Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[tumscalcium]

I'd appreciate some global warming in Virginia right now.

 

[BartW]

My question is...

Is this 70,000 years exact? Give or take a couple decades here and there? I know enough about the science to know nothing is absolute when it comes to things like this. The timelines can (and often will) get skewed meaning just because we are on a warming cycle doesn't mean that in five years we won't start a cooling trend.

But the global warming folks want you to think these numbers are absolute. And they are selling the paranoia that the Earth is warming, man is responsible and while we should have been in a cooling trend, we aren't (yet) and it's all our fault.

I have stated before and I'll state it again. I know the climatic change is happening. I believe we are not helping in that regard. But we are NOT the sole responsible party for this. The overstatement of man's involvement in global warming is what I have an issue with.

Actually my figure was low, but sure give or take several decades. The dominant Milankovitch cycle forces 80,000-90,000 year ice ages separated by 10,000-20,000 interglacial periods. Our current interglacial's temperature peaked about 10,000 years ago and the temperature has been decreasing steadily since then until just after the industrial revolution. Do you really think that's just a coincidence?

You admit we are contributing to climate change. What percentage would you say is our fault? How do you quantify it? On what do you base this judgment?

 

[Grand Vol]

You admit we are contributing to climate change.

Of course. I think most people would agree we (mankind) are contributing. However, the problem comes when parts of the scientific community overstate the contributions mankind is making. When everything is shouted that it's OUR fault and the remainder of the science is ignored, omitted or not researched yet it tends to call their judgment into question. I'll address this at the end.

What percentage would you say is our fault?

Come on now, you know this isn't something that can't be quantified with a number.

How do you quantify it?

And you confirm that here. How does one quantify the seven billion people on this planet making greenhouse gas, reducing the amount of our natural CO2 scrubbers and consuming resources on an ever growing scale?

You are correct it cannot be. However, I do know mankind is not 100% at fault for global climatic change which again is the number many global warming theorists want to put on the quantification.

On what do you base this judgment?

Again, seven billion inhabitants of the planet and growing. More CO2 into the atmosphere and less plant life to take it out. Less resources to go around and the planet has become a throwaway society. It adds up to a contribution, but again, nothing that can be quantified with a number. We know we aren't helping, but the amount of blame that should be and could be contributed to mankind is what I have an issue with.

The big problem here is nobody can accurately say with any certainty what causes the global warming/cooling trends. Sure we know it's happened, we know it may be happening again. But we do NOT know what caused them in the past. Our science of this is limited at best since scientists take their best guess as to what caused the warming and cooling trends thousands and millions of years ago. Oh sure, they take ice core samples from the arctic and antarctic and compare the atmospheric conditions then compared to now, but still do not know why Gaia herself decides to raise and lower the temperature. Is it an outside influence? Is it a natural "reset" button the Earth does to heal itself based on a science we don't have a good grasp on yet? Is it organic life that compounds the problem? A combination? Or something we have yet to discover?

So in summation, yes, I think people are not helping this. Only a fool would say we are not having climatic changes in this planet. But again, when you have scientists that quantify that with 100% of the fault being laid at mankind's feet, I have a problem with that since the science is limited at best. Climatology is still a relatively new field of study which again, we do not know all the influences that will cause a change in the planet's climate. It's a complex interaction or organic life and the environment that needs to be studied more before making any rash decisions just because we think this is the correct answer.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Dear Santa, please send some global warming to Cincinnati.

Signed

Freezing my orange balls off.

 

[BartW]

Of course. I think most people would agree we (mankind) are contributing. However, the problem comes when parts of the scientific community overstate the contributions mankind is making. When everything is shouted that it's OUR fault and the remainder of the science is ignored, omitted or not researched yet it tends to call their judgment into question. I'll address this at the end.



Come on now, you know this isn't something that can't be quantified with a number.



And you confirm that here. How does one quantify the seven billion people on this planet making greenhouse gas, reducing the amount of our natural CO2 scrubbers and consuming resources on an ever growing scale?

You are correct it cannot be. However, I do know mankind is not 100% at fault for global climatic change which again is the number many global warming theorists want to put on the quantification.



Again, seven billion inhabitants of the planet and growing. More CO2 into the atmosphere and less plant life to take it out. Less resources to go around and the planet has become a throwaway society. It adds up to a contribution, but again, nothing that can be quantified with a number. We know we aren't helping, but the amount of blame that should be and could be contributed to mankind is what I have an issue with.

The big problem here is nobody can accurately say with any certainty what causes the global warming/cooling trends. Sure we know it's happened, we know it may be happening again. But we do NOT know what caused them in the past. Our science of this is limited at best since scientists take their best guess as to what caused the warming and cooling trends thousands and millions of years ago. Oh sure, they take ice core samples from the arctic and antarctic and compare the atmospheric conditions then compared to now, but still do not know why Gaia herself decides to raise and lower the temperature. Is it an outside influence? Is it a natural "reset" button the Earth does to heal itself based on a science we don't have a good grasp on yet? Is it organic life that compounds the problem? A combination? Or something we have yet to discover?

So in summation, yes, I think people are not helping this. Only a fool would say we are not having climatic changes in this planet. But again, when you have scientists that quantify that with 100% of the fault being laid at mankind's feet, I have a problem with that since the science is limited at best. Climatology is still a relatively new field of study which again, we do not know all the influences that will cause a change in the planet's climate. It's a complex interaction or organic life and the environment that needs to be studied more before making any rash decisions just because we think this is the correct answer.

So basically you're making that call based on gut feeling? Since we can't put a precise number on it, it's probably not a problem and we should just ignore it?

If the obvious line of evidence (temperature change following the industrial revolution) isn't satisfactory, don't fret, there are several independent empirical observations that demonstrate we are significantly contributing to global warming via the greenhouse effect (tab over to the intermediate and advanced versions, if you dare).

Here's another link relevant to your post discussing whether it could be a natural cycle.

Dear Santa, please send some global warming to Cincinnati.

Signed

Freezing my orange balls off.

Nice to see you're back. Have you learned the difference between Arctic and Antarctic yet?

 

[Grand Vol]

So basically you're making that call based on gut feeling? Since we can't put a precise number on it, it's probably not a problem and we should just ignore it?

If the obvious line of evidence (temperature change following the industrial revolution) isn't satisfactory, don't fret, there are several independent empirical observations that demonstrate we are significantly contributing to global warming via the greenhouse effect (tab over to the intermediate and advanced versions, if you dare).

Here's another link relevant to your post discussing whether it could be a natural cycle.

Are you arguing just to argue? Because it actually appears you're agreeing with a lot of what I am saying. But because I can't slap an arbitrary number on something means I'm wrong.

So riddle me this then. What caused the temperature spikes prior to the industrial revolution?

 

[BartW]

Are you arguing just to argue? Because it actually appears you're agreeing with a lot of what I am saying. But because I can't slap an arbitrary number on something means I'm wrong.

So riddle me this then. What caused the temperature spikes prior to the industrial revolution?

Sorry Grand Vol I'm not trying to give you a hard time. You're at least sticking around for discussion instead of posting "It's cold!" and running off, which I appreciate.

But you left my main question unanswered. You acknowledge the planet is warming and that we are playing a part in that. But based on gut-feeling, you don't think it's predominantly our fault? We shouldn't act because your gut tells you that it's probably some unknown natural cycle? I'm not bustin your balls here, I'm just trying to understand the mindset (I'm sure you're not alone in this). Global warming has human fingerprints all over it. If you haven't read it yet I highly recommend the first link in my previous post.

What has caused temperature changes in the past? One of the biggest forcings no doubt are Milankovitch cycles which affect the amount of energy entering the earth system (especially the eccentricity cycle which has a ~100,000 year period). Solar output varies regularly. Greenhouse gases (in the past mostly from volcanoes) have always played a big part. Things like El Nino, La Nina, PDO, etc. affect local temperatures on a decadal scale. On a grander scale the motion of continents (particularly where landmasses are relative to the poles) affects our albedo, which determines how much solar radiation is reflected off the surface. As you mentioned, the advent of life had a significant effect on our atmospheric composition and thus climate.

I never said it wasn't complicated. That said, I don't think you give enough credit to our understanding of climate forcings (though I guess that should be expected from the AGW denialist crowd).

 

[Grand Vol]

Sorry Grand Vol I'm not trying to give you a hard time. You're at least sticking around for discussion instead of posting "It's cold!" and running off, which I appreciate.

<snipped for length>

I never said it wasn't complicated. That said, I don't think you give enough credit to our understanding of climate forcings (though I guess that should be expected from the AGW denialist crowd).

Here's the thing though. Our involvement cannot be quantified. And it's not a "gut feeling" I have. I may not understand all the science and freaky black magic that goes on when dealing with this, but I do know the area is still being studied. Hence we still cannot say for certain humans are the primary contributor to global warming. A part yes, but the primary source?

I know enough of science that nothing is ever certain and we are always dialing back what we thought we knew "for certain." And again, this trend of climate change has yet to be attributed only to human involvement. I'm not a denier, I think there are a lot of contributing factors there. But to quantify it by saying humans are the major contributing factor is like saying the earth is flat, the sun orbits around us and other "certainties" of science that have been disproved over the years as more research was done. You can barely get two scientists to agree on anything, so why would you expect me to believe the ones that say beyond a doubt humans are the primary factor in this? Especially in light of knowing how some of the research and findings have been suppressed to support a slanted approach to this.

We can barely predict the weather these days, how can we predict something as complex as climate change? Sure there are forecast models, but how everything interacts to create rain one day and sunshine the next? Why is it they don't say "we are going to have rain from 1:22 PM to 5:54 PM tomorrow" instead of "we have a 70% chance of rain" in forecasts? And that's basic numerical weather predicting. So you expect me to believe some scientist when they say for certainty that humans are the prime factor in climate change when the models are impossibly more complex and have to take in far more additional factors and over a longer period of time? I'd prefer to see the rest of the research before believing grandiose claims made by scientists that also suppress their own colleagues.

Again, I have no doubt we have an impact. I can't quantify it with a number like some people do. But overall, how can you attempt to sway me with something that has become so politicized over the years and offers a slanted view? Science should be the open and free sharing of knowledge, not what the "science" of climatic change has become. And until ALL viewpoints are heard, researched and scientifically proved or disproved, you cannot say with any certainty that we are the major contributing factor as is being done these days.

And if you want to discuss this, perhaps you should dial back the snide comments just a tad. I'm a wee bit smarter than you give me credit for and coming at me like this does little more than lump you into the Al Gore Sky-is-falling category. If you want to have a discussion about it, fine. If you want to continue tossing the party line and thinly veiling the insults to my intelligence, have fun talking to yourself.

 

[BartW]

Here's the thing though. Our involvement cannot be quantified. And it's not a "gut feeling" I have. I may not understand all the science and freaky black magic that goes on when dealing with this, but I do know the area is still being studied. Hence we still cannot say for certain humans are the primary contributor to global warming. A part yes, but the primary source?

I know enough of science that nothing is ever certain and we are always dialing back what we thought we knew "for certain." And again, this trend of climate change has yet to be attributed only to human involvement. I'm not a denier, I think there are a lot of contributing factors there. But to quantify it by saying humans are the major contributing factor is like saying the earth is flat, the sun orbits around us and other "certainties" of science that have been disproved over the years as more research was done. You can barely get two scientists to agree on anything, so why would you expect me to believe the ones that say beyond a doubt humans are the primary factor in this? Especially in light of knowing how some of the research and findings have been suppressed to support a slanted approach to this.

The Greeks knew the earth is round over 2000 years ago (they even knew its diameter) and likewise heliocentrism and many other discoveries were known by the scientific community long before they were accepted by the public (I wonder why?). There is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that global warming is real and it’s primarily due to the increase in greenhouse gases. There are several independent lines of reasoning that show our distinct fingerprint on climate change.

We can barely predict the weather these days, how can we predict something as complex as climate change? Sure there are forecast models, but how everything interacts to create rain one day and sunshine the next? Why is it they don't say "we are going to have rain from 1:22 PM to 5:54 PM tomorrow" instead of "we have a 70% chance of rain" in forecasts? And that's basic numerical weather predicting. So you expect me to believe some scientist when they say for certainty that humans are the prime factor in climate change when the models are impossibly more complex and have to take in far more additional factors and over a longer period of time? I'd prefer to see the rest of the research before believing grandiose claims made by scientists that also suppress their own colleagues.

Again, I have no doubt we have an impact. I can't quantify it with a number like some people do. But overall, how can you attempt to sway me with something that has become so politicized over the years and offers a slanted view? Science should be the open and free sharing of knowledge, not what the "science" of climatic change has become. And until ALL viewpoints are heard, researched and scientifically proved or disproved, you cannot say with any certainty that we are the major contributing factor as is being done these days

And if you want to discuss this, perhaps you should dial back the snide comments just a tad. I'm a wee bit smarter than you give me credit for and coming at me like this does little more than lump you into the Al Gore Sky-is-falling category. If you want to have a discussion about it, fine. If you want to continue tossing the party line and thinly veiling the insults to my intelligence, have fun talking to yourself.

Forecasting weather is an entirely different beast from modeling climate. You imply that the science isn’t settled but that’s simply not true. Science is absolutely open and free sharing of knowledge. There’s plenty of research that’s published that’s available to the general public, and much more if you subscribe to journals or have access to them through your school or company. That said scientists are not great at communicating with the public, myself included. I’ve been thinking about starting a thread on this topic and how it relates to science denialism. I’m sorry if I’ve ruffled your feathers I’m really not trying to be condescending.

BTW it’s not a party line. You may have missed this because it was a page or two ago but I’m conservative and I’m a geoscientist in resource exploration. None of my peers doubt AGW. And what’s so bad about investing in alternative energy and decreasing our dependence on hostile nations for fossil fuels? We’re going to have to do it when we run out of fossil fuels here in the next 100 years anyways. I figure I’m the last generation that can ride the oil gravy train.

 

[hog88]

The Greeks knew the earth is round over 2000 years ago (they even knew its diameter) and likewise heliocentrism and many other discoveries were known by the scientific community long before they were accepted by the public (I wonder why?). There is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that global warming is real and it’s primarily due to the increase in greenhouse gases. There are several independent lines of reasoning that show our distinct fingerprint on climate change.

Follow the money and you'll figure out why.

 

[508mikey]

So basically you're making that call based on gut feeling? Since we can't put a precise number on it, it's probably not a problem and we should just ignore it?

If the obvious line of evidence (temperature change following the industrial revolution) isn't satisfactory, don't fret, there are several independent empirical observations that demonstrate we are significantly contributing to global warming via the greenhouse effect (tab over to the intermediate and advanced versions, if you dare).

Here's another link relevant to your post discussing whether it could be a natural cycle.



Nice to see you're back. Have you learned the difference between Arctic and Antarctic yet?

go away Sheldon

 

[Roustabout]

The Greeks knew the earth is round over 2000 years ago (they even knew its diameter) and likewise heliocentrism and many other discoveries were known by the scientific community long before they were accepted by the public (I wonder why?). There is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that global warming is real and it’s primarily due to the increase in greenhouse gases. There are several independent lines of reasoning that show our distinct fingerprint on climate change.



Forecasting weather is an entirely different beast from modeling climate. You imply that the science isn’t settled but that’s simply not true. Science is absolutely open and free sharing of knowledge. There’s plenty of research that’s published that’s available to the general public, and much more if you subscribe to journals or have access to them through your school or company. That said scientists are not great at communicating with the public, myself included. I’ve been thinking about starting a thread on this topic and how it relates to science denialism. I’m sorry if I’ve ruffled your feathers I’m really not trying to be condescending.

BTW it’s not a party line. You may have missed this because it was a page or two ago but I’m conservative and I’m a geoscientist in resource exploration. None of my peers doubt AGW. And what’s so bad about investing in alternative energy and decreasing our dependence on hostile nations for fossil fuels? We’re going to have to do it when we run out of fossil fuels here in the next 100 years anyways. I figure I’m the last generation that can ride the oil gravy train.

The reality, as Bart points out, is that man can impact the carbon cycle. As a fellow conservative, I think man can and does have an impact on carbon on the atmosphere, (duh) which in turn impacts the carbon cycle, which in turn impacts global warming and/or cooling.
However, alternative fuels are not necessarily better for the environment. Hydrogen is lauded as a green fuel. But imagine 10 million cars pumping out water vapor. You want to talk greenhouse effect.

Science should be open and honest. But there is nothing about wearing a lab coat that makes one infallible or incorruptable. There is money to be made in fighting global warming, just like there is money to be made in denying it.

In the US coal is a dinosuar (no pun). Better, more efficient fuels are coming on line. The real problems lie in the less developed countries. I think I saw a report where China is responsible for more of our air pollution than we are.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

The sad part is I'm not so sure



I moved here from Tennessee, got most of my education in Tennessee. Science denialism is something I'm not going to miss. How many of you have ever left the state of Tennessee?



Excellent question. I have mentioned this earlier but it's worth repeating. Scientists and science denialists both agree that climate went through cycles before man's influence.

What alarms scientists is that we are rapidly diverging from that cycle. We should be on a cooling trend for the next ~70,000 years, instead the planet is warming.

relevant link



May you be touched by His noodly appendage

I got my feel of left-wing stupidity in New Jersey and New York. And since you're obsessed with "denialism," please explain why all the computer models have been wrong. All of them. I'll help you out. AGW is a political movement, and the data is being manipulated to fit an agenda. So let's focus on things we can solve as it relates to real pollution instead of carbon dioxide, which is NOT a pollutant. There's nothing we can do about climate change. Nothing.

 

[hog88]

The reality, as Bart points out, is that man can impact the carbon cycle. As a fellow conservative, I think man can and does have an impact on carbon on the atmosphere, (duh) which in turn impacts the carbon cycle, which in turn impacts global warming and/or cooling.
However, alternative fuels are not necessarily better for the environment. Hydrogen is lauded as a green fuel. But imagine 10 million cars pumping out water vapor. You want to talk greenhouse effect.

Science should be open and honest. But there is nothing about wearing a lab coat that makes one infallible or incorruptable. There is money to be made in fighting global warming, just like there is money to be made in denying it.

In the US coal is a dinosuar (no pun). Better, more efficient fuels are coming on line. The real problems lie in the less developed countries. I think I saw a report where China is responsible for more of our air pollution than we are.

The only better, more efficient fuel for major energy production is nuclear. Not many of those plants coming online anytime soon.

But you are correct, the problem is in the developing countries (funny how China stays in this category) and MMGW is nothing more than a movement to level the playing field between them and the US.

 

[82_VOL_83]

When weather can be predicted accurately 3-5 days out, climatologists can work on 7-10 days. After that, a month maybe. After that, they might be able to predict something long term. Until they can hit it over 95% real time, any prediction for 50 to 100 years from now is BS.

 

[govols/cc]

When weather can be predicted accurately 3-5 days out, climatologists can work on 7-10 days. After that, a month maybe. After that, they might be able to predict something long term. Until they can hit it over 95% real time, any prediction for 50 to 100 years from now is BS.

The more they talk about it the more credit they can take for fixing it when it doesn't happen in 50-100 years.

 

[82_VOL_83]

TI moved here from Tennessee, got most of my education in Tennessee. Science denialism is something I'm not going to miss. How many of you have ever left the state of Tennessee?

The entire state thanks you and asks that you never return.

I have moved from K'ville to Cincy. Wife and I realized when we crested the hill going down into Knoxville the other night that we WILL retire in K'ville and once back will never leave again. If you don't like TN, GTFO and don't come back. And take your f'ing condescension with you.

You asked about gut feel? You are damn skippy it's gut feel. I felt -9 in my gut, on my ass, on my face, on my legs, and through my insulated boots. F your global warming theory. It's damn cold and it's staying cold.

 

[BartW]

The reality, as Bart points out, is that man can impact the carbon cycle. As a fellow conservative, I think man can and does have an impact on carbon on the atmosphere, (duh) which in turn impacts the carbon cycle, which in turn impacts global warming and/or cooling.
However, alternative fuels are not necessarily better for the environment. Hydrogen is lauded as a green fuel. But imagine 10 million cars pumping out water vapor. You want to talk greenhouse effect.

Science should be open and honest. But there is nothing about wearing a lab coat that makes one infallible or incorruptable. There is money to be made in fighting global warming, just like there is money to be made in denying it.

In the US coal is a dinosuar (no pun). Better, more efficient fuels are coming on line. The real problems lie in the less developed countries. I think I saw a report where China is responsible for more of our air pollution than we are.

I agree with you about hydrogen, that would exacerbate our greenhouse problem. I think there is more money to be made denying climate change than supporting. For a long time oil companies funded the GCC to lobby against AGW science, but in recent times even big oil companies are publicly acknowledging their role in climate change. Regardless, we’re going to run out of fossil fuels soon enough so we better start figuring out alternative energy.

I got my feel of left-wing stupidity in New Jersey and New York. And since you're obsessed with "denialism," please explain why all the computer models have been wrong. All of them. I'll help you out. AGW is a political movement, and the data is being manipulated to fit an agenda. So let's focus on things we can solve as it relates to real pollution instead of carbon dioxide, which is NOT a pollutant. There's nothing we can do about climate change. Nothing.

Please explain why you think all the models have been wrong? They’ve been impressively accurate and typically have made predictions that turned out to be more conservative than alarmist. Here's a link about the reliability of climate models.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact.

The only better, more efficient fuel for major energy production is nuclear. Not many of those plants coming online anytime soon.

But you are correct, the problem is in the developing countries (funny how China stays in this category) and MMGW is nothing more than a movement to level the playing field between them and the US.

I like nuclear I wish people weren’t afraid of the word. I don’t follow your conspiracy theory though. Care to expand?

When weather can be predicted accurately 3-5 days out, climatologists can work on 7-10 days. After that, a month maybe. After that, they might be able to predict something long term. Until they can hit it over 95% real time, any prediction for 50 to 100 years from now is BS.

Weather forecasting and climate modeling are not the same thing. The climate modeling link above discusses this.

 

[BartW]

The entire state thanks you and asks that you never return.

I have moved from K'ville to Cincy. Wife and I realized when we crested the hill going down into Knoxville the other night that we WILL retire in K'ville and once back will never leave again. If you don't like TN, GTFO and don't come back. And take your f'ing condescension with you.

You asked about gut feel? You are damn skippy it's gut feel. I felt -9 in my gut, on my ass, on my face, on my legs, and through my insulated boots. F your global warming theory. It's damn cold and it's staying cold.

Did you slip and faceplant on the sidewalk or something?

I like Knoxville for the record. It's still home. Go Vols

 

[Gannon Goodson]

I agree with you about hydrogen, that would exacerbate our greenhouse problem. I think there is more money to be made denying climate change than supporting. For a long time oil companies funded the GCC to lobby against AGW science, but in recent times even big oil companies are publicly acknowledging their role in climate change. Regardless, we’re going to run out of fossil fuels soon enough so we better start figuring out alternative energy.

Don't hold your breath. The sun will probably be approaching its red giant phase by the time that happens.

Please explain why you think all the models have been wrong? They’ve been impressively accurate and typically have made predictions that turned out to be more conservative than alarmist. Here's a link about the reliability of climate models.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact.

So is water vapor. In fact, it's a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, a vital trace gas that dissipates over time. Let's try to remove water vapor from the atmosphere before carbon dioxide. Wouldn't that make more sense? Ozone is in FACT a greenhouse gas that protects us from solar radiation. Without it, we wouldn't be here, even though it's pollution near the surface. So what's the worry with carbon dioxide? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is dangerously low. I think we need a lot more carbon dioxide.

I like nuclear I wish people weren’t afraid of the word. I don’t follow your conspiracy theory though. Care to expand?

Weather forecasting and climate modeling are not the same thing. The climate modeling link above discusses this.

.

 

[hog88]

I like nuclear I wish people weren’t afraid of the word. I don’t follow your conspiracy theory though. Care to expand?

Nuclear is the cleanest option by far, just has a bad rap and Americans are stupid.

Conspiracy is simple, why has China always excluded from the discussion on carbon limits and considered a "developing nation"?

 

[govols/cc]

Nuclear is the cleanest option by far, just has a bad rap and Americans are stupid.

Conspiracy is simple, why has China always excluded from the discussion on carbon limits and considered a "developing nation"?

We need a place to dump all the stuff they make.

 

[hog88]

We need a place to dump all the stuff they make.

Have one, this administration has delayed it's opening. We've spent billions developing it.

 

[BartW]

Don't hold your breath. The sun will probably be approaching its red giant phase by the time that happens.

Nope we will deplete our fossil fuels in a few hundred years. The sun still has a few billion left.

So is water vapor. In fact, it's a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, a vital trace gas that dissipates over time. Let's try to remove water vapor from the atmosphere before carbon dioxide. Wouldn't that make more sense? Ozone is in FACT a greenhouse gas that protects us from solar radiation. Without it, we wouldn't be here, even though it's pollution near the surface. So what's the worry with carbon dioxide? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is dangerously low. I think we need a lot more carbon dioxide.

Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas. It's a natural feedback -- the higher the temperature the more water vapor will be in the air. The big difference between the carbon cycle and water cycle is that water returns to earth as rain and has a relatively short cycle. CO2 is absorbed by plants, eventually becomes dead organic matter and after millions of years maybe it becomes a fossil fuel. When we burn it the majority of the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time - it has nowhere to go. Removing water vapor first makes no sense. Not sure if serious

 

[BartW]

Nuclear is the cleanest option by far, just has a bad rap and Americans are stupid.

Conspiracy is simple, why has China always excluded from the discussion on carbon limits and considered a "developing nation"?

I don't know, China has us by the balls? Are you saying there's a global communist science conspiracy?