get rid of their heat in relation to the volume of their bodies that were generating heat....Put a light Chamosol on a Diplodocus and you might have had an uncomfortable Fellow, even at night...

Consider this: The Wet Suit. It is not the actual material of a wetsuit itself that keeps a diver warm while diving, even when temperatures drop a good deal below average body temperatures. It is its ability to hold water and air within the wet suit material and the ability to keep a thin layer of water between the diver's skin and the wet suit itself. The Diver's own body warms that water held close to the body and in the wet suit. That warmed water is not allowed to flow away into the blue blue sea. People lose Heat when they swim (let's say they are skinny dipping and NOT generating frictional HEAT as it were) when their body's HEAT warms the immediatly surrounding water, but then because of the nature of water to be fluid and move all about, a new batch of water that is not warmed replaces that slightly warmed water next to the skin. The Body continually loses HEAT by Conduction to the Surounding Water, which continually presents the body's surface area with low temperatures. So... A thin layer of water held in place, can keep a diver warm, even in subsantially cold water. When a Diver goes deep, the increased water pressure squeezes out that insulating layer of air and water. If the Diver continues to go deeper, eventually there is nothing between the diver's skin and the surrounding ocean water except for the highly squeezed Wet Suit material and the reduction in the insulation can be felt... IT CAN GET DAMN COLD!!! Huh... Such a tiny layer of water makes that much difference... Go figure...


Regarding the action of that Added HEAT Capacity in the Lower Atmosphere:
I discussed the process but I did not name it specifically. Increasing the HEAT Capacity and the Real HEAT Load of that lower Atmosphere act to create an Insulating effect within the lower atmosphere. As I said, HEAT Energy travels in a downhill direction. Having more HEAT in the Lower Atmosphere is like makeing the Slope of that "Hill" less steep. The HEAT Energy flowing from near the surface of the Earth flows more slowly and 'pools' when it encounters a shallower slope. How quickly does HEAT 'escape' from coffee when it encounters the material of an insulated cup or thermos? The HEAT Blocking/Absorbing materials of a thermos slow the downhill escape of the Coffee's HEAT Energy.

How quickly will an un-insulated cup keep your coffee hot? Now add HEAT holding elements to the walls of that cup... Will the HEAT loss slow down?

As I said, I will not answer any more of your questions. If you have more... Look it UP somewhere... Feel free to send me a note to my 'Mail' if I got something Wrong, I'd like to know...

Best of Luck, Challenged One... The Train is Leaving with or without you...
"Second Variety" - It seems so lifelike and Yet, Not at all...

David,
Thanks again for your time and patience. I may not be where you think I should be, but I am moving down the path. Your explanations have caused me to think, even though I have not made that leap yet. YOur time and information is an example of what I had hoped I would find when I came to Gather.com. So much of what I read/hear is eaither simple regurgitation of political pap answers or there is a lot of plain venom. You have been an exception, by taking the time to share a thoughtful approach to a critical issue.
I hope I have at least demonstrated I am willing to be a fair studdent by reading everyone of the articles you suggested (with the exception of those I couldn't get the links to work) and atempted to think then through.

As I said I am not where you are, but I am neither one that stands up and says you are wrong. I simply want to be informed enough to suppport or challenge the solution that are proposed to mitigate the global warming. BY your explanation the deep well injection is one way to reduce the atmospheric insulator CO2.

I do understand that I hav been a challenging student and you need to move on.
I thought I had avoided the politics of the issue and I surely didn;t bring up Iraq, I simply said the UN had demonstrated to me a willingness to manipulte information for their agenda, I never used the current adminstration as a source for any of my questions or thoughts. With regard to what is "right", as far as I can say is, what achieves what is claims it will achieve defines, what is "right."

Thanks again, I do try to think these things through, and you have stimulated more of my thinking on this issue.
If I trouble you again on another article, you have my understanding/support if you clip you time and answers.

Challenged One...
I Expect and Accept that I will not Change your Ultimate View. I expect that you will continue to claim to 'consider' more points along the way, as you have already, but that you will ultimately not come to accept the reality of the situation.

That is the role you choose to play, after all.

I accept that, and that is OK, because as I said, the Train is Leaving the Station with or Without you...

The Thing about being Undecided, and coming to a forum such as this, is that you appear to present your doubt and your questions to an Audience.

Therby attempting to perpetuate uncertainty in an already resloved issue.

Attempting to create opportunity for delay or hesitation, to further the goals of the status quo position.

A postion that no longer is viable or 'playable' through direct oposition on the merit of the body of evidence. (Has not been viable for some time).

That is the role you choose to play. Sort of Like 'Dory' in Finding Nemo... being a "Delay Fish" ... Only some fish, like you, do it on purpose and really aren't helpful at all (do you speak Whale? No?)...

You've got to put some sense into it at some point...
some perspective....

What DO you think Einstein Would do? In the situations I presented above and in the real one we are presented with Now?

The Train is Leaving the Station, with or Without you....

hey adam is back! Adam just returned after he canceled his account and made a new one for a clean slate. Hes been embarrased so many times that he decided to just wipe the record clean. Id do the same thing if I were him. Adam where is that picture that you used for an icon of that old guy with no teeth?

Your not telling the truth about my tattoo.You may not agree with it but you think its clever and original. Im not sure if the trust fund thing is an insult or what? I dont have a trust fund but I wish I did so Im not sure what effect your going for. You used to say that all the time before you deleted your account and reinvented yourself as General Adam and nobody understood it then either.I hate giving chris all these points.btw, I can always put a shirt on, what are you going to do about your missing teeth? For those of you who dont know, Im referring to his pre-general adam icon before he canceled his account and wiped his embarassing slate clean.

Keep racking the points for me, boys. I'm going to Borders this weekend.

What do you think of my tattoo chris? (might as well earn your points)

Not my cup of tea, but to each his own.

David,
I am sorry you don;t feel there are those of us that truly do try to learn and are willing to change our view on issues.
JUst because someone doesn't make the leap is not a reason to believe that they are not making an honest effort to understand.
As I say I may not have the educaion and the credentials, but that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't try to gather infomation and build my own rationale for an issue.
I had moved to being interested in evalatueing the means to address the CO2 and see what is reasonable and has the potential for having the greated impact. And to have yuo believ that I am not sincere in my efforts is disappointing and does taint some of what you have said.
I don't accept the analogy of the Train has left the station, that suggest things are irreversible or that the earth is on its way to destruction. I believe that the earth will come into balance as I understand it has many time in the past. The question is more of what is the nature of the balance we want and how can we help it achive that situatino with the lease disruption as possible.

As far as what Einstein would do in this situation, I haven;t a clue nor could I ever achieve what he might. I accept my limitation and try to work within them.

As I say whenever there is a mass movement to an irrevocable conclusion that breaches no questions, I become more skeptical. For me at least, it has always proven a valuable tool for my understanding, to explain my views to others andaddress their concerns, I am better able to find and address the flaws.

So good luck on stopping the train. And consider sometimes the doubters can help with the solutions, all be in small ways.
And thanks again for your time.

I do not doubt that there are those who are interested in truly learning more and understanding. I've said from the start that I encourage and admire that.
May I suggest that you find a local library and go through some science books and magazines/journals...

No, I do not believe you are sincere... The vein of your intent is clear within your comments, dress them however you like...

And my belief that you are not has not relevance to the content of what I have written...If anything... I have provided you information, not for the sake of "Convincing" you but for the sake of the information itself... Because it is worth saying.

Whether you believe the "train has left the station" or whether it is stopable depends on what you see the Train to Be... The Train of Public Realization, Understanding, and Action Is Leaving the Station... Its whistle is blowing, whether you choose to hear it or not... The Train of Contemporary Global Warming has been on the tracks for some time and has its share of built-up Momentum, But Yes, That Train is Stopable.

Indeed, the question is What Balance do We want and that is Viable for Us... But You have to define who the 'WE' and 'US' in that question is. WHO is it you are seeking the "Least Disruption" for? And are your expectations for that "Least Disrupted" senario Realistic given what is known about this situation (Whether you personally understand it or not).

I find it disingenuous for you to not even venture an attempt to describe what you feel Einstein might do in those/this situation. It is a hypothetical. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in a scientific sense. There are no Einsteinian Equations for Physics. Your avoidance of that answer is a perfect example of how your true intent in this converstion comes through. What Harm in answering that question? I'm not asking you to BE Einstein or even compare yourself to him. I am Making the Point that You have to have some Sense and Perspective in any situation.

There have been many questions asked... for some time now. This is not new. I myself have asked questions when I first became aware of and started to consider the situation and I continue to ask questions to understand more. Scientific as well as social/economic questions. Many many many many many many many many non-Climate Scientists and other good folks have asked questions in their process of understanding and realizing the reality and implications of this situation.

Your perception that the "masses" who do support action now have Not Asked questions Is Your own Perception and is not accurate. Many questions have been asked by many folks and as "movements" go... it is among the best educated in history. This view of yours is another example of how your intent comes through in your comments.

You are saying that you want to have it explained so that you can "find and address the flaws" ... but you claim to be "challenged" ... Does that make sense? Why are you trying to find flaws in the Science? Are you in a position to find flaws in the Science? What you are trying find flaws in is the Social Process. You are trying to find flaws in Social Behavior that you hope might have affected the Scientific Process. But that is Not the same as Finding flaws in the Science.

You are welcome to join the conversation on what are the best actions given our current understanding of the situation.

There is no Stopping the Train of Public Understanding and Realization...
As I said, that Train is Leaving the Station, with or Without you....
Can't you hear the Whistle Blowing...? Dinah come Blow your Horn...
Peace...

You are a very strange individual... Mr. T ... (if that is your true initial)...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976962278
Shoo Fly, Shoo...

You are nothing more than a Character Assassin ... A Hitman...as it were...

I am impressed that I have struck such a nerve...

Be sure not to tell me if you pull another disappearing act... I won't be aware of it...

Shoring up the crumbling Base... ? 'Luck with That... ;)

It is now May 8, and I have been watching this while chuckling at all you "men". I find it funny when Adam T. asked a direct answer to David Evans, there was no answer, only a sad attempt at a juvenile insult.

That is a good question David, why DID the glaciers start melting 10,000 years ago???? HMMMMMM??? Care to answer that one Mr. I'm holier than thou??

What about you Mitchfly? Can YOU find an answer to that you can cut and paste?

What a bunch of dumb fucks you people are. Yea, there is no such thing as global warming, right.

What assholes.