Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Game over for the climate.

Posted 2 years ago on May 10, 2012, 5:38 p.m. EST by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”

If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change.

We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising — and it’s because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price.

But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world’s governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through mountaintop removal, longwall mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic drilling.

President Obama speaks of a “planet in peril,” but he does not provide the leadership needed to change the world’s course. Our leaders must speak candidly to the public — which yearns for open, honest discussion — explaining that our continued technological leadership and economic well-being demand a reasoned change of our energy course. History has shown that the American public can rise to the challenge, but leadership is essential.

The science of the situation is clear — it’s time for the politics to follow. This is a plan that can unify conservatives and liberals, environmentalists and business. Every major national science academy in the world has reported that global warming is real, caused mostly by humans, and requires urgent action. The cost of acting goes far higher the longer we wait — we can’t wait any longer to avoid the worst and be judged immoral by coming generations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1

90 Comments

90 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Too much of the current economy depends on the burning of fossil fuels, it isn't going to stop. There will be no carbon caps as long as economies are suffering. As bad as things are today, I don't believe there is enough real economic misery to bring about meaningful change to governments or economic systems. It's going to take a nearly apocalyptic event to bring about that change. You can't save people that don't want to be saved, let nature (short sighted human nature in this case) take its course and be there to rebuild a better society when it's all over.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago
  1. cut money influence on washington
  2. eliminate taxpayer mon ey for oil companies [ after step 1 ]
  3. use that money for wind & solar [ after step 1 & step 2 ]
[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

So we take the money from oil (helping to fuel corruption) and give it to companies you favor and expect better results? Are you really that naive?

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Steal under pants

?

Profit

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Good idea but not likely to happen any time soon considering the way things are going.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

If you want to help them GO:



Virtually everything we want hinges on disarming our opponent –
……………………………………………………..GREED
by stopping the flood of bribes into our government.


YOU WANT TO GET IT DONE ? ARE YOU SERIOUS ?
Join the NYC OWS
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group


This is the first REAL step to REAL change .

government OF the people BY the people FOR the people

JOIN US >
Join the NYC OWS Corporations Are Not People and Money Is Not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )

http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG

check out our comprehensive analysis of
the 17 existing proposed amendments
and our detailed historical timeline of corporate personhood


We can continue,

as a movement of demands
as a movement of declarations
as a movement of marches

OR


Are you ready
.....................FOR ACTION ?
Are you ready
.....................TO DO SOMETHING REAL ?
Are you ready
......................TO JOIN 83% OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ?


We must not
DEMAND that we WANT THEM.to give to US
We must
DEMAND GOALS THAT WE WILL ACHIEVE FOR OURSELVES


Because of the Supreme Court's decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant, without FIRST -

Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!


83% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll

.........................................

In the the PFAW Poll -

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today.
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount corporations can spend on elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.


PLEASE COMMENT ON: MY "IDEAL - COMPREHENSIVE" AMENDMENT

Section 1 {A corporation is not a person and can be regulated}
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons { human beings } only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 { Money is not speech }
Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, and may restrict all financing to “public financing” for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. As above, all foreign contributions are forbidden.

Section 3 { Transparency & Disclosure }
Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed less than 60 days after the transaction and before the election.

Section 4 { Voter Suppression }
Federal, State and local government shall not require any new forms of id for voting, beyond what was needed to register for previously registered voters. College photo-id ( including for out-of-state students ) must be acceptable. Federal, State and local government shall permit early voting for at least the 6 days before the election day.

Section 5 { Election Day & Registration }
Federal, State and local government may make election day a holiday. Federal, State and local government must allow simultaneous registration and voting on election day.

Section 6 { Eliminate the Electoral College – one man one vote } The electoral college is abolished and the President and Vice-President will be elected by popular vote. .

Section 7 { Eliminate the Filibuster } Unless specified in the Constitution , all voting in the House and Senate shall be based on a simple majority.

Section 8 Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press .

{NOTE: sections 4, 5, 6, 7 are not required to overturn CU – just my wish list }
COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE ARE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


Our primary goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success - WHY CAN'T WE ??????????


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


1
83% of Americans ( and 76% of the Rs ) have already opposed CU in
the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
This Amendment { sections 1+2 }is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process. 4
OWS and the FORUM pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state our demands! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP, the TP, the anti-SOPA – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power and political pressure to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one task that the MAJORITY want.

There are at least seventeen different Constitutional Amendments in the works.
Help us support these moves to get the money out of our political system.


Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium


░░░░█░..░███░░.███░░█░...░█░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█.█░..█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░.█..█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░░░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░██░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
█░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░█░.░█░░
..███░░ .░███░..░███. ░█░░░█░░.░░.████░░███░░░


[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

When Occupy first started I thought they would employ the tactics of groups like the AARP et al, that you endorse above. Instead they seem to be a group of committed anarchists content to point out problems and just wait while the world burns around them. They don't have a plan they seem to have literally dozens of plans, petitions, amendment proposals, but none of them involve developing support in congress or state houses through elections and lobbying. They are stuck in a "raise awareness" phase unable or unwilling to recruit political candidates to carry out their ideas.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

why would you "recruit political candidates", the system is broken at its core. instead why not create a new political system, that includes all of humanity. A new social organisation, that will sweep the planet and free humanity, while rebuilding our dieing world. why not move into the future instead of clinging to the past?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

To get positive changes in society. To actually put some of the ideas written about here into practice. To make necessary changes to the laws. In the same way the civil rights movement did, with demonstration, political action, and the support of elected officials. The way lobbying groups like the AARP or NRA do now. Bad as the current system is, it has worked for change.

Using the system has a greater possibility of success. The new social organization you speak of doesn't currently have significant popular support to be accepted and no record of success. Anarchists have been making the same claims for a century and it's still a fringe movement. It doesn't matter how good the ideas are if no one accepts them.

Using the system employes what the population is already comfortable with.There is no guarantee that if you were to actually bring down the current order that it wouldn't be replaced by something worse. People are giving up their freedoms now for what they see as security. If a national or global collapse could be managed, the unlikely possibility of people turning to something like anarcho-syndicalism for freedom, is outweighed by possibility of the majority turning to military or police organizations for security. Look at what Occupy has helped do for Police Commissioner Kelly's popularity.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within." -L.C.

Attempting to 'work within the system' is doomed to miniature changes, and major frustration,. as the system is devised with so many methods and controls that eliminate any democracy from it. The will of the people is all but removed from the current system. You can see this by comparing public opinion poles with legislation and government policy. These should somewhat line up,. yet they are very far apart.

The new system I am talking about is democracy. It is ready, it is coming, and it has always been inevitable.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You have faith and follow a dream, I can respect that. I also think your idealism blocks your view of reality. It's your time to spend as you see fit, I simply think you've wasted an opportunity for change that isn't likely to come again in our lifetime.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

democracy is not so much a dream, as it is the only plausible way forward. The "representative" system of government is played out,. it is corrupted, always.

We really do need to create a participatory democracy, or we will not change anything other than the faces of the 1% rulers. That said, I do understand that some will always want to look to small reforms and minor changes to the system we have inherited, rather than to build something new. I do not encourage them, as I see they are wasting their time,. (so we have opposing views of this). I am focused on building new systems, that will supplant the old ways of corporate greed and corrupted 'representative' government. I am pushing for what will work, not keeping a broken system running "just a little longer",. as the broken system is just too counter to humanity and a living plant to support at all.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You can build something new in only a few ways. Work from inside what is and change it, that means recruiting candidates for legislative changes.

Work from the outside through civil disobedience or some form of revolution to bring down the system. Or perhaps just wait while the whole current mess burns itself to the ground.

If you wait for or cause collapse you'd better have a strong and well organized base of support that has already agreed on all the details of your restructured society. Otherwise the majority may turn to anything offering security and stability.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

How about just building alternative structures, and having the people that adopt these structures remove their support from the old ways? A purposeful migration, from the sinking ship, to a network of life rafts,. equipped with the seeds of a new societal order.

People have already begun we just need to help and push in the directions we would like to see change happen. Permaculture, slowmoney, degrowth, relocalize, etc.

I also like this plan; http://www.globalsafe.org

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The "PLAN" I described above is EXACTLY what you are looking for - we are past the raise awareness stage - PLEASE join our groups and look at what we have done and are doing - you can help - even if you are not in NYC

[-] 1 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

"one of them involve developing support in congress or state houses through elections and lobbying"

Did you just come out of a coma? Our elections are rigged and "lobbying", as Christopher Buckley noted yesterday, is just another word for bribery. How could OWS expect to rid our government of corruption by using the very tools of that corruption?

You cannot BE the problem and SOLVE the problem.

[-] -1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

What do you see then as actually happening? There isn't likely to be some kind of popular uprising. You don't have and are not likely to get the numbers for that. If anything you're unintentionally making the opposition stronger. It's ironic that Occupy has most likely been responsible for the unusually high popularity of the police commissioner. You may honestly represent the best interest of the 99%, but you haven't captured the support of anything approaching a slight minority of them.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Very sad but probably true.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I feel that AGW is a valid theory and I believe in it..... however, I also believe that Hanson is an alarmist. He has been called out for being an alarmist by many in the community.

He also mixes politics with science, which is wrong. Science can guide policy, but policy is firmly in the realm of politics. He forgets this.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

If third world countries dont also reduce fossil fuel use then nothing we do will matter. Leading by example and persuasion is a pipe dream. They cut down rain forests and burn constantly. They will do what is best fo them in the short term. Call me pesimistic if you want,it wont change their minds.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We implement the green technology - we buy from our businesses that manufacture components and/or finished product and then instead of throwing money at dictators or anyone else we send technological aid.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Thanks, that was a great thread. One of the real problems in the production of oil from tar sands is the toxic sludge that is left over. It takes two tons of tar sands to produce one barrel (42 gals.) of oil. The waste by-product sits around in leaking pools destroying the surrounding enviroment, and for who knows how far down-river. It is just incredible to me the high cost that we are paying in terms of degradation to our earth, and to its people. It's sad, it's real sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP17A

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

not arguing the science but the carbon trading theory isn't going to work. it's like trading in air something only wall st. could think of. in the end it's a hot potato and whos the last one holding it. companies could just ignore it and pass on the cost to american consumers

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

I'm skeptical of carbon trading as well. That sounds like something they dreamed up to get rich on global warming.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

What we should really do is nationalize the oil and electrical generation industry, implement a Manhattan project scale initiative to move away from fossil fuels within one decade, and tell Canada if they decide to move forward on this project, they can expect our relations to become strained (which may include trade sanctions).

Portugal managed to shift over half of its electrical generation to renewables, but with an Exxon Mobil wealthier than most nations on earth (and other oil companies almost as large as Exxon), the hard way is the only way (I just don't see it happening without this sort of draconian action).

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 2 years ago

The science on this issue is incomplete.

However taking a chance on this is like playing Russian roulette.

There is a good profit in it and therefore you have so many climate sceptic groups trying to convince you that you shouldn't worry.

They may be right, but if they are not, you're dead.

This is what Capitalism is about: nothing should get in the way of a good profit.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-is-why-capitalism-is-killing-humanity/

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

I get nihilistic when I think about this. Once it goes over the tipping point there wont be anything we can do, at that point it will be like living in a Mad Max movie.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-04/new-research-tracks-40-year-old-prediction-world-economy-will-collapse-2030?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

We should start a war with Canada!

Joking.

Seriously though, outside of talking with them, there's not much we can do here. Canada is a sovereign nation and we don't run the world.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3552) 2 years ago

On this issue, what I thought to be our neighbors to the North with "common sense" may be going off the deep end, perhaps dragging the whole world with it. Perhaps in their quest to chase the mighty Maple Leaf and Beaver, they will discover that they would not have much of those left in the end.

[-] 0 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Hey....WHAT!!! Hahaha! Being Canadian, I have something to say about that. North America is less sovereign now than we were a year ago. Harper and Obama secretly signed documents that "expand the borders". I think Mexico is involved in this historically monumental, but secret decision that happened without going through congress or parliament. This document has provisions for military and policing in each other's territories.

North American Union anyone? But hey, its just a conspiracy theory. When will people wake up? I love all people of the globe, but the globalists do not have the same global vision that we have.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

It's hard to take GW seriously because the government doesn't take it seriously. Our government's "solution" to GW was cap and trade which gave money and power to government. Since cap and trade has been permanently back burnered there is no...government...plan. No money and power for them, no interest in global warming.

If global warming is the end of the earth as we know it, how come the US government has no plan to deal with it?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Rush123 (3) 2 years ago

Global Warming is a scam. If we lived back when the ice age occured everyone would be freaking out saying we need to heat up the earth. I do believe that we need to find green alternatives but global warming is not happening.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

can you give reasons? or is this just a really strong feeling you have?

http://climatecrocks.com/

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by grapes (3552) 2 years ago

I saw photographs of Saturn's moon, Titan, that had lakes and seas of liquid methane. The scientists called Titan "Earth-like" which may be very alarming if true because WHAT IF we truly have that much methane down-under deep in the fissures of our Earth where the seawater seeps to react at high temperatures with carbonate rocks and reduced form of iron-nickel to form methane galore in a process called serpentinization? The Earth is supposed to have an iron-nickel core that may be in the reduced state due to not having much oxygen. Seawater covers 70% of our planet and carbonate rocks are common. Our underground or undersea geological methane sources, perhaps trapped or blocked by the permafrost in Siberia and Canada or produced methane clathrate, may be astronomical if releasing methane. If somehow AGW triggers the release of the methane, we can be getting "Game Over!" because methane is vastly more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. PeterKropotkin, is this an even bigger problem than carbon dioxide? Could we be pointing the bottle of champagne in our own face and popping the cork? I found out that it was called the clathrate gun hypothesis and I would long be dead before it would affect me. That settles it for me -- not my problem so good luck and best wishes! If serpentinization is the origin of methane clathrate, we should expect to find clathrate in many cold-enough oceanic subduction zones so even more fossil fuel will potentially be available. Japan's problem with not having electricity from Fukushima-like nuclear power plants may potentially be eased by exploiting the methane clathrate that resulted from the one and the same tectonic activity that gave rise to the earthquake and tsunami which crippled the Fukushima nuclear reactors and caused the shuttering of ALL nuclear reactors in Japan. There may be a silver lining to the oceanic subduction zone near Japan.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I say we get rid of all "oil manufactured" products - that will definitely make a hugh change to our climate and get rid of toxic gases that cause climatic problems.

[-] -2 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

You are right we need to shut down all oil refining, all oil,gas and coal fired power plants and all nuclear plants.

[-] 2 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

You forgot "and go live in caves"

[-] -1 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

Sorry, you are right. Want to do a duplex :)

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

nice try.. but you do have heat in your home? hot water? travel by fossil fueled conveyances? air conditioning and electricity? unless your at a library on a state owned computer, you contributed to water pollution,air pollution, soil pollution, and china. when you live under a rock , only wear animal skins you fashioned your self, that you killed with a home made spear. dont preach about global warming.

[-] -1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

One word of advice for the AGW crowd: Watch the Sun!

Solar and Heliospheric Observatory: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Out of the 10's of thousands of scientists researching AGW, NONE of them has thought about and factored in the Sun's contribution to the problem... but YOU have and know this is the answer?

Please..... sigh

[-] -1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

These "10's of thousands of scientists" are propaganda numbers. Let me ask you this, do you really believe scientifically that the Sun has nothing to do with Earth's climate?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

First they are not propaganda numbers as you put it, check out the numerous journals in almost every field of study, including those in the physical sciences put out by the AGU and AIP, and you will see.

Second, to respond to your question about the sun and climate... I wrote this earlier today and posted in reply to another post on this thread:

There are only 3 possible scenarios regarding the warming of the planet:

1. The earth itself is generating more heat (measurable)

Temperatures in deep mines have not been increasing. The heat is not coming from the earth.

2. The excess thermal radiation is coming from space, including variations with our sun, or some high energy source in space (measurable)

Measured variations is solar output do not account for the extra heat we are experiencing. We have actually been in a low energy cycle while experiencing the highest temperatures on record. No other extrasolar energy source has been identified.

3. The excess thermal energy is being trapped by an increase in GHG's that can be traced to human activity (measurable)

From the American Meteorological Society's 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change:

"The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere.

With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques.

A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Actual paper:

ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

This was a political move by the astronauts to distance themselves from Hanson, NASA-GISS, who has been more and more vocal on policy implementations.

[-] -2 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Promoting AGW is a "political move".

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Promoting AGW is promoting science. Promoting select policy with regards to AGW is politics.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

afl clo lgbt

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

First it was global warming; now it is climate change; now it is a particular approach to climate change.. Yet you won't look into the science of the Sun?

Even with the huge set-backs in the so-called science of AGW, AGWers push ahead instead of reevaluating. This is demagoguery in blazing form.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Take your filters off.... please. It was always Climate Change, as the AGW Theory came out of investigations by Physicists looking for an explanation as to how the last period of glaciation ended. 150 years ago scientists discovered the 'greenhouse effect' to explain climate change.

The term 'Global Warming' didn't come about until the 1960's and that was through the media... Life Magazine. That term hit a chord with the public and it stuck. Scientists always studied climate change.

The post above your post absolutely looks at the sun. It discusses our radiation budget. So don't tell me that the science of the sun isn't being considered. We are talking about physical science... that covers astrophysics as well. AGW incorporates all the physical sciences.

What HUGE set backs in AGW? I'd like to know.

Also, as too many do here, do not confuse the politics of AGW with the science of AGW, they are two distinct entities. Policy and those that push agendas to back their pet policies, have nothing to do with the actual science of AGW. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I'm for humanity, not for bunk-science.

Population Control: UK aid funds forced sterilization of India's poor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egy4drxs8l8

What's the excuse for this? CO2 emissions.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Once again you are confusing science with policy. No doubt many people will want to justify their political philosophies or policies and claim they are based on science.

Eugenics and sterilizations to enhance the human race used Evolution for their excuse. The Theory of Evolution states nothing about promoting sterilizations, the AGW Theory states nothing about forced sterilizations either. Science does not reside in the realm of policy and politics.

The science isn't 'bunk'.... the POLICIES are bunk. Take out your anger where it belongs, firmly on bad policy.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

On the sheer scientific merits of AGW, it uses ad hoc hypothesis, and the theory always remains as the evidence changes. It's intellectually dishonest.

Besides that, this idea of AGW was originally fabricated for these kinds of "policies". It's obvious if you look at the writings of the people promoting this bunk:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."- Club of Rome, "The First Global Revolution"

The Club of Rome was a European think-tank that also wrote "The Limits to Growth" in the 70's and "rewrote" it again recently, since the reality didn't match up with their first analysis, using also ad hoc hypothesis.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

On the sheer scientific merits of AGW, it uses ad hoc hypothesis, and the theory always remains as the evidence changes. It's intellectually dishonest.

Really?.... please supply some examples as this is a very vague statement, just as you have stated earlier that there were huge setbacks to the theory but fail to mention specifics. AGW was derived over 100 years ago. How was it 'originally fabricated for these kinds of "policies".' I don't recall there being a huge environmental movement back then.

The Club of Rome was a European think-tank that also wrote "The Limits to Growth" in the 70's and "rewrote" it again recently, since the reality didn't match up with their first analysis, using also ad hoc hypothesis.

The Club of Rome are not scientists, nor is Al Gore, or Greenpeace, or anyone else involved with policy suggestions. The AGW Theory does not promote policy. Once again you confuse the two. It is easy to make the distinction between science and policy agendas if you just apply yourself.

If a scientist writes a book that promotes his opinion of what actions we should take to address a problem... he is doing just that, expressing his opinion. That is not science. That is promoting policy. Doesn't matter what credentials he has or how many letters exist after his name.

The science is sound, yet you provide no proof to the contrary but to call it 'bunk'. One does not need modeling to understand it as the basics are founded in observation and experimentation as with any good theory.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), also called the Oxygen Catastrophe or Oxygen Crisis or Great Oxidation, was the biologically induced appearance of free oxygen (O2) in Earth's atmosphere. This major environmental change happened around 2.4 billion years ago. The rising oxygen levels may have wiped out a huge portion of the Earth's anaerobic inhabitants at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

[-] -1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I'm not going to go into an endless point by point debate. You do not even know my position.

What I believe is actually happening to the Earth's environment has very little to do with CO2, and has much more to do with the galactic cycle; as in where the solar system is in relation to the rest of the galaxy, which is scientifically knowable and correlates to past periods of biological extinction. During those periods, it is theorized, that the environment changed so vastly on Earth that the majority of species that thrived in the previous environment did not survive in the new one. This climate shift is not in any way preventable. It would occur with or without human intervention. What humanity must do is overcome these changes, not shrivel up into a ball as phenomenon such as massive earthquakes and tidal waves destroy life.

[-] 0 points by jgriff (6) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Thank you.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Green Tech.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (22161) 2 years ago

We've so lost our way. You have to wonder if we can ever find it.

[-] 2 points by junglemonkeez (208) 2 years ago

Sometimes, I just think, let them destroy it or at least to critical mass, where they then finally will understand, where there is no more clean air to breath and our children are all dying from plague like diseases they get from the polluted water. What will they say then. As it stands today more timber is cut down per acre then reaches maturity. Figure out what that means. You can't plant money, I know that much.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22161) 2 years ago

Well said.

[-] -1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

The sky is falling the sky is falling!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

No not really, but the earth is turning into one big cesspool. Wear rubber boots, and don't mind the tornadoes, just find a hole somewhere.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

I know.Like George Carlin said" one big brown ball of shit"!

[-] 1 points by grapes (3552) 2 years ago

If methane is truly easily produced by the interactions of Earth's innards, seawater, and carbonate rocks, we may very well be adding a lot of "fart" (a.k.a. me-thane) to it.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Pretty much, it's where we're headed. I don't see this trend being reversed. Not yet.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

On high ground.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Very true, very helpful advice for turbulent times. We've entered the literal spin zone. coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

[-] -2 points by field (2) 2 years ago

thank you ckicken little.

[-] 3 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of the links you posted after reading the first one. It was a study conducted by Roy Spencer. The man is a creationist. What kind of scientist is a creationist? Not a serious one.

[+] -4 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

So, you didn't even bother to read the study which examined all the data collected between 2001 and 2011 from Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer sensor housed aboard NASA's Aqua satellite. Data. Hard, scientific data.

NASA data. NOAA data. CERN data. You'll just pretend they don't exist because you don't personally "like" Roy Spencer?? Tell me what kind of serious scientist will choose to ignore or reject actual, factual, objectively collected DATA over computer model PREDICTIONS? (Especially when those predictions are proving to be inaccurate)

Thanks for proving how objective and intellectually unbiased you are. Using your own formula for truth-I won't bother to read anything else you post here.

[-] 3 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

By the way the paper that Spencer got published in Remote Sensing has been retracted. It damaged the reputation of the journal so badly that the editor in chief immediately resigned.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Wow...your research and data abilities suck. The article was never retracted. It's still up on the website and available for download.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603

[-] 3 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

It has nothing to do with whether I like him or not. This man is a pariah in the scientific community. He's Rush Limbaughs Climate scientist. Even so there is a mountain of scientific evidence in numerous scientific journals that support AGW. There is close to a 98% consensus that global warming is real and it is man made. If you choose not to accept this fact thats fine we will know for sure one way or the other in the coming decades and then the debate will be settled. However I believe that as weather becomes more and more ustable and there are more and more natural disasters occuring because of AGW I believe you will be in the minority. In fact you may already be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/science/earth/americans-link-global-warming-to-extreme-weather-poll-says.html

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

So what caused the extreme weather changes in the past when man wasn't even present? Or per-industrial age? The climate changes. THAT is a fact. But the FACTS remains that the actual DATA collected by the BEST scientific minds in the world are proving over and over again that the MODELS ARE FLAWED and that Co2 may NOT be the biggest influence on our climate.

When a machine predicts something based on FAI (flawed anthropomorphic input) and it's predictions prove to be significantly WRONG when measured by actual scientists using current technology-what does a serious scientist believe...the machine or the data?

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Like I said you can believe what you want, I'm not going to try to convince you. Your political ideology obviously inhibits you from accepting the scientific facts. Just know that you can't come on here and think that you can present stories from the Heritage foundation or a scientific pariah like Spencer and convince anyone with your bullshit. Did you just see the link that I posted of the editor of Remote Sensing disavowing Spencers paper? I noticed as soon as I posted it you immediatley changed the subject. Do you know that Spencer is a creationist? He is the laughing stock of the climate science community. Next you will be citing the research of Zunli Lu.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/05/journal-deliverance-the-true-story-of-the-climate-hillbillies/

I'd say that YOUR political/environmental ideology is based completely on finding articles that agree with you, rather than addressing any real science whatsoever. Wagners resignation made no sense to anyone then, and only barely does now because some dared to actually track the money flow.

The question is, are you brave/intelligent/objective enough to follow up on it yourself? I'm going to say no. Let me know when you're able to discredit NASA, CERN and NOAA will you?

[-] 4 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Ok lets see the studies then where are they?

[+] -4 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You're the scientist-and you have no idea how to research something on your own?

Sigh...if you must be led, perhaps reading the articles I linked to might serve to grant you the magical hints and clues required to experience the discovery of obtaining knowledge you should really have already been aware of...

[-] 3 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

I never said I was a scientist. I would never dream of trying to discredit Nasa or the Noaa. Do you know why? Because Nasa and the noaa have never stated that global warming is false in fact both organizations support the consensus.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3

and as far as the cern study goes.

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cloud-formation-may-be-linked-to-cosmic-rays

We're done here.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Do you believe in a FREE RIDE?

It takes millions of years to create a kilo of anthracite coal, it takes a few hours to burn that coal and release all that carbon back into the environment. This is a huge imbalance.

In other words, we are releasing carbon back into the environment at a rate that is 100's of orders of magnitude greater than the most efficient carbon fixing era in the Geologic Record.... aptly named the Carboniferous Period... and that is taking into account all of the negative/postive natural feedbacks. Our oceans are becoming measurably more acidic and major ocean currents are heating faster than the globe on average. We are experiencing the hottest global temps on record.

It has been verified over and over that the thermodynamic properties of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of heating, even relatively small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere make a large difference. Other GHG's and aerosols play an important part in the heating of the globe, some being more efficient trapping thermal energy than CO2 but exist in smaller quantities in the atmosphere . Basic high school physics.

If this is indeed the case (and it is), how can one expect that liberating all that carbon at the rates we are will have not have a negative effect on the heating of this planet? You don't need modeling to understand this. It's simple reasoning and logic..... so once again I must ask...

Do you believe in a FREE RIDE??? Because the laws of the universe, the laws of physics state that a free ride doesn't exist... anywhere. For every action there will be a reaction. For every change in one side of an equation, there will be a compensation on the other side. This is fact.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Bravo - bravo - very well put.

Green Tech. Stimulate the economy create new jobs end fossil fuel pollution/poison/destruction.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"In other words, we are releasing carbon back into the environment at a rate that is 100's of orders of magnitude greater than the most efficient carbon fixing era in the Geologic Record.... aptly named the Carboniferous Period."

WRONG-and not only wrong but your statement about "100's of orders of magnitude greater" is a ridiculously enormous exaggeration! Do you even comprehend how many digits would be in a number that large? Sheesh.

"In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."

..."atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm" (Average mean being 800ppm)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

In 2011 the measure of Co2 in the atmosphere was 391 ppm. That equals 0.039 or less than 4 one hundredths of 1 percent of the earth's atmosphere.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

"In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm." ..."atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm" (Average mean being 800ppm) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html"

Thank you. You are making my point for me. The Carboniferous started at 1500 ppm, and after 65 Million years of carbon fixing, finally brought the levels down to todays level (385ppm). Thats earths most efficient carbon fixing era. This represents an atmospheric CO2 reduction rate of 0.000017ppm per year.

In contrast, pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels were 280 ppm. Since we started burning fossil fuels they have risen to 385 ppm. Thats a CO2 atmospheric increase rate of 0.4 ppm since 1750. As industrialization has increased and fossil fuel usage increased this rate has gone up to 2ppm per year over the last decade and this rate will steadily increase as demand goes up with China and India having become industrialized.

Clearly anyone can see whats happening here.

"In 2011 the measure of Co2 in the atmosphere was 391 ppm. That equals 0.039 or less than 4 one hundredths of 1 percent of the earth's atmosphere."

Meaningless statistic for your side, but an important one for my side of the argument. In 1900 it was first found through experimentation by physicists that very trace amounts of CO2 played a very strong role in thermal heating.

"Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference."

Ångström, Knut (1900). "Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensaüres bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre." Annalen der Physik 4(3): 720-32.

Since then that experiment has been duplicated numerous times and confirmed by the physics community.

EDIT: I'll admit, through haste, passion, and talking off the top of my head I indeed made an error in my 'orders of magnitude' statement. Everything else I have posted is factual.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Betsy - give it up - you suck! Look at your score and you recent success(?) Is this a hold over from your personal life? I mean do you like giving head?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I don't care about my score or my "success" in this forum. I care about the truth. Clearly very few people here do.

That NONE of you know even enough about science to recognize how blindingly WRONG even one of geos sentences IS in the first place is staggering. That you'd attack ME for calling him out over it is even worse. You clearly have no balls so I doubt you'd know head if you had one.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Enough with the AGW doesn't exist crap.

There are only 3 possible scenarios regarding the warming of the planet:

1. The earth itself is generating more heat (measurable) Temperatures in deep mines have not been increasing. The heat is not coming from the earth.

2. The extra thermal radiation is coming from space, including variations with our sun, or some high energy source in space (measurable)

Measured variations is solar output do not account for the extra heat we are experiencing. We have actually been in a low energy cycle while experiencing the highest temperatures on record. No other extrasolar energy source has been identified.

3. The extra thermal energy is being trapped by an increase in GHG's that can be traced to human activity (measurable)

From the American Meteorological Society's 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change:

"The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere.

With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques.

A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Actual paper: ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf

[Removed]

[Removed]