January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record

Originally Posted by ChesusRice

Link please

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._and_Democracy

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a non-partisan progressive watchdog group led by Lisa Graves. CMD manages this website, SourceWatch.org. As noted on SourceWatch's sister site, PRWatch.org, CMD "strengthens participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda such as corporate greenwashing, and by promoting media literacy and citizen journalism." CMD also manages the BanksterUSA website. CMD was founded in 1993 by John Stauber.

Originally Posted by ChesusRice

Some contend that CMD is not neutral. CMD has been criticized for having an anti-corporate viewpoint by lobbyists such as Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by Rick Berman specializing in creating front groups for industry clients in the tobacco, food, biotechnology and other sectors. ActivistCash.com, an industry-funded website run by Berman & Co. and associated with Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom, has run such critiques.

This sounds like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's basically double-reverse ad hominem, and as such has no value to either support or detract from who the CMD are imo. I'm not here to either praise or bury CMD, but for them to posture themselves as nonpartisan and progressive in the same sentence caught my attention. i don't know about this instance, but it could mean "the Dems are too far to the right of us". I'd need to dig into who the leaders are, to wit Lisa Graves (SourceWatch) and John Stauber (CMD). I would be very surprised to find centrists, but am willing to be convinced.

Originally Posted by MuyLocoNC

To the earlier question, man contributes LESS than one tenth of one percent of CO2 emissions.

To Canndo, #2 is exactly correct. Warming has ALWAYS preceded CO2 increases. The notion that it doesn't, didn't even surface until GORE intentionally reversed the chart in his little movie. The Eco-Loons latched on to that and haven't let go since. Why? Because without that blatant fallacy, they have no crisis to use as a vehicle for their actual agenda.

Al gore is nothing but a public face he does not drive the science.

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

• The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.
• This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.
• This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
• The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Source.

Last updated on 9 April 2012 by dana1981. View ArchivesV

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

Originally Posted by MuyLocoNC

That's awesome, did you get it straight from Al Gore's blog? Or some other blogger of even higher standing? It almost rises to the level of fraud perpetrated by the IIPC and the "cooked" number of climatoligists that signed on with them. That and all the false reports and scaaaary predictions that have now been exposed.

Your play book is a bit dated

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (OISM)

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

• The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

• The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
• The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.

In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.
32,000 Sounds Like A Lot

In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)
According to figures from the US Department of EducationDigest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.
There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.
Several independent studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, that CO2 is causing global changes to the climate, and that the consequences could be catastrophic. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.
Last updated on 20 August 2010 by gpwayne.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM...ject-basic.htm

Originally Posted by MuyLocoNC

It wasn't a reasonable challenge at all, but I'll play.

The answer is: Because the earth has had CO2 levels that high for millions of years, there is no need for alarm because this is a natural cycle occurring hundreds of thousands of times over millions of years.

There, my answer. Now you have to disprove it to validate your alarm.

During prehistoric times there is much reason to believe CO2 levels were significantly higher. Vegetation was gigantic and widespread.

Originally Posted by canndo

You are "sure" it did, but strangely, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since we have been recording it, even though the emitions from the sun have fluctuated. We do have a good idea not only of the CO2 content in ages past but of the temperatures back then. If you really want to try to compare, no, the temperatures now are not nearly as hot as they have been in the past - but what past and how has that anything to do with the modern era? I love how the naysayers jump from practicality to theory. In this case, that the average temperature was higher 100 million years ago has no bearing on today.

Except it has plenty of bearing if you're going to attempt to apply the force of government to save us from a potential disaster which may not be so horrible after all. I can't help but notice, that in my humble experience, CO2 and plants mix rather nicely.

Originally Posted by OGEvilgenius

During prehistoric times there is much reason to believe CO2 levels were significantly higher. Vegetation was gigantic and widespread.

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
(The Lavoisier Group)

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.

Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

The following (somewhat simplified) diagram may make this easier to understand:

When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it's the only factor; ignore the other elements and you'll most likely get the story wrong.

Last updated on 24 December 2010 by steve.oconnor.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Global warming is a real science but to say it has anything to do with politics, politicians....especially us giving money to or supporting politicians/governments/corporations is the bullshit...Giving corporations money for air is not going to solve global warming, don't be retarded, its a scam. I am all for talking about real solutions but I have yet to see anyone bring that forth with the exception of bullshit scams. My bullshit meter goes through the roof when I hear about proposals such as carbon taxes lol, throwing money seemingly and blindly at the problem doesn't accomplish anything but throwing money away, that is one problem with some people, they think you can give people money and you are then relieved of all responsibility and vilified as being compassionate and a good person, doesn't work that way. (only in your head) The sad fact is you are being scammed for your ignorance and guilt, good job throwing your money away for nothing dolt.