What happened to global warming?

The truth.

www.heartland.org/books/PDF...ndbook.pdf

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...8307272.stm

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/10...and.html

Snowfall: Two mongrels enjoy today's fresh snow in Austria - the
earliest snow since records began

In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of
revolution hangs in the air.

And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the
-10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for
the wintry snap's repercussions.

The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the
heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday,
breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.

Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in
history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.

Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for
those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.

But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.

According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth's hottest
recorded year was 1998.

If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934,
followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.

Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is
hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man's abuse of
the environment.

Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn
our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon - global cooling.

The evidence for both remains inconclusive, which is unlikely to help
the legions of world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December to
negotiate a new climate change deal.

There is no doubt the amount of man-made carbon dioxide, the gas
believed to be responsible for heating up the planet, has increased
phenomenally over the last 100 years.

For the final few decades of the 20th century and as the atmosphere's
composition changed, scientists recorded the planet was warming
rapidly and made a positive correlation between the two.

But then something went wrong. Rather then continuing to soar, the
Earth's temperature appeared to stabilise, smashing all conventional
predictions.

The development seemed to support the view of climate change cynics
who claimed global warming was simply a natural cycle and not caused
by man.

Some doubters believe that the increase was actually down to the
amount of energy from the Sun, which provides 98 per cent of the
Earth's warmth.

Sun or sea? The importance of the ocean's cooling and warming cycles
are now under serious consideration as a key factor in global
temperatures

Previously, the fluctuating amount of radiation given out by the sun
was thought to play a large role in the climate.

But Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, who was part of the team
to win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change,
studied solar output - the heat leaving the sun's surface - and cosmic
ray intensity over the last 40 years, and compared those figures with
global average surface temperature.

He told the BBC: 'Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been
caused by solar activity.'

Scientists have intensified the search for alternative explanations

Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University believes
the key to the connumdrum may be the temperature of the world's seas.

Figures show the Pacific Ocean has been cooling over the last few
years, and Easterbrook' s research shows a correlation between this and
global temperatures.

He says the oceans have a cycle in which they warm and cool
cyclically, known as Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

And after a 30-year heating cycle in the 1980s and 1990s, pushing
temperatures above average, we are now moving into a cooler period.

Professor Easterbrook said: 'In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean]
has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

'The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean,
virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.'

Temperatures dropped to -16C near Alberta, Canada, on Monday, breaking
the day's previous record, from 1928, by about three degrees

In Alberta, Canada (above), temperatures dropped to -16C on Monday,
breaking the day's previous record, from 1928, by about three degrees

His figures show that the global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided
with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change), stressed the impact of the ocean currents in the North
Atlantic - a phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.

He believes we may be in a period of cooling - but that it will be
temporary before global warming reasserts itself.

He said the NAO may have been responsible for some of the rapid rise
in temperatures of the last three decades.

'But how much? The jury is still out,' he said.

So is the sun really going down on global warming?

The Met Office is not convinced.

They incorporate solar and oceanic cycles into their models, and they
say that - even if there are periods of slower warming, or temporary
cooling, the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the
up.

Ice cores reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years “AFTER” temperatures change! Al Gore used this same chart showing the rise of CO2 levels to claim that this rise is the cause of global warming… Without this main point, there IS NO argument for global warming… This means that CO2 is NOT the culprit… Let me say that again for those who missed it... CO2 levels in ice core samples show that the CO2 rises 100's of years "AFTER" the event of global warming has already occured...

When man was emitting CFC’s into the atmosphere, even after we banned them they said that it would take maybe 200-400 years for the effects of these3 CFC’s to go away and said back then that the damage was already done and that we would just have to ride what damage we already did out till the atmosphere settled back to the way it was before the use of CFC’s… Does anyone not remember this little bit of information that we were left with after the ban of CFC’s?

In Od’s post, he posted a link that on page five shows the graph of Ice Core samples that show that CO2 has always risen hundreds of years “AFTER” global warming and is not the cause of global warming but it does show that an increase in the CO2 after it gets to a certain level that the world usually goes into some kind of “Ice Age” and I believe this to be a direct link to Co2… But if you will go to the link that Od’s link www.heartland.org/books/PDF...ndbook.pdf
You might find some interesting “FACTS” there that you weren’t aware of… Thank’s Od…

Climate Change.

What and the way we EAT creates alot of Greehouse gasses: www.ted.com/index.php/ta...t_we_eat.html <<<< Buy LOCAL.

Less meat, less junk and more Greens will help us all. :-)

"Could", "might", "we estamate" are all story lines that I read about when it come to the global warming conspiracists ploy to scare the world...

Join in with over 31,000 scientist and professionals in exposing these falsities that are trying to "scare" the world and dig into your pocket books while all the time laughing all the way to the bank with your hard earned money just because you bought into their hoax!...

www.oism.org/pproject/

If you are still some of the few who totally believe in the biggest hoax ever executed on humanity then go ahead and keep up the hoax by trying to scare the general population into thinking that the world is in real danger because of manmade Co2 but you know what? The planet isn't warming beyond repair! We are experiencing somthing quit unique and actually the Co2 is good for agriculture... Sure the weather patterns over the past 20 -30 years have shown a little increase of temperature but the temperature does fluctuate up and down on a constant scale that is in no danger compared to the history of our plant over the course of the last 1000 years... In fact 3000 years ago the planet had some pretty bad global warming that turned some areas of this planet into deserts that use to be lush green areas and Man wasn't producing Co2 or causing this great global warming period then! Yet it still happened... I mean look at the desert around the Nile river! It use to be a paradise but think about it, if that happened today, what would the cause be attributed to? That's right, the global warming scare!

If you believe this stuff and you buy into it like a lot of people then in my opinion, you just aren't using your intelligence when looking at ALL the data...

Notice how "global warming theorists" alway look past the most discreditable evidence in their hoax. That's right, they just tend to overlook the evidence that shoots their theory down and they keep on and on and on and say that the people who are showing them their faults in their theories they say that we are the ones that just aren't looking at the truths and that we need the education??? Hummm I wonder why...

Just two years ago the petition of American Scientist that had signed the petition was at something like 3,100 now it's at 31,000 Scientists... I guess all these scientist are wrong in not buying into the global warming theory? Hummm Go figure...

In some places it is becoming cooler.... while other places are becoming hotter. We have had record breaking temperatures in both the summer AND the winter.

Shift Happens.

This is interesting: www.maar.us/crustal_displacement.html <<<< In the twinkling of an eye thiings can just change.
Magnetic North is moving rapidly: www.sciencedaily.com/release...3513.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>www.sciencedaily.com/release...5021.htm
Toward Russia>>>>>>>>>>>>>>geology.com/news/2008/no...-russia.shtml

:-)

The Ups And Downs Of Global Warming
by Dr. Amber Jenkins
Washington DC (SPX) Oct 12, 2009
www.terradaily.com/reports/..._999.html

According to the vast majority of climate scientists, the planet is heating up1. Scientists have concluded that this appears to be the result of increased human emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, which trap heat near the surface of Earth.
However, some information sources - blogs, websites, media articles and other voices - highlight that the planet has been cooling since a peak in global temperature in 1998. This cooling is only part of the picture, according to a JPL climate scientist and a recent study that has looked at the world's temperature record over the past century or more.

In their recently published research paper2 entitled "Is the climate warming or cooling?", David Easterling of the U.S. National Climate Data Center and Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show that naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling can easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming.

This may sound counter-intuitive at first sight, so let's take a closer look at the data. Figure 1 shows the change in the world's air temperature averaged over all the land and ocean between 1975 and 2008. The warming is obvious - about 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) during that time.

However, there are plenty of periods - 1997 to 1985 and 1981 to 1989 (see insets, Figure 1), and 1998 to 2008 - when no warming is seen, the most recent of which some global warming skeptics say is evidence that the world is actually cooling.

What's going on? To answer this question, Easterling and Wehner pored over global temperature records dating from 1901 to 2008 and also ran computer simulations of Earth's climate looking back into the past and forward into the future. They concluded that in a climate being warmed by man-made carbon emissions, "it is possible, and indeed likely, to have a period as long as a decade or two of 'cooling' or no warming superimposed on a longer-term warming trend."

Natural fluctuations
These temperature plateaus, or cooling spells, can be attributed to natural climate variability, explains Josh Willis, a climate scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. and a recent recipient of the 2009 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers.

"Natural variability refers to naturally-occurring fluctuations or events that change Earth's climate on time scales ranging from years to decades. Big volcanic eruptions, for instance, can cause cooling that lasts for several years. When a volcano erupts, it blasts dust into the upper atmosphere where it reflects sunlight and cools the planet, a bit like a natural umbrella."

He goes on, "There are also all kinds of natural fluctuations that sometimes cause warming, sometimes cooling." Ocean changes, for instance, can have a big impact on the world's temperature. One example that Willis cites is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of warmer and cooler surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean that can last between 10 and 30 years.

Another important example is El Nino, which is an abnormal warming of surface ocean waters in the eastern tropical Pacific that happens every three to eight years and can affect global temperatures for a year or two. Between 1997 and 1998, there was an unusually strong El Nino, and this caused 1998 to be one of the hottest years on record.

When Easterling and Wehner dropped the 1998 temperature spike from the data altogether, and zoomed in on the readings from 1999 to 2008, they saw a strong warming trend over this period. But when the 1998 measurement is included in the data, it looks as if there is no overall warming between 1998 and 2008 at all.

The authors say that it is easy to 'cherry-pick' a period to reinforce a particular point of view. "Claims that global warming is not occurring that are derived from a cooling observed over short time periods ignore natural variability and are misleading."

What you have to look at, says Willis, is the long-term temperature readings that have been collected over the past century - which is exactly what Easterling and Wehner do in their study. Over that sort of time scale, global warming becomes apparent from observations of both our atmosphere and our ocean, which are intimately linked pieces of the climate puzzle.

Sea change
Since around the time of the Industrial Revolution (the late 18th and early 19th centuries), Earth's atmosphere has warmed by a little less than 1 degrees C (1.8 degrees F) (Figure 2)3. In turn, the ocean has also risen by about 15 centimeters (6 inches) over the past 100 years - for two reasons.

First, when water warms up, it expands, in much the same way as a solid does when it heats up. As the volume of seawater increases, it causes sea level to rise. Second, global warming causes glaciers and ice sheets to melt, which adds more water to the world's ocean, again causing sea level to rise4,5.

"If you look at the ocean data, there has been a very clear acceleration in sea level rise," explains Willis. "At the beginning of the last century, sea level was rising by less than 1 millimeter (0.04 inches) per year; mid-century it was 2 millimeters (0.08 inches) per year and now it's 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. This is directly caused by the increasing temperature of the planet."

Big picture
As Willis explains, global warming is a long-term process. "Despite the fact it's been warmer and cooler at different times in the last 10 years, there's no part of the last 10 years that isn't warmer than the temperatures we saw 100 years ago."

Assuming our greenhouse gas emissions continue at their present levels with little reduction, existing climate forecasts suggest that our planet will warm by about 4 degrees C (7.2 degrees F) by the end of the 21st century.

Although scientists continue to study the nuances of Earth's climate, the link between carbon emissions, global warming and sea level rise over the past century is clear. Even if our global carbon emissions began to fall tomorrow, Earth would continue to warm for some time due to the inertia of the climate system6.

"In the next century it's definitely going to get warmer," Willis says. "You don't need a crystal ball or fancy climate model to say that. Just look at the sea level and temperature records from the past 100 years - they're all going up." Likewise, Easterling and Wehner's work reminds us that understanding climate change - one of the most important challenges we face today - requires a long-term view. "Unlike people," says Willis, "the climate has a very long memory."

A body of evidence
In 2007, a scientific intergovernmental body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change, which summarizes our current understanding of climate change. The report took 6 years to produce, involved over 2500 scientific expert reviewers and more than 800 authors from over 130 countries.

Some of their key findings include:

+ The warming trend over the last 50 years (about 0.13 degrees C or 0.23 degrees F per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

+ The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapor that warmer air can hold.

+ Since 1961, the average temperature of the global ocean down to depths of at least 3 km (1.9 miles) has increased. The ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, causing seawater to expand and contributing to sea level rise.

+ Global average sea level rose on average by 1.8 mm (0.07 inches) per year from 1961 to 2003. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century.

+ Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years.

+ Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.

+ Long-term trends in the amount of precipitation have been observed over many large regions from 1900 to 2005.

I don't get it, Elo ois trying to say that the "sky is falling" on this thread and it almost appears that he almost enjoys his posts that Co2 is going to be the downfall of this planet because of man spewing tons and tons of Co2 into the atmosphere relentlessly and that is going to kill this planet
then
On this other thread 2012.tribe.net/thread/376...3699a5a8475
He says that 2012 isn't going to cause the end of the world... I'm guessing he has more fun showing that man is going to end the world by his stupidness and the Co2 that he exhales over a date that many says signifiies the end of the world...

What kind of contradiction is that??? It is going to end but it isn't, no wait it is, no wait, it isn't... I'm so confused(boo-hoo) WTF is going to happen, oh I know it is going to end but not because of a date, only because of man, no wait...

The truth? The truth will hurt…

Still more sobering, people were just now coming to grips with the implications of a fact that scientists had known for decades — the climate system has built-in time lags. Even if human emissions of CO2 magically dropped to zero, the gas already in the air would linger for many centuries, trapping heat. Global temperatures would continue to creep upward until the ocean depths reached equilibrium with the heated air, until biological systems finished adapting to the new conditions, and until Arctic icecaps melted back to their own equilibrium. Whatever we did now, humanity was already committed to centuries of changing weather and rising seas. Yet emissions of greenhouse gases, far from halting, are soaring at an accelerating rate.


The question about CO2 and Global warming… Is CO2 to blame and where does it come from and why doesn’t it go away?

It is believed that man has thickened the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but this is not the complete truth. Volcanoes and tree-killer zones (both completely natural) are the culprits to the excess levels of CO2. Volcanoes let off more CO2 than anything man could even match. And there have been volcanoes being formed more than ever, as well as tree-killer zones. These are cracks in the ground letting off CO2 directly from the earth. Although trees do thrive off of Carbon Dioxide there must be moderation in all things, and there is so much CO2 in that area, it kills all life in the area. There, you would not find a bug anywhere.

( wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_d..._come_from )

Q. I guess the better question would be, “Why isn’t the CO2 being scrubbed from our atmosphere?”

A. Deforestation!

Does CO2 really drive global warming?
I don’t believe that it does.
To the contrary, if you apply the IFF test—if-and-only-if or necessary-and-sufficient—the outcome would appear to be exactly the reverse. Rather than the rising levels of carbon dioxide driving up the temperature, the logical conclusion is that it is the rising temperature that is driving up the CO2 level. Of course, this raises a raft of questions, but they are all answerable. What is particularly critical is distinguishing between the observed phenomenon, or the “what”, from the governing mechanism, or the “why”. Confusion between these two would appear to be the source of much of the noise in the global warming debate.
In applying the IFF test, we can start with the clear correlation between the global CO2 profile and the corresponding temperature signature. There is now in the literature the report of a 400,000-year sequence clearly showing, as a phenomenon, that they go up—and down—together (1). The correlation is clear and accepted. But the causation, the mechanism, is something else: Which is driving which?
Logically, there are four possible explanations, but only two need serious consideration, unless they both fail.
· Case 1: CO2 drives the temperature, as is currently most frequently asserted; and
· Case 2: Temperature drives the level of CO2.
Both appear at first to be possible, but both then generate crucial origin and supplementary questions. For Case 1, the origin question is: What is the independent source of CO2 that drives the CO2 level both up and down, and which in turn, somehow, is presumed to drive the temperature up and down? For Case 2, it is: What drives the temperature, and if this then drives the CO2, where does the CO2 come from? For Case 2, the questions are answerable; but for Case 1, they are not.
Consider Case 2. This directly introduces global warming behavior. Is global warming, as a separate and independent phenomenon, in progress? The answer, as I heard it in geology class 50 years ago, was “yes”, and I have seen nothing since then to contradict that position. To the contrary, as further support, there is now documentation (that was only fragmentary 50 years ago) of an 850,000-year global-temperature sequence, showing that the temperature is oscillating with a period of 100,000 years, and with an amplitude that has risen, in that time, from about 5 °F at the start to about 10 °F “today” (meaning the latest 100,000-year period) (2). We are currently in a rise that started 25,000 years ago and, reasonably, can be expected to peak “very shortly”.
On the shorter timescales of 1000 years and 100 years, further temperature oscillations can be seen, but of much smaller amplitude, down to 1 and 0.5 °F in those two cases. Nevertheless, the overall trend is clearly up, even through the Little Ice Age (~1350–1900) following the Medieval Warm Period. So the global warming phenomenon is here, with a very long history, and we are in it. But what is the driver?
Arctic Ocean model
The postulated driver, or mechanism, developed some 30 years ago to account for the “million-year” temperature oscillations, is best known as the “Arctic Ocean” model (2). According to this model, the temperature variations are driven by an oscillating ice cap in the northern polar regions. The crucial element in the conceptual formulation of this mechanism was the realization that such a massive ice cap could not have developed, and then continued to expand through that development, unless there was a major source of moisture close by to supply, maintain, and extend the cap. The only possible moisture source was then identified as the Arctic Ocean, which, therefore, had to be open—not frozen over—during the development of the ice ages. It then closed again, interrupting the moisture supply by freezing over.
So the model we now have is that if the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as is the case today, the existing ice cap is not being replenished and must shrink, as it is doing today. As it does so, the Earth can absorb more of the Sun’s radiation and therefore will heat up—global warming—as it is doing today, so long as the Arctic Ocean is closed. When it is warm enough for the ocean to open, which oceanographic (and media) reports say is evidently happening right now, then the ice cap can begin to re-form.
As it expands, the ice increasingly reflects the incoming (shorter-wave) radiation from the sun, so that the atmosphere cools at first. But then, the expanding ice cap reduces the radiative (longer-wave) loss from the Earth, acting as an insulator, so that the Earth below cools more slowly and can keep the ocean open as the ice cap expands. This generates “out-of-sync” oscillations between atmosphere and Earth. The Arctic Ocean “trip” behavior at the temperature extremes, allowing essentially discontinuous change in direction of the temperature, is identified as a bifurcation system with potential for analysis as such. The suggested trip times for the change are interesting: They were originally estimated at about 500 years, then reduced to 50 years and, most recently, down to 5 years (2). So, if the ocean is opening right now, we could possibly start to see the temperature reversal under way in about 10 years.
What we have here is a sufficient mechanistic explanation for the dominant temperature fluctuations and, particularly, for the current global warming rise—without the need for CO2 as a driver. Given that pattern, the observed CO2 variations then follow, as a driven outcome, mainly as the result of change in the dynamic equilibrium between the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and its solution in the sea. The numbers are instructive. In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (3). This interpretation of the sea as the major source is also in line with the famous Mauna Loa CO2 profile for the past 40 years, which shows the consistent season-dependent variation of 5–6 ppm, up and down, throughout the year—when the average global rise is only 1 ppm/year.
In the literature, this oscillation is attributed to seasonal growing behavior on the “mainland” (4), which is mostly China, >2000 mi away, but no such profile with that amplitude is known to have been reported at any mainland location. Also, the amplitude would have to fall because of turbulent diffusive exchange during transport over the 2000 mi from the mainland to Hawaii, but again there is lack of evidence for such behavior. The fluctuation can, however, be explained simply from study of solution equilibria of CO2 in water as due to emission of CO2 from and return to the sea around Hawaii governed by a ±10 °F seasonal variation in the sea temperature.
Impact of industrialization
The next matter is the impact of fossil fuel combustion. Returning to the IPCC data and putting a rational variation as noise of ~5 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (<5%)—annual contribution of 5–6 Gt from combustion of fossil fuels. This means that fossil fuel combustion cannot be expected to have any significant influence on the system unless, to introduce the next point of focus, the radiative balance is at some extreme or bifurcation point that can be tripped by “small” concentration changes in the radiation-absorbing–emitting gases in the atmosphere. Can that include CO2?
This now starts to address the necessity or “only-if” elements of the problem. The question focuses on whether CO2 in the atmosphere can be a dominant, or “only-if” radiative-balance gas, and the answer to that is rather clearly “no”. The detailed support for that statement takes the argument into some largely esoteric areas of radiative behavior, including the analytical solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild Integral Equation of Transfer that governs radiative exchange (5–7), but the outcome is clear.
The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributor because of its relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.
In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350–400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25–30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.
Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation (8). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6–7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60–80% RH—on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.
This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly –100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature—in that case we don’t have an identified problem!
What the evidence shows
So what we have on the best current evidence is that
· global temperatures are currently rising;
· the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
· the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
· there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
· the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
· if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
· the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
· water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
· determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
· the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.
The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.
References
1. Sigman, M.; Boyle, E. A. Nature 2000, 407, 859–869.
2. Calder, N. The Weather Machine; Viking Press: New York, 1974.
3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change; Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callender, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., Maskell, K., Eds.; Cam bridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1996.
4. Hileman, B. Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70 (17), 7–19.
5. Schuster, A. Astrophysics J. 1905, 21, 1–22.
6. Schwarzschild, K. Gesell. Wiss. Gottingen; Nachr. Math.–Phys. Klasse 1906, 41.
7. Schwarzschild, K. Berliner Ber. Math. Phys. Klasse 1914, 1183.
8. Essenhigh, R. H. On Radiative Transfer in Solids. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thermophysics Specialist Conference, New Orleans, April 17–20, 1967; Paper 67-287; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, 1967.


Too much CO2 in a city! And what it has to offer scientists…
chainreaction.asu.edu/ecology...xide.htm

Q: Where does CO2 come from?
A: Anything that breathes Oxygen!
1. That must mean that if CO2 come from the Earth that the Earth breathes Oxygen and is alive just as we are…

Proof that CO2 doesn’t mean global warming..

www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

A strong correlation between global warming and methane… This correlation even shows a tight nit relationship in yearly ups and downs of weather patterns .

A Possible Mechanism For
Ice Age And Global Warming Cycles
Recent discoveries about the existence of a vast band of Methane Hydrate Ice along the world's continental Slopes, at approx. 500 meters depth, have revolutionized the theories of the Ice Age and Global Warming Cycles. The accumulation of Methane Ice leads to Ice Ages and the rapid melting and effervescence of this ice and gas leads to and equally rapid Global Warming.
The last series of Ice Ages all follow a similar pattern of gradual cooling for many centuries and the formation of vast Ice Caps in the Northern Hemisphere, and in the Southern Hemisphere to a much lessor extent due probably to much less land mass. Then the Ice Ages end very rapidly, in fact in less than 50 years! This Global Warming is so rapid that the graphs of all the available paleotemperature indicators show the same rapid warming of up to 10 degrees Centigrade in a very short time. This rapid warming causes catastrophic melting of the Ice Caps and flooding across the Continents. It also raised sea level 300 feet after the last Ice Age ended from 14,000 years ago in North America and 10,500 years ago in Europe. This difference is probably due to the differences between the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperature and pressure gradients and the influence of the Gulf Stream on European weather.
As the Methane Ice accumulates and the earth cools, Ice Caps advance and sea level slowly drops. During the last Ice Age, sea level dropped 300 feet. This lowering of sea level by 300 feet is just enough to change the critical pressure necessary for the Methane Ice. When the pressure drops to below a critical level, the Methane Ice effervesces rapidly out of the ocean and floods the Atmosphere with the very powerful greenhouse gas, Methane. The end of the Ice Age then occurs very rapidly, sea level raises rapidly and the methane can then begin to accumulate again in and on the Continental Slope soft sediments. Apparently it is accumulating again and the earth will begin to cool. The slight rise in recent average temperatures has decreased the Ice Caps further and this will raise sea level slightly but then more Methane Ice will accumulate and increase the cooling rate until the next Ice Age begins.
Other factors, such as solar radiation levels, may influence slightly the earth's atmosphere and hence the more random minor fluctuations seen in the complex graphs of Paleotemperature Indicators. Our current one degree Centigarde rise in the last century is only a minor random fluctuation upward, because the next major move is actually cooler. Our attributing this fluctuation to man's influence may only be another relic of anthropomorphism, like the old theory that the earth is the center of the solar system. Man may not be able to influence the atmosphere as much as he may want to believe. Man is powerful, but not that powerful. When man's influences are compared to the Ice Age Cycles, there doesn't seem to be any correlation to these cycles at all. We have witnessed many of them, but we probably didn't have anything to do with causing them.

There’s a tentative 1981 report that methane in the atmosphere was increasing at an astounding rate, perhaps 2% a year. The following year, a study of air bubbles trapped in ice drilled from the Greenland icecap confirmed that methane was climbing. The climb, radically different from any change that could be detected in past millennia, had started in the 16th century and accelerated wildly in recent decades. By 1988, painstaking collection of air samples at many remote locations gave an accurate measure of the recent rise. The actual rate of increase was about 1% a year, bringing a shocking 11% increase of methane in the past decade alone. (Later studies found the rate of rise varying greatly from year to year. During the 1990s the rise leveled off, for uncertain reasons, but most scientists expected the climb must eventually resume). Each molecule of methane had a greenhouse effect more than twenty times that of a molecule of CO2. In addition, some of the methane was converted into ozone and water vapor in the stratosphere, where they would exert their own greenhouse effects. It seemed likely that the rising methane level was already having a measurable impact.

This raised alarming new possibilities for potentially catastrophic feedbacks. Particularly ominous were the enormous quantities of carbon atoms locked in the strange "clathrates" (methane hydrates) found in the muck of seabeds around the world. Clathrates are ice-like substances with methane imprisoned within their structure, kept solid only by the pressure and cold of the overlying water. A lump of the stuff brought to the surface will fizz and disintegrate, and meanwhile a match can set it aflame. When it became apparent how widespread the clathrates are, they attracted close study as a potentially lucrative source of energy. In the early 1980s, a few scientists pointed out that if a slight warming penetrated the sediments, clathrates might melt and release colossal bursts of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. That would bring still more warming.
The importance of methane became clearer as more cores were drilled from the ice of Greenland and Antarctica, revealing changes in the levels of gases in the atmosphere back through previous glacial periods. Measurements published in 1988 showed that over hundreds of thousands of years, methane had risen and fallen in step with temperature. The level had been a factor of two higher in warm periods than in glacial periods. Perhaps this was due to variations in how much gas was generated by bacteria in wetlands, or by abrupt releases from undersea clathrates? For whatever reason, there was evidently some kind of feedback between temperature and the level of methane in the atmosphere, a feedback that might gravely accelerate any global warming.


Fluorinated Gas Emissions

These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases (“High GWP gases”).

Emissions of HFCs have increased rapidly since they are substitutes for substances banned under the Montreal Protocol for the protection of the ozone layer, and are expected to increase by 60 % to 70 % by 2010 from 1995 levels.
The final group of greenhouse gases, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) contribute about 1.5% to total EU greenhouse gas emissions. Their global warming potentials are very high compared with carbon dioxide.
Methodologies for inventories of these gases have been developed much more recently than for the other gases. Various countries still do not report their emissions. In 1998 HFCs contributed 67% to the total emissions of fluorinated gases, followed by SF6 with 20%. Industry is the most significant source (99.9% in 1998) with the largest emissions of HFCs, a by-product of production of HCFC-22. The most important source for SF6 is electricity distribution (used in switches) and of PFC processes in the aluminium and electronics industries. Emissions of these gases have increased rapidly and may rise further, as HFCs continue to be substituted for substances banned under the Montreal Protocol. No specific targets have been set for these gases but their emissions, while small compared with the three main greenhouse gases, are relevant to achieving the Kyoto Protocol targets because of their rapid increase.

Even if CO2 had no impact on global warming (which still hasn’t been proven) then Fluorinated Gas Emissions and Methane in themselves are enough to do the damage as we are seeing today in terms of climate variations and global warming swings…

You can try to cap CO2 emissions and reduce your carbon footprint but until we put tight restriction on ALL Fluorinated Gas Emissions which will in turn help curb the warming and less Methane will be produced by the Earth naturally then we will still see rising global temperatures even though we are reducing CO2 emissions! People, we are concentrating on the wrong culprits in our global warming fight and ignorant people fight that CO2 is the main culprit when there is no supporting evidence at all! Well CO2 is a small greenhouse gas but scientists put more blame on Co2 then they do the Fluorinated Gas Emissions and the Methane gases and in my opinion these are the real culprits…
Through gaschronography, it shows that Co2 IS a greenhouse gas but that more isn’t more likely to cause any more damage than what is already in the atmosphere, in other words, once the Co2 gets to a certain level then no matter how much more is added, it doesn’t effect the greenhouse effect any more or any less.

"Growing hemp as nature designed is vital to our urgent need to reduce greenhouse gases and ensure the survival of our planet." - Jack Herer