Now it seems to me, if solar irradiance were the driver of emmissions, the two graphs would show some form of correlation. They don't. There have been many studies in the past which claimed changes to solar irradiance was the largest contributing factor to global warming. The fact is, when the data is correlated, there is no way the solar irradience can be the largest contributing factor.
Well that's a very simplistic and incomplete idea of solar variances. The sun has many differing cycles. Sunspots vary over an 11 year cycle, but also on a longer (maybe irregular) changes. During the "Little Ice Age" there was almost no sunspot activity at all, yet that 11 year cycle was still there. I've also heard that there's a 50 year cycle, but I can't remember anything about it. Then there's a 1500 year cycle that's been there regular as clockwork for 900 thousand years, even through ice ages and interglacial periods. Dennis Avery describes that kind of stuff in an audio.
Here's a graph of CO2 and sunspot and temperatures. Notice how the temperature fluctuations are almost in lockstep with sunspot activity, but not CO2.
Ice cores have revealed that CO2 increase follows temperature increase. Notice that Al Gore used them in his movie, covering a few hundred thousand years, one huge graph above the other. Usually in this kind of graph, the two are superimposed so the relationship is very clear, just like in the graph I pasted here. Al Gore didn't do that. Could it be because if he had, it would clearly have shown the temperature increases preceeding the CO2 increases. And he wouldn't have been able to make his movie.
Temperatures preceed CO2 increases by 800 years. I don't know why the time delay, but that's what happens. Let's see, CO2 is increasing now, what was happening to the temperature 800 years ago? Oh right! The medieval climate optimum, when temperatures were much warmer than now.
Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 14th Centuries
Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age."
In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.
For larger viewing version of graph, please click here or on image.
There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century. For example, Mann et al. (1999) generated a 1,000 year Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction (shown above) using data from multiple ice cores and tree ring records. This reconstruction suggests that the 1998 annual average temperature was more than two standard deviations warmer than any annual average temperature value since AD 1,000 (shown in yellow). (For complete scientific reference of this study, please click here. Link to Mann 1999 FTP Data.)
In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. To learn more about the so-called "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz. (For complete review reference click here.)
I was responding to the article which cited solar irradiance, not sun spots.
A team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered how cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere. The results support the theory that cosmic rays influence Earth's climate.
An essential role for remote stars in everyday weather on Earth has been revealed by an experiment at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen.
It is already well-established that when cosmic rays, which are high-speed atomic particles originating in exploded stars far away in the Milky Way, penetrate Earth's atmosphere they produce substantial amounts of ions and release free electrons.
Now, results from the Danish experiment show that the released electrons significantly promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds.
Hence, a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth's atmosphere has been experimentally identified for the first time.
The Danish team officially announced their discovery on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, published by the Royal Society, the British national academy of science.
"We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei," says team leader Henrik Svensmark, who is Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research within the Danish National Space Center. "This is a completely new result within climate science."
A missing link in climate theory
The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth's climate through their effect on cloud formation.
The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines. It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth's surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth's climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth's climate.
Incidentally, the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima coincide with the colder periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820. More recently it was discovered that the sunspot number during 1861-1989 shows a remarkable parallelism with the simultaneous variation in northern hemisphere mean temperatures (2). There is an even better correlation with the length of the solar cycle, between years of the highest numbers of sunspots. For example, the temperature anomaly was - 0.4 K in 1890 when the cycle was 11.7 years, but + 0.25 K in 1989 when the cycle was 9.8 years. Some critics of the theory of man-induced global warming have seized on this discovery to criticize the greenhouse gas theory.
All this evokes the important question of how sunspots affect the Earth's climate. To answer this question, we need to know how total solar irradiance received by the Earth is affected by sunspot activity.
Intuitively one may assume the that total solar irradiance would decrease as the number of (optically dark) sunspots increased. However direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown just the opposite to be the case. This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise.
Solar irradiance does not correlate to the noted rise in greenhouse gases. End of story.
Temperatures preceed CO2 increases by 800 years.
The medieval warm period, is annecdotal evidence of warming, which doesn't even equate to a global scale. Regional warming, no doubt. But the idea that the medieval warm period was globally warmer than today is incorrect.
So Steve starts digging. First, he read's Mann's original report. He finds it an exercise in obscurity. From what he published, it's very, very hard to tell just what statistical methods Mann used, or even what data he operated on.
This is wrong -- it's not supposed to be that way. Scientists are supposed to leave a clear path so other people can follow them up and replicate their research.
The fact that it's so obscure suggests that Mann does not want anyone checking his work.
But Mann used government grants in his research. Which means he has an obligation to disclose. Steve contacts him, asks for the information. He gets a runaround. He gets pointed to a website that does not have the information. He tries again, and again gets a runaround -- in fact, Mann sends him a very rude letter saying that he will no longer communicate with him.
Why should he? Steve isn't a legitimate researcher in that field. He's just a businessman.
But Steve is now sure there's something fishy going on, and he doesn't give up. He gets other people to help him. Finally they are pointed to a different website, where, to their surprise, they find that someone has accidentally left a copy of the FORTRAN program that was used to crunch the numbers. It wasn't supposed to be where Steve found it -- which is why it hadn't been deleted.
Also, there was a little more carelessness -- there is a set of data labeled "censored." Steve can't see, right away, what's significant about it, except that a score or so of data sets are left out of the censored data.
Steve looks at the program. He finds the glitch rather easily. He tries the program on random numbers and realizes that it always yields the distinctive shape that has caused all the stir.
Sorting out the data sets is much harder. He contacts a lot of people. He does what anyone checking these figures would have to do, and he realizes: If anyone had tried to check, a lot of this information would already have been put together.
He realizes: I am the first person ever to attempt to verify these astonishing, anomalous, politically hot results. Out of all the researchers in this field who had a responsibility to do "due diligence" before accepting the data, none of them has done it.
Finally he has all the original data put together. It includes more than just real numbers -- it includes "extrapolated" data, which means that sometimes, where there were holes, Mann just made the numbers up and plugged them in. This is sloppy and lazy -- but it's just the beginning.
What's crucial is that Steve now understands why the "censored" data sets are smaller than the ones Mann used. The full source data includes those misleading results that shouldn't have been used. But the "censored" data sets leave it out. This means that Mann knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an accident. Mann ran the program on the data without the misleading numbers, and then he ran it with the misleading numbers. What he published was the results that made his ideological case.
In the Sargasso Sea (an area popularly known as the `Bermuda Triangle') , radiocarbon dating of marine organisms in sea bed sediments by L. Keigwin  demonstrates that sea surface temperatures were around 2°F cooler than today around 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) , and around 2°F warmer than today 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period) . In addition, the data also demonstrates that the period before 500 BC (the so-called Holocene Climatic Optimum) saw temperatures up to 4°F warmer - and without any greenhouse gas component to cause it.
In Taiwan, Kuo-Yen Wei et al. performed lake sediment studies similar to those in Kenya, which again revealed the imprint of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age  . According to their summary -
They also referred to studies of annual to seasonal records from tree-rings
- "The interlaminated dark and light colored lake sediments obtained from several mountain lakes appear to reflect large-scale wet and dry cycles over the past 2400 years (Chen et al., 1993; Lou et al, in press) . The detected 450-years periodicity is similar to that of the solar oscillation. The Medieval Warm Period (1000-1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD) were recognized (Lou et al., in press) . These two epochs were also identified from palynological records from the Central Range (Liew et al., 1995) "
Finally in a synopsis of the various proxies studied in and around Taiwan -
- "Studies of tree rings of Taiwan fir allowed to reconstruct past summer and winter temperatures of the alpine mountain area during the past 300 years. It is demonstrated that cold climate prevailed during the Little Ice Age (Tsou and Liu, 1995) ."
- "During the past 2000 years, the climate has become warmer and wetter, intervened with the conspicuous Medieval Warm Period (1000-1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD) . Tree-ring data confirmed also the effect of the Little Ice Age in alpine Taiwan mountains. Fluctuation of humidity over the past 2,400 years as derived from lake sediments suggests that the recognized dry/cold periods coincide with major historical commotion events in Chinese history."
In a recent paper in the South African Journal of Science, Tyson et al  developed a climate history from oxygen 18 isotopes (a temperature proxy) , carbon 14 isotopes (a proxy for solar activity) , and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite in a cave in the Makapansgat Valley. According to the authors -
They dated the Medieval Warm Period at pre-1000 to 1300 AD, with mean temperatures 6 to 7°F warmer than today, and dated the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1800 with mean temperatures up to 2°F cooler than today.
- "The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the Medieval Warm Period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres."
The authors then proceeded to attribute a cause to these two events.
The variability of the sun causing impacts on earth's climate, was reaffirmed by this South African study. All the climate changes they noted correlated with known changes on the sun.
- "The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation."
Published multi-proxy studies by Villalba in 1994  and Cioccale in 1999  confirm the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Argentina.
In the central regions of Argentina, there was a warm climate from 600 AD up to around 1320 AD, allowing human populations to settle and cultivate higher altitude areas, matching the Medieval Warm Period. After 1320, two cold `pulses' were noted. During the second pulse (the main phase of the Little Ice Age) , glaciers in the southern Andes began to advance and residents abandoned settlements in the higher altitudes. According to Cioccale, "Both cold pulses can be related to the Sporer and Maunder Minimums respectively" . Again the sun was held responsible for these events.
There you have it: many more extreme events, a predicted consequence of warming. There is no question that the climate is warming.
The loss of arctic and antarctic ice cover, the increasing ranges of certain plants and animals and insects, all point to it.
The issue is not that the global climate is warming, that's a simple fact, the issue is the human contribution to it, and that's an issue surrounded by spin and politics and vested interests.
The climate's been warming for about 12,000 years, that's what ended the last Ice Age. 12,000 years ago the place where I live was buried under several kilometres of ice. It isn't now, so obviously the climate is warmer now. D'uh...
Ulrich Joerin, a wiry Swiss scientist in his late twenties, is part of a small group of climatologists who are in the process of radically changing the image of the Swiss mountain world. He and a colleague are standing in front of the Tschierva Glacier in Engadin, Switzerland at 2,200 meters (7,217 feet). "A few thousand years ago, there were no glaciers here at all," he says. "Back then we would have been standing in the middle of a forest." He digs into the ground with his mountain boot until something dark appears: an old tree trunk, covered in ice, polished by water and almost black with humidity. "And here is the proof," says Joerin. Radical new theory
The tree trunk in the ice is part of a huge climatic puzzle that Joerin is analyzing for his doctoral thesis for the Institute for Geological Science at the University of Bern. And he is coming to an astonishing conclusion. The fact that the Alpine glaciers are melting right now appears to be part of regular cycle in which snow and ice have been coming and going for thousands of years.
The glaciers, according to the new hypothesis, have shrunk down to almost nothing at least ten times since the last ice age 10,000 years ago . "At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today," says Joerin. Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army.
It's also true that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased about 30% since the Industrial Revolution, that's clear from measurements on bubbles of the ancient atmosphere found in ice cores. Whether human activity is or is not the cause is still problematic, because the changes clearly attributable to human activities are approximately at the level of uncertainty in the data.
But I don't think that really matters anyway. Pumping carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere makes it warmer, that's a simple fact, and whether what we're seeing now is a natural cycle or human caused, we should make every possible effort to minimize our contribution to it.
Very little warmer. Mostly it mitigates the extremes of temperature swings. And the efforts to minimize our contributions would have no effect, while putting the money elsewhere could do great good.
Minimizing our contributions would have no effects? How about cleaner air? How about no more SMOG?!
A new study indicates that poor Asians burning dung for energy may be a major cause of global warming. It may explain why glaciers are really melting — and why climate is more complicated than some think.
Related Topics: Global Warming
It used to be a straight-line theory based on easily connected dots. The Earth was warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide generated by man, his factories, power plants and vehicles. The U.S. and the industrialized world had to drastically reduce its CO2 levels to prevent the poles from melting and the seas from rising.
But a new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature suggests that the absence of technology, not its reckless use, may be a major factor in raising the Earth's global temperature.
The haze of pollution called the "Asian Brown Cloud," caused by wood and dung burned for fuel, may be doing more harm than the tailpipes of our SUVs.
Researchers led by Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California, launched three unmanned aircraft last March from the Maldives island of Hanimadhoo to fly through the Brown Cloud at various altitudes.
A total of 18 missions were flown to explore the blanket of soot, dust and smoke that at times is two miles thick and covers an area about the size of the U.S.
They found that the cloud of soot and particulate matter boosted the effect of solar heating on the surrounding air by as much as 50%.
"These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particulates as cooling agents in the global climate system . . . ." concluded the Nature article summing up the study. Dang. Just when we thought the science of global warming was settled.
These findings also may help to explain the rapid melting among the 46,000 glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau and why the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating since at least 1780.
This phenomenon also might help explain why carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures don't track very well, if at all.
The Asian Brown Cloud was first discovered by Ramanathan in 1999. He had grown up near Madras, India, where his mother, like millions of other Indian homemakers, cooked with dried cow dung — a plentiful, and renewable, source of cheap fuel that was a good source of heat. One might call it the earliest form of biofuel.
Such pollution, because it contains the residue from hundreds of millions of dung-fueled cooking fires and inefficient wood and coal furnaces, carries an unusually large amount of soot.
It previously had been assumed that such particulate matter, like that from volcanic eruptions, had a cooling effect on the Earth. Guess not — at least not all the time.
A computer simulation run by Surabit Menon, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University, using Chinese weather reports calculated the warming effects of the cloud. Menon found the brown cloud as it spread around the globe contributed more to global warming than Western greenhouse gas emissions.
S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, finds it "ironic that much of (this) pollution could be avoided by the use of cleaner fossil fuels, like gas, oil, and even coal, all of which release CO2."
Ramanathan has found some resistance to his discovery and its conclusions.
"My colleagues warned me when I got into this that global warming is not really pure science — politics is mixed in with it." An inconvenient truth for a dedicated scientist.
India, of course, is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol as a "developing" nation. It's not that easy to put a catalytic converter on a cow. Then there's the politics of the issue. It's easier to blame a soccer mom in her SUV than an Indian family struggling to get through the day.
New research...concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. [...] According to Schwartz’s results, which are based on the empirical relationship between trends in surface temperature and ocean heat content, doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1oC increase in average temperature (0.1–2.1oC, two standard deviation uncertainty range). Schwartz’s result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3oC for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5oC, 2SD range).
Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6oC additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming.
Stephen Schwartz is a pretty mainstream climate scientist. Yet along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, his new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism.
Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific “consensus”, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?
CO2 is not pollution, it is part of the air, and the vast majority of the volume of CO2 in the air is natural. Human activity contributes only a tiny percentage of the total. It is acknowledged by all sides in the debate that if the whole world met it's Kyoto targets, there would be no effect on global temperatures, and that's even acknowledged by those who believe in global warming catastrophism. In fact, being that our contribution is so relatively small, even if we eliminated all human contributions there would be no effect, even if the CO2 alarmism were true. That's what I was referring to when I said minimizing our contributions would have no effect.
Cleaner air? Smog? CO2 is part of the air. Adding it to the air has no effect on it's cleanliness, any more than adding oxygen would. In fact, so far efforts to minimize CO2 have resulted in increased CO2 emissions and dirtier air from real pollutants. Alternative fuels such as biodeisel, ethanol, hydrogen require more energy to produce than they deliver, resulting in more overall energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In the rush to supply the biodeisel market, vast areas of tropical rain forest have been slashed and burned for palm oil plantations resulting in great releases of CO2 from the forests as well as thousands of years of accumulated peat being burned, not to mention massive amounts of pollution in the air in that area.
You want clean air? So do I. Then target the pollutants, not CO2, 'cause you'll only make it worse that way.
Yeah, right! Adding oxygen to air is polluting. Adding nitrogen to air is polluting. Adding air to air is polluting. Right. I've already shown that human contributions are minuscule and the tiny reductions such as curly light bulbs or even achievement of Kyoto objectives are too small to make a difference. Al Gore, as VP asked administration scientists to determine what successful achievement of those objectives would do to global warming. The result, assuming that CO2 catastrophism is true - no reduction in global temperatures, not even a stop to global warming, only a reduction in the amount of warming of 7/100ths of 1 degree C over the next 50 years. And that's by people who believe in that nonsense! I've even heard prominent environmentalists admit that. Use a little logic here, if it's as bad as they say it is, nothing we're doing, short of complete elimination of human emissions will have any effect.
And there is no deleterious affect to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is very clear on this.
If there is deleterious effects, it is pollution, it really is that simple, by definition. An atmospheric pollutant has more cause and effect relationships than the atmospheric reactions. Soil and water?
Many nitrogen products are found naturally and are even beneficial, but when release of concentrated amounts occurs, it is harmful and thus a pollutant.
There are many deleterious effects associated with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, it raises the pH of the water it dissolves into for one. Find the many effects that has on ecological systems, specifically on our natural and farmed food items.
The other truth: if CO2 do not warm the earth, the excess of carbon dioxide in human bodies will kill. Excess of any stuff will kill.
The asian people do need to not burn the biofuels and dung, but I never heard of people burning dung before.
It's not character assassination when there is a well documented effort to lobby for lax regulations and even fraudulent activity by those in a government position by appointment........ It is a matter of public record. I only hesitate to bring it up because I don't like conspiracy theories,
Well, if the lower atmosphere bands were saturated, which they aren't, that is inconsequential, as it is in the absorption in the thin layer of the upper atmosphere where the infrared actually escapes Earth that determines Earth's heat balance.
With respect to water vapour, while it is the largest greenhouse gas by proprtions, it is not the strongest forcing, nor does it have as many positive feedback loops as the other gases. With particular importance again going to the upper atmosphere where there is very little water vapour to block escaping infrared.
Models which by the way are also being used to forecast the global warming on Mars.
BC may have a glut of timber product, but global timber stocks are declining.
There you have it: many more extreme events, a predicted consequence of warming..
Whether human activity is or is not the cause is still problematic, because the changes clearly attributable to human activities are approximately at the level of uncertainty in the data.
I don't believe you're serious.
Air is 4/5 nitrogen and you're trying to say nitrogen can be a pollutant if released into the air? Or are you talking about nitrogen fertilizer? Yes, concentrated amounts of it can be harmful. But then that applies to anything. Everything is a poison, and nothing is a poison, it's a matter of degrees, or dosage. Water is necessary for human life, yet drinking too much can result in death. Same with salt. And radiation. Drinking a little alcohol is beneficial, but too much is harmful, even fatal. Thus following your logic, everything is pollution, which makes any argument for fighting pollution null and void.
As for CO2 in water, well the oceans have more CO2 in them than the atmosphere by far, and they release and absorb it depending on whether the temperature rises or falls. Doesn't seem at all to be harmful, and the effect on food items is only beneficial, as it enhances growth. In fact it is vital for any and all plant growth.
Michael Crichton is trying to sell his book. A book, a work of fiction, that contradicts the evidence of global warming.
The scientific method of research is exactly that. A majority of Climatologists have produced results that others in the field have reproduced. Consensus is not some evil word......it simply means that a majority of scientists in the field have agreed that global warming is a threat. They have agreed that according to the best evidence, the global temperatures are rising and human produced greenhouse gasses are causing it.
Well thomaska, are you saying the global temperatures are not rising? Are you saying that man has not pumped 8 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution? These are facts that are irrefutable. You can dissagree that man is causing it I suppose, but who else is there? How do you explain the fact that we are losing cubic miles of ice in both poles and Greenland....ice that has taken thousands of centuries to form. How do you explain the fact that there is bare ground in the arctic that has been covered in ice for thousands of years? There is no evidence of any cycle or increased solar heat that would explain these things. I see no hysteria.....just hard, cold, facts.
I've flown a lot over the Arctic and I have seen the change. I understand there is more impressive evidence of global warming in the Antarctic and Greenland but the Arctic is what I've seen.
The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.
The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.
Al Gore's movie was anything but cold, hard facts. It is mostly about what might happen in the extreme, distant future.
Extreme distant future? What about the unprecedentad hurricanes? What about the flooding going on all over the world? What about the change in the ocean temperature? Extreme distant future....your in it....it ain't later....it's now.
Don't forget global warming is only ONE problem we have currently. Assuming we will survive the pandemics and epidemics coming our way and avoid any nuclear altercation global warming is sure to be our undoing. Although....maybe if half the worlds population kicks it from avian flu or a new plague global warming will not be a problem.
There is so much evidence that the world is warming up it is hard to see how even the reddest neck could avoid seeing it.
For the very last time, a pollutant is anything we release which has a deleterious effect, regardless of what compound it is. Regardless of whether or not it is a naturally found compound.
To illustrate your absurd point, a hypothetical ecosystem can sustain a certain threshold of toatal ammonia. Ammonia is part of the nitrogen cycle, and a huge component which must be closed off by bacteria in the soil. Normally, ammonia would be controlled by the fairly constant flows in and out of the natural nitrogen cycles. Animals wouldn't excrete as much ammonia, if they were left to grow on natural forages and feeds. In the agri-food industry now, we have firms feeding well above basal metabolic requirements for growth, amounts to ensure maximum growth rates ensue. The excess ammonia produced by the animals we rear is more than the farmer can accommodate. This is what is known as waste disposal problems. We put too much into feed, to ensure maximal growth, and end up with more fertilizer than we can use. If we leave that waste lying around, even though it is natural ( sure, cows love living in conditions like a feedlot...), the ecosystem cannot accommodate the excess load, and there is damage to the ecosystem.
I was specifically insinuating the oceans when I made the comment about CO2. The phylum Mollusca, specifically the class Bivalvia, rely on a carbonate equilibrium in the water to maintain the shell growth. When the pH of the oceans is lowered, as accounted by increased forcings due to the increase in carbon dioxide, the carbonate equilibrium is disrupted from natural levels, and the shellfish cannot maintain the shell density. As they grow larger, the shell becomes thinner relative to body mass, and increased mortality will follow. This is but one example in a field of many....corals are another matter, which provide the basis for many marine ecosystems...
Of course anything can be considered a pollutant, but only when there is an obvious harmful effect. Judging by your limited comprehension of this definition, 5 extra milliliters would be pollution....but you would be wrong.
" No, the absorption of heat takes place near the surface. In fact, something like 80% is absorbed within the first 30 feet of the earth's surface."
This made me laugh.
Yes heat is absorbed, but then it is released. And it goes AWAY from the planet, unless it hits something (like CO2) that bounces it back.
Like a laser in a room of funhouse mirrors, the more "mirrors" the longer it takes the heat to leave, the warmer it gets as new heat comes in at the same speed.