Your first paragraph is about science, so I'll answer that one. You say CO2 lags temperature. You know what? I agree with that. The last time we broke out of an ice age, maybe 12,000 years ago, it appears that way in the ice core record from that time. The earth warmed slowly, probably due to the Milankovich cycles, and then at some temperature range CO2 was released back into the atmosphere. All this is observed in the scientific record. It happened.
But there is a second part of the story that no one knows about. CO2 also leads temperature. Once the earth is out an ice age and into a warm period like the modern holocene, the atmosphere arrives at some kind of a pseudo equilibrium. Not a true equilibrium because things still change around very slowly.
There are three main parts to the modern temperature control in the atmosphere. The sun provides the energy at a surprising constant rate. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, trapping heat and preventing it from just radiating away to space. But water vapor has a saturation limit, it precipitates right out of the atmosphere. Enter CO2 into the picture. It is a greenhouse gas which contributes about 9 per cent of the atmospheric warming. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor, allowing water vapor to capture more warmth. So in this way CO2 is the control knob on the warming.
Without the greenhouse gases, the temperature of the earth would be about minus 19 degrees C.
All the rest of your comments are about grand conspiracy. I don't subscribe to that stuff. I could hear the same stuff just by tuning in to a.m. radio or something.
Gallon - You say CO2 contributes 9% of atmospheric warming? That figure is absolutely subject to debate because it is based on models and theoretical science. It does not drive warming. The sun does. That is the main source of energy and heat in our solar system. Fewer sunspots = less solar radiation = less heat and we don't control the sun. Frankly, we can't even control CO2 in the atmosphere (a trace gas to begin with) as man contributes a negligible amount in comparison to the ocean, volcanic/geothermal, and natural decomposition of biomatter. If your hypothesis was correct why are we encouraging wetlands preservation? Does the sun have a constant output of energy? No. Where does that play in the equation?
Our natural world, from unicellular organisms to the entire ecosystem naturally seeks homeostasis or balance. The beauty of nature. We are continually amazed and shocked by the complexity and simplicity of it all. It is odd to me that so many AGW proponents deny that this mechanism does not apply to the entire system.
This article deals with a legitimate scientific study that shows that the earth radiates heat into space. This is a fact and we don't understand how the mechanism works. It has not been factored into the most popular models. We don't understand with certainty the mechanism for radiation from the earth but the best hypothesis seems to be natural diffusion... a well understood process elsewhere in nature. We acknowledge that this happens in amoeba, the oceans, your bed when you fart at night
:, and elsewhere in nature. Why does it not happen for the entire planet?
You say that I am a talk radio conspiracy theorists. You are free to have whatever opinion you want about that but I have read numerous books on both sides of the issue and have had a keen interest in it since college and grad school (bio, chemistry, anthropology) a few decades ago. I think for myself and enjoy rational debate about it. I don't have all the answers, you don't, and they don't. But they assume the answers allow them to make trillion dollar decisions.
The AGW argument has many well meaning folks with good intentions but it has been hijacked by the powers that seek to control your life and mine. We don't understand nearly enough and climate science remains in it's infancy dependent on models from both sides of the argument that presume outcomes, have huge gray areas, and are mostly based on faulty or infantile science. The problem is that they are using the argument to put a governor on the world economy and this creates a problem by itself.
I am convinced that wealth is the single best thing for the environment. Wealthy nations are cleaner, preserve and maintain natural resources that allow nature to maintain it's own balance, and we further our own knowledge and understanding of the world in which we live. Poor nations, see Haiti, pollute, ruin their ecosystem, and lack the widespread education and science to find understanding. Read The Skeptical Environmentalist. A refreshing look at the topic with an interesting perspective from a former Greenpeace guy.
Please answer my question. How does giving the idiots in Washington D.C., the UN, or the state capital the right to levy additional taxes on energy (and therefore economic activity) decrease CO2 production when our economic activity is largely derived from the use of energy? It changes nothing.
The warming that we have seen was minimal, far below the projections of two decades ago, and seems to have stopped over 10 years ago. Anecdotally, this was the latest ski season in many decades here in the northwest.
I have an opinion and it's subject to the same old axiom that yours is. I suppose if this beautiful amazing earth continues with us on it we will get much closer to the truth.
Furthermore, why is warming bad? I wish it was warmer here in the northwest this year as my garden is two months behind. I know it's plenty warm in most of the country right now but the winters have also been more extreme. They blame cooler weather on global warming? I remember the south in the late 80's..... that was hot. Same with Europe and I lived in both places.
Warmer = more agricultural production. More CO2 = more vibrant plant life.... we know this is true because we can observe the benefits of additional CO2 in a greenhouse environment on plants. Assuming that you are right and I am wrong..... would a few more degrees really be that bad? Trees are good right?
Realistically, from an anthropological, paleontological, and historical standpoint, history shows us that climate has always been variable.... it warms and it cools.... it's wetter and drier.... a single record of fact such as ice core data is useful but does not apply to the entire system. See Greenland. Travel to Iceland and go their history museums. Go to Asia and Africa and study the histories. Look at the history of the middle east and the historical record of Mesopotamia. All of that changed without the internal combustion engine a few thousand years ago with a much smaller population. Civilization thrives in warmer climates.
I stand by my assertion that climate science today = power. I understand that people want to be environmentally responsible but movements are often hijacked by those with political goals who seek power. Climate science has become a political science and that is a shame because science is all about the factual search for truth. It has resembled a religion for a long time and while people want to preserve the beauty of our planet too many of them only look at one specific field and assume it applies to everything. Science does not work like that.
Again, how does taxing economic activity (requiring energy) make less CO2?
I will anticipate your answer and reply on my own - Capitalism and the free market will always seek more efficient usage of energy because it is profitable to do so. Government does not create anything.... they take, take, take. I can spend my money better than Bush, Obama, Pelosi, or Boehner on things that are important to me. It's my money and I earned it in the free market. They are seeking to change that and this scam has allowed them to take even more money from us but the science is not there my friend.
If America is the main producer of CO2 (we are not anymore... see China) why don't we use thorium reactors for electricity and natural gas for propulsion? There is an endless supply of both and they are thousands of times cleaner and even cheaper.
By the way, I am an organic gardener who uses wastes that you would detest in an environmentally friendly way to garden. I make rich vibrant soil out of wastes for my garden. I love energy efficiency because it saves me money.... higher mileage is better, more efficient appliances, and less garbage are all things that I practice. I volunteer my time in local and state parks because I love the pristine beauty of the creation we are blessed with. Two decades ago I worked to monitor and clean up the Pigeon River in Tennessee where a paper company destroyed a river with pollution. Interestingly, you can look this up for yourself... guess who never mentioned it? The Senator from the great state of Tennessee.... AlGore. A marginal college student who almost became President and has become very wealthy as the chief priest of AGW. Look it up.... the Champion paper company were one of his biggest campaign donors at the time. This river flows through one of the most amazing biospheres on earth - the Great Smoky Mountains. AlGore is a fraud.
I have a God-given right to make my own choices based on my own beliefs and teach those to my children. The government that can't even balance their own checkbook wants to take this away from me and you using AGW to justify it. Environmentalism should promote smart and efficient living but the environmental movement today has been hijacked by people who tell us the answer is to give them the right to control the fruits of our labor.
