U.S. Court of Appeals Rules on EPA CO2 Regulation

[WeatherRusty]

You talk about the enslavement of people, yet you support the agenda that is being used to do just that. Look I agree with you and I'm all for getting away from fossil fuels...but now isn't the time. There isn't a better alternative at the moment and cheap energy is just what a crumbling world economy needs at the moment. Shutting down coal plants and increasing energy prices by a good amount is not the answer, not now. Also the reason I don't take AGW all that serious has nothing to do with it being used to exploit people.

If you read my posts, you should realize that I do not advocate the shutting down of coal plants, oil refineries or any other fossil fuel source. We absolutely must continue to use all of the energy sources we can come up with and use them much more efficiently.

The problem is, the era of cheap fossil fuels has come to an end. The cost is going to rise inexorably into the future due to increasing world wide demand while the resources become more and more difficult and expensive to extract. We are on a collision course between supply and demand, with the growth in demand out pacing the growth in supply. In addition, all fossil fuels are limited in abundance. The road we are on is not sustainable.

We simply must develop and deploy every source of energy we can possibly bring to market and do it as fast as possible. Either we win the race to the cross roads, or the very demise you fear is absolutely inevitable since our way of life is entirely dependent on abundant energy. Compounding this inevitability of entropy, is the issue of climate change in a world becoming ever more vulnerable to the changes it will bring, economically and ecologically.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

You talk about the enslavement of people, yet you support the agenda that is being used to do just that. Look I agree with you and I'm all for getting away from fossil fuels...but now isn't the time. There isn't a better alternative at the moment and cheap energy is just what a crumbling world economy needs at the moment. Shutting down coal plants and increasing energy prices by a good amount is not the answer, not now. Also the reason I don't take AGW all that serious has nothing to do with it being used to exploit people.

If "enslaving" people means forcing them to make better responsible choices than so be it! I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of green police and regulations in the strickest sense. If it means keeping people in line and consuming at a resonable amount and forcing others to recycle, reuse, and becoming more efficient then I'm all for it. I personally think there should be a cap on all consumable goods for the public. If you consume over x amount of set amount you get fined or pay an "environment tax or fee". If you use some many x gallons per household you should be fined or fee, etc. I'm also quite upset with our dumping sites and landfills. There has to be a better way then just leaving it causing all the S*** to just sit there. Haha for all the critism this commercial gets, It would make me one happy sob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWC6sJqvy_Y&feature=related

[Carvers Gap]

So, how do you like your mercury and lead? Medium or well?

You don't care or believe CO2 is acidifying the oceans and warming the environment to the detriment of human societies as well as the general biosphere?

Industry pollutes the environment. It's what they do to maximize profit. Use the environment as a free dumping space. Why shouldn't the cost of doing business include the proper disposal of industrial waste?

The industrialized country that I live in, the United States of America, guarantees the rights of others which include the right to voice opinions about conservation. It is democracies which are built upon market economies(industry, Wall Street, commerce) which have moved to protect the environment. Whaling bans, clean air acts, and the national park systems of the world originated in free countries that have industry. CO2 is not bad in and of itself. The problem with many is that many people are turning away from the money-maker that is known as global warming. I do agree the planet has warmed. I do agree we should protect the environment when at all possible for future generations. I simply am not going to be ruled by bad science or botched science. I believe global warming is a natural cycle driven by the sun. I believe the Earth will cool off again. In the grand scheme of things, humans are a blink. Sometimes we think we are a bit more important than we are. For the record I garden organically, catch-and-release when I fish, make responsible choices on energy consumption, recycle and the like. I do all of this and I don't believe in man-made global warming. Why do I conserve my resources? It's the responsible thing to do. People will do the responsible thing because it makes sense, not because they are bombarded with an incomplete climatic picture aimed at bilking them out of their hard earned money. That computer you are typing on contains rare earth metals which are extremely destructive to mine. Yet, you still use a computer. That's the cost of doing business as you say.

[TerryM]

The industrialized country that I live in, the United States of America, guarantees the rights of others which include the right to voice opinions about conservation. It is democracies which are built upon market economies(industry, Wall Street, commerce) which have moved to protect the environment. Whaling bans, clean air acts, and the national park systems of the world originated in free countries that have industry. CO2 is not bad in and of itself. The problem with many is that many people are turning away from the money-maker that is known as global warming. I do agree the planet has warmed. I do agree we should protect the environment when at all possible for future generations. I simply am not going to be ruled by bad science or botched science. I believe global warming is a natural cycle driven by the sun. I believe the Earth will cool off again. In the grand scheme of things, humans are a blink. Sometimes we think we are a bit more important than we are. For the record I garden organically, catch-and-release when I fish, make responsible choices on energy consumption, recycle and the like. I do all of this and I don't believe in man-made global warming. Why do I conserve my resources? It's the responsible thing to do. People will do the responsible thing because it makes sense, not because they are bombarded with an incomplete climatic picture aimed at bilking them out of their hard earned money. That computer you are typing on contains rare earth metals which are extremely destructive to mine. Yet, you still use a computer. That's the cost of doing business as you say.

Yea - I just wish you weren't so shy about expressing your patriotism.

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

The industrialized country that I live in, the United States of America, guarantees the rights of others which include the right to voice opinions about conservation. It is democracies which are built upon market economies(industry, Wall Street, commerce) which have moved to protect the environment. Whaling bans, clean air acts, and the national park systems of the world originated in free countries that have industry. CO2 is not bad in and of itself. The problem with many is that many people are turning away from the money-maker that is known as global warming. I do agree the planet has warmed. I do agree we should protect the environment when at all possible for future generations. I simply am not going to be ruled by bad science or botched science. I believe global warming is a natural cycle driven by the sun. I believe the Earth will cool off again. In the grand scheme of things, humans are a blink. Sometimes we think we are a bit more important than we are. For the record I garden organically, catch-and-release when I fish, make responsible choices on energy consumption, recycle and the like. I do all of this and I don't believe in man-made global warming. Why do I conserve my resources? It's the responsible thing to do. People will do the responsible thing because it makes sense, not because they are bombarded with an incomplete climatic picture aimed at bilking them out of their hard earned money. That computer you are typing on contains rare earth metals which are extremely destructive to mine. Yet, you still use a computer. That's the cost of doing business as you say.

You sound like an intelligent person, yet you have come to an irrational conclusion which defies science. You include elements of conspiracy to defraud you, a judgment that the science is bad or botched, that our current warming is a natural cycle caused by the Sun and that the Earth will (soon) cool off again. All of that is, as you call it, your 'belief'. None of it is supported with evidence or science. We can add another denier to the list.

As to your last point, much of what we do destroys or degrades the natural environment. We build networks of roads, we build cities and our population growth places demands of an ecological system which can not keep up. Much of that offers little or no reasonable alternative ways to proceed in a none destructive manor. However, we can and must change the ways in which we obtain and utilize energy.

[cyclonebuster]

http://www.eia.gov/state/

Have to thin out the coal, petroleum producing plants. Increase the natural gas and wind plants. Once technology improves along with a new energy infrastructure, we will have better ways to transport electricity more efficiently.While also having better renewable energy storage to help accomodate peak and cyclical usage, then eventually after these steps are taken gradually thin out the natural gas producing power plants with better energy.

Make an immediate transportation infrastructure switch to run all vehicles on natural gas or hydrogen.

Or just power the East Coast from the Kinetic Energy in the Gulfstream. This will reduce GHG's while restoring Northern Arctic Ice and few hundred other good things that I can name off if you would like to hear them?????????????

[cyclonebuster]

the big idea in all of this, would be something that I'd have to look up to be sure, but the gist of the statement is: why wouldn't you want to clean up CO2 levels? the best reason to do that is actually for us to become more efficient in how we use the fossil fuels. and when we become more efficient, not only do we save money, but then we'll also solve most of the other particulate and emissions problems, like smog and ground-level ozone, which in term would also help health care costs near the cities.

We are better off saving our fossil fuels for our War Machine before they run out and transfer over to green energy.

[cyclonebuster]

The industrialized country that I live in, the United States of America, guarantees the rights of others which include the right to voice opinions about conservation. It is democracies which are built upon market economies(industry, Wall Street, commerce) which have moved to protect the environment. Whaling bans, clean air acts, and the national park systems of the world originated in free countries that have industry. CO2 is not bad in and of itself. The problem with many is that many people are turning away from the money-maker that is known as global warming. I do agree the planet has warmed. I do agree we should protect the environment when at all possible for future generations. I simply am not going to be ruled by bad science or botched science. I believe global warming is a natural cycle driven by the sun. I believe the Earth will cool off again. In the grand scheme of things, humans are a blink. Sometimes we think we are a bit more important than we are. For the record I garden organically, catch-and-release when I fish, make responsible choices on energy consumption, recycle and the like. I do all of this and I don't believe in man-made global warming. Why do I conserve my resources? It's the responsible thing to do. People will do the responsible thing because it makes sense, not because they are bombarded with an incomplete climatic picture aimed at bilking them out of their hard earned money. That computer you are typing on contains rare earth metals which are extremely destructive to mine. Yet, you still use a computer. That's the cost of doing business as you say.

Read this from NOAA if you think it is natural............

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

[Carvers Gap]

Read this from NOAA if you think it is natural............

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

The agency you link would lose its funding if it said anything remotely to the contrary. During the next twenty years, we should be able to gather enough independent data, improve our scientific instrumentation, and get strong independent entities to look at all of the evidence. It is impossible at this stage of human development to know where the Earth is in its climatic cycle - impossible. The Earth has warmed naturally in the past and it is entirely possible it is doing so now. It is entirely possible for an entire group of intellegent people to be wrong - warmistas or deniers. We cannot assume either side is right or wrong at this point. What I have a problem with is manipulating tax payer dollars to "prove" AGW or else participating agencies lose their funding. Meteorologists will remain mum or not discuss their beliefs(if they believe to the contrary). That is not scientific discussion. Rigor is allowing everyone to test a hypothesis until no idea is left standing. That rigorous process is being shouted down.

[FloridaJohn]

The agency you link would lose its funding if it said anything remotely to the contrary.

Are you just assuming this or do you know this is true? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

During the next twenty years, we should be able to gather enough independent data, improve our scientific instrumentation, and get strong independent entities to look at all of the evidence.

What do you think will change with another 20 years of data collection? What is missing from our data right now that an additional 20 years will rectify?

It is impossible at this stage of human development to know where the Earth is in its climatic cycle - impossible. The Earth has warmed naturally in the past and it is entirely possible it is doing so now.

Assuming this is true, how will an additional 20 years of research solve this problem? Will our stage of human development finally have advanced to the point where we know the Earth's climatic cycle? In only twenty years from now.

It is entirely possible for an entire group of intellegent people to be wrong - warmistas or deniers. We cannot assume either side is right or wrong at this point.

It is possible, but very unlikely. With time, we will develop a more thorough and nuanced understanding of how all the different pieces of the climate inter-connect, but those are just the finer details. The overall scheme is already well understood, even though lots of people wish that were not true. In other words, we have a pretty good idea of the size of the forest, even though we haven't yet taken an inventory of every tree.

What I have a problem with is manipulating tax payer dollars to "prove" AGW or else participating agencies lose their funding.

Which agencies are in danger of losing their funding? Could you point me to a news story discussing this?

Meteorologists will remain mum or not discuss their beliefs(if they believe to the contrary).

Not all of them do. Keeping quiet may have more to do with losing viewers (on TV), then anything else.

That is not scientific discussion. Rigor is allowing everyone to test a hypothesis until no idea is left standing.

It does sound like you have at least heard of the scientific method. What makes you believe that is not happening? Are scientists not formulating hypothesis, constructing tests, and then publishing the results? Are other scientists not free to discuss and confirm or refute their findings? Haven't some theories been already been determined to be unsound? Do others still stand the test of time and repeated scrutiny? If a hypothesis stands up to the scrutiny, shouldn't it be believed?

That rigorous process is being shouted down.

Who is shouting down the process? How are they preventing scientists from coming up with alternate theories?

Or maybe, just maybe, this field of science has been studied enough to be able to draw at least some basic conclusions?

[cmc0605]

It is always interesting to see the rationalizations people will come up with in order to convince themselves that something fundamental must be wrong with climate science. The rationalizations are virtually always non-scientific, such as how "funding" would magically cease if AGW weren't an issue. This is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of funding, which has nothing to do with pre-conceived conclusions, but rather the nature of a proposed topic (to NSF, etc), and whether or not your project proposal can convince someone that your work with make a contribution to the science. I am currently a PhD student working under an NSF grant to study the climate of the last millennium at the proxy-model interface, merging isotopic records embedded within ice cores, speleothems, etc with isotopic-enabled models. I do not get funded to advance a particular cause. In fact, no one gets funded to say things that are already known.

Other rationalizations involve what people believe to be shoddy science, sometimes built on manufactured "scandals" like climategate, other times on people's own misunderstanding of the science. It is certainly possible several scientists are doing something wrong (though there is no compelling evidence these people are the "usual" names called out by the skeptical community). In any case, it is impossible for thousands of scientists, across the world and with independent research groups, to all be involved in some sort of collective conspiracy. Scientists get trained (and paid) to be skeptical, to argue, and to compete. Self-esteem boosts and pat on the backs don't make careers. Advancement of the science makes a career, usually in the form of publications that say something new.

In the end, we cannot rely on conspiracies, fears, emotions, or other irrational lines of thought guide the science. Scientifically, the problem of global warming is one of physics. The simple fact is that our planet, as well as the climate of all the terrestrial planets, is maintained by a combination of absorbed solar radiation and its greenhouse effect. For fixed albedo, the greenhouse increases the surface temperature on Earth by over 30 K and 500 K on Venus. The importance of carbon dioxide comes into play because it absorbs radiation very strongly in areas where the planets emit strongly to space, and in addition, it does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at the prevailing temperature regime of those planets. Only about one half of one percent of the greenhouse effect on Earth is provided directly by the bulk of the atmospheric composition, N2 and O2. Virtually everything is provided by "trace" gases (~50% from water vapor, 25% from clouds, 20% from CO2). Of these, water vapor and clouds are coupled strongly to the current temperature and dynamics, interacting dynamically on timescales of days to weeks, and because the physics of condensation/precipitation is temperature dependent, these become feedbacks allowing CO2 to build the "core skeleton" of the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

While the sun provides virtually 100% of the energy received by the Earth, the greenhouse effect is the predominant mechanism controlling the flow of energy out of the planet; the "high-temperature" radiation upwelling from the surface is emitted as much colder radiation to space (due to the temperature structure of a convecting atmosphere), thus creating an efficient heat-trapping mechanism. Increasing CO2 at fixed temperature reduces the rate at which the planet loses heat to space, forcing it to heat up again until a new radiative equilibrium is established. This is all uncontroversial, well-established physics.

The next important step is climate sensitivity, which has been studied for well over three decades now. Sensitivity must be interrogated through combinations of observational, paleoclimatic, and modeling evidence. There is no suitable observation that allows us to nail sensitivity on its own, whether it be the response to a volcanic eruption, the regressed relationships between temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation fluxes, etc. There are both practical and theoretical reasons for this. As a practical matter, climate observations are all prone to uncertainty, and relationships between observable quantities and climate sensitivity is often complex or absent (particularly at equilibrium). Moreover, most observations are related to the climate feedback parameter, which is the inverse of climate sensitivity. A Gaussian distribution in inverse sensitivity gives no formal upper bound for sensitivity, and the holy grail in sensitivity research is bounding the upper end. Paleoclimate provides good indications of Earth's sensitivity, with three leading methods used to infer sensitivity, including direct "observation" of a past forcing and temperature response, though one needs to assume that sensitivity is the same between the past and present; other methods can relax this assumption, such as those exploring the parametric and structural uncertainties in a model with observational or paleoclimate evidence. Perturbed Physics Ensembles offer a systematic approach to quantify uncertainty in models of the climate system response to a radiative forcing. Ensembles and probability distributions, combined with observational and paleoclimate "checks and balances" (akin to what is being done at climateprediction.net), is the "modern" way of tackling the problem. Results from dozens of studies will be discussed extensively in the AR5.

There is an extensive literature on this, and the AR4 range of ~2-4.5 C is still widely accepted, and one that carries over rather robustly to CMIP5 (see also Knutti and Hegerl., 2008 for a review), though with a poorly constrained upper bound. People are simply making things up when they say observations point to a low sensitivity, or they are taking their conclusions from one particular study amongst hundreds. They do exist, though in all cases have been criticized in the literature for some combination of inappropriate methodology, neglecting of uncertainties, etc. The details of these methods and criticisms are critical if one is going to seriously challenge the mainstream conclusions, and one borne out by countless lines of evidence.

[cyclonebuster]

The agency you link would lose its funding if it said anything remotely to the contrary. During the next twenty years, we should be able to gather enough independent data, improve our scientific instrumentation, and get strong independent entities to look at all of the evidence. It is impossible at this stage of human development to know where the Earth is in its climatic cycle - impossible. The Earth has warmed naturally in the past and it is entirely possible it is doing so now. It is entirely possible for an entire group of intellegent people to be wrong - warmistas or deniers. We cannot assume either side is right or wrong at this point. What I have a problem with is manipulating tax payer dollars to "prove" AGW or else participating agencies lose their funding. Meteorologists will remain mum or not discuss their beliefs(if they believe to the contrary). That is not scientific discussion. Rigor is allowing everyone to test a hypothesis until no idea is left standing. That rigorous process is being shouted down.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink..........

[Carvers Gap]

it's not being shouted down. the scientific process is hale and hearty.

I think you would be more comfortable in the politics subforum in OT. this forum is for discussing the science.

So, asking someone to leave advances scientific discussion. The thread is about a US Court of Appeals Ruling - not exactly pure science you must admit. I do think challenging the validity of data, motives behind research, and funding sources is directly related to the science of AGW. If we are going to get to the bottom of what has caused our planet to warm during the past two decades, then we need to be using pure data. In my opinion, there is just very little of it out there. There is so much "noise" in the data pipeline, it's relatively easy prove points either way on an array of issues - not just AGW.

In twenty years, computers should be strong enough to model some forms of "chaos." The climate data base will be more complete. It took us two decades just to utilize the mathematics, gather appropriate minds, and build the machinery to set foot on the moon. Learning to model climate w/ limited databases and limited computers(think where tech will be in twenty years) is just now beginning to be a reliable tool. Debbie was modeled by the Euro to go to Texas but went to the Atlantic. If our computer models can't model chaos in the 7-10 day range, what makes us think we can model a 100 year climate trend?

[Carvers Gap]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink..........

...Of course.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Or just power the East Coast from the Kinetic Energy in the Gulfstream. This will reduce GHG's while restoring Northern Arctic Ice and few hundred other good things that I can name off if you would like to hear them?????????????

Look, I believe in AGW and agree actions should be taken, but you're dreaming if you think all our energy requirements will be met instantaneously from renewable sources. Our best choice to maintain our economic dependance along with a smoth environmental transitions is going to be a rough process. The best logical choice in order to maintain a balance between economics and environment would be to radically switch all fossil fuel energy to the cleanest fossil fuel source available which is natural gas. Eliminate coal, and petroleum based energy for both transportation and electricty useage. Plastics can still be derived from natural gas while we encorporate better cleaner plastic technology. Our energy dependance is going to have to bridged from oil/coal to CNG to renewable, there is noway financially or infrastructurally we can make a direct 100% renewable society with current technology. Natural Gas is the future until we can make a full transition to renewable energy, there is no denying it. Running CNG alone for transportation will almost 1/2 the CO2 emmissions from transportation derived energy and not to mention practically elliminating particulate pollution and dramatically increasing air quality.

Our country is in desperate need of improving the efficiency of our power grid, definetely need a smart grid.

Wind and natural gas will be the 2 main future players for our electricity, bank it.

[Carvers Gap]

Look, I believe in AGW and agree actions should be taken, but your dreaming if you think all our energy requirements will be met instantaneously from renewable sources. Our best choice to maintain our economic dependance along with a smoth environmental transitions is going to be a rough process. The best logical choice in order to maintain a balance between economics and environment would be to radically switch all fossil fuel energy to the cleanest fossil fuel source available which is natural gas. Eliminate coal, and petroleum based energy for both transportation and electricty useage. Plastics can still be derived from natural gas while we encorporate better cleaner plastic technology. Our energy dependance is going to have to bridged from oil/coal to CNG to renewable, there is noway financially or infrastructurally we can make a direct 100% renewable society with current technology. Natural Gas is the future until we can make a full transition to renewable energy, there is no denying it. Running CNG alone for transportation will almost 1/2 the CO2 emmissions from transportation derived energy.

Our country is in desperate need of improving the efficiency of our power grid, definetely need a smart grid.

Totally agree w/ natural gas as a main fuel source. In addition to being cleaner, its availibility would provide energy independence for the US. Areas where the US could begin saving money on energy is w/ rooftops going solar as well as hot water heaters going solar. The technology is there. Somebody needs to make it cheap and available. It would keep homes from pulling as much power from the grid. If Thomas Edison were alive, he could find a way. I don't think most folks would need much encouragement if it was affordable. Very true that we don't have the technology to be renewable - yet. Nuclear energy has potential if it can be controlled and have less lasting impacts in terms of radioactivity.

[Carvers Gap]

your unsupported opinion parroting discredited denier talking points is meaningless in this discussion.

and re: the bolded: this is the second time I've had to post this in a week:

http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm

please educate yourself. we already have our quote of ignorant deniers spreading the same discredited talking points.

I will not resort to namecalling. I just disagree with CO2 induced global warming. I don't deny the planet has warmed. So, you are saying that our computer systems and science will not be significantly better in twenty years? Why not make a decision w/ the best data available. Your string of graphs does not answer that question.

[FloridaJohn]

I don't deny the planet has warmed.

What do you believe is the cause of this warming? Can you point me to any scientific studies to back this up?

So, you are saying that our computer systems and science will not be significantly better in twenty years?

Technology is always getting better. Computers are always getting faster. In twenty years, we will have computers so powerful we cannot imagine them today. However, twenty years after that, the computers will be even more powerful. So maybe we should wait 40 years instead of 20? But, twenty years later, computers will be even better. So, sixty years it is. Then will know. But what about the computers 80 years from now. Clearly, those will be better than those lame 60 year future computers. So let's wait for 80 years. But wait...

The point is, there is no particular point in the future where all will be known. At some point, you have to say, "we know enough now to act." The scientific community is overwhelmingly saying that today. Who do you think has a better handle on the current climate knowledge base, the scientific community or you?

Why not make a decision w/ the best data available.

Most scientist believe we do have the best data available right now. Paraphrasing the above article, if you knew there was a 90% chance you were going to get into a car accident on your next trip to the grocery store, would you change your plans? Or would you keep your original plan, since there is not enough data yet?

[WeatherRusty]

I will not resort to namecalling. I just disagree with CO2 induced global warming. I don't deny the planet has warmed. So, you are saying that our computer systems and science will not be significantly better in twenty years? Why not make a decision w/ the best data available. Your string of graphs does not answer that question.

Where do you get the idea that AGW is primarily based on the power of modeling? That seems to be what you are saying. AGW is based in physics. It is not a forecast, but rather a consequence of universally accepted basic physics. The exact magnitude of warming and climate change may be subject to uncertainty, but to say you disagree with CO2 induced global warming is an unscientific belief.

[Jonger]

it's not being shouted down. the scientific process is hale and hearty.

I think you would be more comfortable in the politics subforum in OT. this forum is for discussing the science.

What are you selling?

[Carvers Gap]

Where do you get the idea that AGW is primarily based on the power of modeling? That seems to be what you are saying. AGW is based in physics. It is not a forecast, but rather a consequence of universally accepted basic physics. The exact magnitude of warming and climate change may be subject to uncertainty, but to say you disagree with CO2 induced global warming is an unscientific belief.

I see the word "belief" used quite extensively w/ this argument, generally speaking. Science is based on fact, not beliefs. AGW, right or wrong, is not a belief. To your question, computer modeling is probably one of the definitive ways that we can truly understand AGW and its root causes in an unbiased manner. Climategate suggests that some of the main data bases used to support AGW are corrupted. I'll let you all Google those findings.

And to answer another poster, computers do not handle chaos well as they lack true AI. In twenty years, they will probably be able to do exactly that - model chaos. It will be one of the next great scientific breakthroughs. If we can model chaos, the we can produce fusion energy. If we can model chaos, we can model the climate given reasonably pure data. If we can model the climate, then we should be able to create software that will be able to explore possible causes for AGW - maybe even reasons that we haven't thought of. I think we look at CO2 and say, "That has to be it. It is increasing proportionately to the temperature." It is reasonable, based on physics, that we are seeing things on a microscale and cannot fully understand the macro because we are inside the "model" and not outside of it.

[Carvers Gap]

and don't say "it's the Sun", because that's not true and the science backs that up:

Interesting. I don't suppose the sun can induce thunderstorms, provide energy for hurricanes, create deserts, melt ice on the coldest of winter days. The sun has an impact on the earth's temperature each morning when it rises and when it sets. If it can do all that, can it not have a significant impact on long term climate trends? The sun is the single, largest driver of life on our planet and it is true of the weather as well. Other than a few microbes on the ocean floor that get their energy from volcanic vents, all life as we know it gets its energy from the sun. To say that we can exlude the sun from climatic importance, is like saying that the only horse is in the Kentucky Derby is CO2. I feel certain that science will prove this out. Just because the idea is new on the market, does not mean that it won't have merit - based loosely on a quote from Malcom Gladwell.

[cmc0605]

I see the word "belief" used quite extensively w/ this argument, generally speaking. Science is based on fact, not beliefs. AGW, right or wrong, is not a belief. To your question, computer modeling is probably one of the definitive ways that we can truly understand AGW and its root causes in an unbiased manner. Climategate suggests that some of the main data bases used to support AGW are corrupted. I'll let you all Google those findings.

And to answer another poster, computers do not handle chaos well as they lack true AI. In twenty years, they will probably be able to do exactly that - model chaos. It will be one of the next great scientific breakthroughs. If we can model chaos, the we can produce fusion energy. If we can model chaos, we can model the climate given reasonably pure data. If we can model the climate, then we should be able to create software that will be able to explore possible causes for AGW - maybe even reasons that we haven't thought of. I think we look at CO2 and say, "That has to be it. It is increasing proportionately to the temperature." It is reasonable, based on physics, that we are seeing things on a microscale and cannot fully understand the macro because we are inside the "model" and not outside of it.

It's rare, even on the internet, to find a post so confused and so confident at the same time. It's difficult to know how to begin.

[cmc0605]

Interesting. I don't suppose the sun can induce thunderstorms, provide energy for hurricanes, create deserts, melt ice on the coldest of winter days. The sun has an impact on the earth's temperature each morning when it rises and when it sets. If it can do all that, can it not have a significant impact on long term climate trends? The sun is the single, largest driver of life on our planet and it is true of the weather as well. Other than a few microbes on the ocean floor that get their energy from volcanic vents, all life as we know it gets its energy from the sun. To say that we can exlude the sun from climatic importance, is like saying that the only horse is in the Kentucky Derby is CO2. I feel certain that science will prove this out. Just because the idea is new on the market, does not mean that it won't have merit - based loosely on a quote from Malcom Gladwell.

Except, you know, we actually have satellites looking at the sun and it's not changing in a way that explains everything. Magic, I bet.

[Carvers Gap]

on what science do you base the bolded statement? please cite the relevant scientific articles.

Had to run an errand earlier. As I drove to my destination, I quickly thought of all the sources I was going to quote. But then it occurred to me, you probably won't change your reasoning regarding CO2 and AGW. Whatever I information I provide will be discarded as someone who is a skeptic. I would think it an honor in the scientific field to be a skeptic. It is the skeptic who makes science sound. Galileo was a skeptic. He had to basically create an instrument to prove his point. As is now, the instrumentation and perspective is simply not good enough to make generalizations that will impact the economies of every country on the planet. Thus, I respectfully disagree with the US Court of Appeals on this matter. I work in a field in which "research" supports everything under the sun, some of it so erroneous it boggles the mind. Many in my field are fearful to challenge research that is presented. I would hope that our country is full of skeptics on all levels of academia. However, know this. If in the future, science definitively (no purse strings attached) proves that CO2 from fossil fuels is going to warm our climate to devestating proportions I will most certainly would change my viewpoint. My question for you is this, "If science produces alternative and correct theories to to CO2 induced AGW, would you change your mind?"

Lastly, just because a court system upholds or strikes down a case does not necessarily mean the science has merit. Unless a judge studies climate for a lifetime, he or she probably doesn't have the knowledge to even make an appropriate decision. Science should never need a courtroom to uphold its findings. The rigor of the research should be such that even the skeptics among us would have to capitulate to its law.

[Carvers Gap]

Except, you know, we actually have satellites looking at the sun and it's not changing in a way that explains everything. Magic, I bet.

Well, Merlin's beard! Do we know everything about the sun? Our knowledge of the sun is growing, but very few(if any) scientists could predict the way that cycle 24 has behaved. One could make a reasonable argument that the deep minimum that just occurred and the subsequent "ramp up" of sun spots had significant impacts on the stratosphere in the northen polar regions. The magnetic field of the sun has gone haywire over the past year...but I'm sure it had no impact on the weather.

[Jonger]

Well, Merlin's beard! Do we know everything about the sun? Our knowledge of the sun is growing, but very few(if any) scientists could predict the way that cycle 24 has behaved. One could make a reasonable argument that the deep minimum that just occurred and the subsequent "ramp up" of sun spots had significant impacts on the stratosphere in the northen polar regions. The magnetic field of the sun has gone haywire over the past year...but I'm sure it had no impact on the weather.

Keep in mind, its 0.8 degrees of warming, so the entire science is just splitting hairs to begin with.

[Jonger]

Look, I believe in AGW and agree actions should be taken, but you're dreaming if you think all our energy requirements will be met instantaneously from renewable sources. Our best choice to maintain our economic dependance along with a smoth environmental transitions is going to be a rough process. The best logical choice in order to maintain a balance between economics and environment would be to radically switch all fossil fuel energy to the cleanest fossil fuel source available which is natural gas. Eliminate coal, and petroleum based energy for both transportation and electricty useage. Plastics can still be derived from natural gas while we encorporate better cleaner plastic technology. Our energy dependance is going to have to bridged from oil/coal to CNG to renewable, there is noway financially or infrastructurally we can make a direct 100% renewable society with current technology. Natural Gas is the future until we can make a full transition to renewable energy, there is no denying it. Running CNG alone for transportation will almost 1/2 the CO2 emmissions from transportation derived energy and not to mention practically elliminating particulate pollution and dramatically increasing air quality.

Our country is in desperate need of improving the efficiency of our power grid, definetely need a smart grid.

Wind and natural gas will be the 2 main future players for our electricity, bank it.

Probably starvation, reduced lifespans and widespread war.

The best solution right now is to land-form change the Fram strait or develop carbon sequestration.

[Carvers Gap]

It's rare, even on the internet, to find a post so confused and so confident at the same time. It's difficult to know how to begin.

I agree with your last sentence. It is difficult to understand the emotion connected to this part of the scientific field. I would guess that many who have challenged the establishment have been called such. Namecalling should probably be reserved for when we run out of ideas.

[Carvers Gap]

the "I have the sources but I decided not to post them" response means youu don't have sources or they won't stand up to scrutiny.

No.