Centerfield

I believe global warming is a real threat that must be confronted.

Why?

Because I like glaciers

I, too, am ticked off by global warming. I'm going to Glacier National Park this summer and if current trends continue they won't be there in another 20 years or so. My grandkids may have to go to Canada to see glaciers. However, I agree that terrorism should be first priority.

The day after we kill the last terrorist, though, I'm painting my roof white!

I think it depends on what you think the relative consequences of the worst case scenarios of terrorism versus global warming will be. If you think terrorists are likely to blow up a nuke in an American city within a few years, then clearly terrorism is a greater threat. If you think only "lower-grade" terrorism (eg., another 9/11) is more likely but that global warming is likely to lead to severe climate change that would significantly impact the world, wouldn't that be a greater threat? In other words, I don't think you can make a simple up or down answer here.

Marc,

I see your point, but I think the threat of nukes is pretty legitimate. Also, I don't see how you can call 9/11 low-grade terrorism. I really don't think we should look at climate change and terrorism as competing interests, as if we should abandon one cause for the sake of the other.

Put it in economic consequences.
9/11 is estimated to cost what 10-20 billion dollars? But then there's the war, about 120 billion or more per year.
If increased hurricane activity and rising sea levels cause roughly that much then I would say that
global warming is more important than fighting terrorism. But not until then so go ahead and ignore it.

Of course, you could try this: mandage that pickup trucks and SUVs conform to the same mpg requirements as other cars. By that you
a) reduce exhaust gases, and so global warming,
b) reduce U.S. oil consumption, and so the flow of money to countries which support, ro at least nurture, terrorism.

And all without spending a single government dollar. (OK, it would cost a handful of dollars to publish the law, etc. But each cabinet department probable loses vastly more than that is missing paperclips each year.)

It's also hard to know what the effects of GW will be. The current "best guess" has a range of about 2-5 degrees C. At the low end, this is probably somewhat more than a huge pain in the ass. At the high end, we might see very serious damage to the planets biosphere (our food), billions dead is not absurd. We just don't know.

What anoys me on this issue though is that virtually everything we should do for GW is what we should be doing for a sound energy policy anyway (carbon sequestation on coal would be the big exception). So why not make a REAL effort at solving energy?

As far as terrorism, I'm not certain we haven't passed the tipping point. We can't contain nukes, for starters once Musharif (sp?) is out of power the fundies take over that pile of nukes. And I really don't see any hope for the moderate Mulsims (whether they exist of not) solving the issue.

So eventually the whackos get ahold of a nuke, bomb Tel Aviv and Israel/US retaliate 10 fold. I'm not saying I like this solution, just predict it.

Global warming certainly is a threat, but I agree that terrorism is a far bigger and more immediate threat.

The consequence of global warming will cost many more trillions than terrorist attacks in the near future. To reverse the effects of global warming requires immediate action on a global scale. Defeating terrorism and dealing effectively with global warming are both important. Like terrorism, once the cat is out of the warming bag, it will extremely difficult to reverse. Like terrorism, global warming requires international law and enforcement. Disunity hurts both causes. A lack of clear criteria of action hinders solutions for both dangers. If models that show serious social disruption across Asia and Africa come to past, the breeding ground for terrorism will grow. In a strange way, the two problems do have some connection. Even our military seems to be very concerned with global warming. One way to blunt both our reliance on oil and capping global warming is to speed up alternative energy. But that is another thread……..

While not disregarding the near term threat of rogue nuclear weapons, global climate change and resource depletion threaten all of us as well. I don't think you can downplay either issue.

The consequences of global warming will cost many more trillions than terrorist attacks in the near future.

We really don't KNOW what ALL the consequences of global warming will be. Despite what many suggest, is there really a solid basis for assuming that all of the changes will be bad? If Earth traps more of the sun's energy, this might even be the thing that makes a transition to renewable energy sources more viable.

We don't even know that the global warming we have managed to detect so far is due to human agency and whether current trends will be sustained. In my view, that means we should keep monitoring, and make serious efforts to do the sorts of things that make sense to do anyway. First thing we do, shoot the worst of the chicken littles.

Rafique,

I don't mean to denigrate the suffering from 9/11. But in the context of WMD terrorism, it is low grade. Obviously, you shouldn't simply ignore this threat, but if you posit (a big if) that global warming would have a significantly greater affect on our lives, then arguably that would be more important. But, I'm not sure why you posed it as an either/or question. They are both threats and both need to be addressed. I don't see the overlap unless you assume that addressing global warming somehow requires taking away from dealing with terrorism or vice versa.

We don't even know that the global warming we have managed to detect so far is due to human agency and whether current trends will be sustained.

Spoilsport! Next you'll probably start confusing them with actual scientific data. I bet you go to creationist conventions just to pass out pamphlets on carbon dating. ;-)

but if you posit (a big if) that global warming would have a significantly greater affect on our lives,

Not likely on OUR lives, but very possibly on our children's and grandchildren's lives. Even with an extreme climate forcing, one which could push equilibrium temperatures 20 C higher, it would take time to reach that temperature. On the other hand, terrorism, including nuclear terrorism, is a real threat within our lifetimes.

For those who are inclined to think that there is convincing evidence that we humans can affect global warming by cutting back CO2 emissions, I refer you to Texas A&M's website on global warming.

Take a look at their first graph, entitled "Global Temperature Changes (1860-2000)" displaying the data which has convinced most scientists that the earth is indeed warming up.

Now, take a look at the 6th graph, "Billions of tons of carbon dioxide" which shows CO2 emissions from 1860-1990.

Now compare the two graphs. Notice that CO2 emissions were increasing in a nice, straight line from 1860 to about 1950. After that, they skyrocket. Now, look at global temperatures in the first graph. They drop a bit from 1860 to 1910, then take off from 1910 to 1940, then drop again until about 1975, at which point they increase until 1998, at which point they've dropped again. Overall, though, you can draw a nice, more or less straight line through all of them. In other words, there's no measured correlation between global warming and human-based CO2 emissions.

Notice, also, that this website encourages people to reduce CO2 emissions to combat global warming even though their data doesn't support this conclusion. In this respect, they're in good company. The latest data from Dr. James Hansen, the father of the natinal global warming debate, doesn't support human-caused global warming either, but that hasn't stopped him from preaching imminent human-caused catastrophe.

More data than you probably ever wanted to see on global temperatures and such can be found here and here [PDF] and here.

Don't forget to be afraid of global cooling as well.

Brian, that graph deals only with atmospheric temperature. It's only part of the whole picture. Hate to tell you this (no, not really) but ocean temperature has significantly risen in the past 100 years. Given the higher heat capacity of water there's a lot of warming that one graph does not account for. The rule in physical climatology is that "water rules". And we haven't even gotten to soil temperatures, extent of sea ice (you omitted that in your comment - didn't agree with your pet theiory?), changes in surface albedo (i.e. deforestation or desertification or urbanization) latent heat release in clouds and precipitation, urban heat island effects, etc. etc. etc.

You can pick and choose all you like but the preponderance of data that exists as do the studies show significant warming, not cooling and that human activites most definitely have a significant effect. That's the consensus among climatologists these days and the dissenters (with expertise) are about as numerous as the dissenters (also with academic expertise) of evolutionary theory.

As for the ice age, Tully, the interglacial we're in could last 25,000-50,000 years for all we know and there's some theories kicking around that we're lengthening the interglacial with increased greenhouse gas emissions.

If you want cooling, hope for a good volacanic eruption every 3-5 years, or the return of smoke and soot belching industrial plants.

And again, just to dispel a mistaken notion I hear from time to time, you don't need big temperature increases to significantly change the climate in any one area of the earth. Just a small increase in polar regions alone can change the meridional flow of the jet stream and increase local climate variability.
The high latitude polar oceans have a much larger variability in sea surface temperatures than the tropical ones and are more sensitive to changes in surface albedo. Shrinking sea ice, more absorption of radiation into the water as there is less sea ice to reflect off of, especially at the oblique polar angles means warmer tempreratures, leading to a weaker Hadley (equator to pole) circulation and increased variability in the jet stream. That's the science.
Interestingly enough, the tropical oceans historically tend to have more stable temperatures. Probably because of all the oceanic mixing that goes on in the higher latitudes.
Another thing. A lot has been made of the shrinking polar ice lately although deciphering a long term trend may not be possible yet. It seems that there is a decadel variation in Arctic sea ice and this may just be the usual cycle.
right now out of 5 climate models that have investigated sea ice 3 predict less ice but still enough to keep the summertime passages open, one wipes out all the ice by 2050.

Here's some links for you guys to read.

Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System

Warming of the World Ocean

Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 this is an update of the above study.

Warming of the arctic ice-ocean system is faster than the global
average since the 1960s

Just to underscore how significant water temperature is, if you dumped enough energy from the ocean to drop the temperature 0.1 degree celsius into the atmosphere, the atmospheric temperature would rise by about 100 degrees celsius.
Yowza!!!

If you want to do the calcs your self, the mass of the ocean is 1.4 x 10 to the 21st power kilograms.the spec heat of sea water is about 4000 Joules/C-kg - that's degrees celsius-kilogram

The mass of the atmosphere MUCH MUCH smaller, 5.3 x 10 to the 18th power kg with a spec heat of 1000 joules/C-kg

the equation one uses is H (heat content) = the mass times the spec heat times th change in temperature. H=mcT

agua is mas machos

Gee, Marcus, where's your data from before 1960? How do those models "predict" past weather and temperature variations, going back, say, a few hundred or a few thousand or a few million years? (I already know the answer to that--they don't. They fall flat on that crucial test.) I would also like to note that the people who did those model studies were themselves very careful to disclaim that they had "proved" what you're claiming. They don't say that, and indeed go to lengths to say they're NOT saying that. They say that their admittedly flawed and limited models suggest there might be some anthropogenic forcing--but they don't run their models back to cover the last few centuries to test predictive value. Why do they not use the much larger/longer datasets available as test sets?

You can pick and choose all you like but the preponderance of data that exists as do the studies show significant warming, not cooling and that human activites most definitely have a significant effect.

Gee, you offered a few flawed theoretical models that don't run back past 1955, I supplied links to a few BILLION years worth of temperature and CO2 data, and I'm "picking and choosing" data? LMAO.

Sure, we have some warming. We're coming out of the coldest 700 years of the last 10,000 or so. The earth's climate is not steady-state, and never has been. A millenia ago, sea levels were much higher and the Vikings had rich farms in Greenland--and it was warmer than today. Several millenia before that, the Sahara bloomed and the Mesopotamians and Egyptians started building civilizations--and it was warmer than today. In the 1300's temperatures took a major downturn--and the ENlish and Scandanavian wine industries were destroyed, glaciers swallowed mines and chalets in Europe, harvests failed, people huddled together inside and plague began to flourish.

But no, there is no definitive showing that human emissions have had a "significant effect" on current climate or global temperatures, much less that they've had a major effect as compared to the known patterns and history of natural variability, going back long before the first coal stove fired up.

That's the consensus among climatologists these days and the dissenters (with expertise) are about as numerous as the dissenters (also with academic expertise) of evolutionary theory.

Steer manure. Saying so doesn't make it so, and in any case argument ad populum doesn't mean a damn thing. 600 years ago the earth was the center of the solar system, the world was flat, and disease was caused by imbalances of the bodily humors. Some of the most highly credentialed climatology experts say that human agency is not a factor in the current warming trend. Some more highly credentialed climatology experts say that it might be a factor, but can't say how much of one, or don't think it's a significant one. Some serious folks with limited theoretical models find that their built-in assumptions produce exactly what they're assumed to--but can't make those models work for anything but a very short-run data set.

And some folks with political agendas run around playing Chicken Little, advocating draconian "solutions" to a problem that may not even exist, and that might even be beneficial to the race as a whole. "Solutions" like Kyoto, which would gobble up 2-3% of world GDP to avoid a bit less than 1% of the temperature rise predicted by the suspect models (which also disagree with each other as to both scope and scale of projected effects, BTW).

Coincidentally, those "solutions" always seem to match up with other desired items on their agendas, items existing independently of the apocalyptic sky-falling they're now attached to as "solutions." Kinda like "technical analysts" of stock price data always seem to find exactly what's needed to justify buying and selling the stocks they wanted to buy and sell before they started their analysis.

I know, there I go messin' with that dogma again.

Yes, deep ocean temperatures have been rising, but the models showing how heating due to atmospheric CO2 gets into the deep ocean are in even worse shape than the atmospheric global warming models. We saw an excellent example of just how broken those ocean circulation models are last November. The thermohaline circulation slowed dramatically yet, despite the predictions of the models, there was no corresponding drop in northern european coastal temperatures. Either the models or our measurements or both, are seriously flawed. You'll excuse me if I'm sceptical of the scientists who warn of imminent global catastrophe (much less imminent manmade global catastrophe) based upon these measurements and models.

Yep. Most of the serious scientists don't warn of impending manmade disaster--or even impending disaster. Just of overall climactic change, and its inevitability regardless of anthropogenetic effects. Even the serious credentialed modelers agree that if their hypotheses of anthropegenic forcing are correct, it's not THE major element of temperature cycle variation.

It's not until the debate gets into the political realm that the apocalysm really gets rolling. At which point we're no longer talkin' science, but agenda.

I'm in the "climate change" camp, not the global warming camp. As stated before the earth heats and cools periodically, depending on where we are on the globe.

The more serious concern for me is pollution and resource depletion. You can very accurately measure things like salinization, fish populations, soil erosion etc. That's where government regulation and corporate cooperation, along with political agitation can do some good.

Okay, got a chance to talk with my old climatology professor, Dr. Orman Granger of Cal, now retired, to check on a few points discussed here.
The short of it: we're warming up and it's our fault.

Tim, you better hop over to the global warming camp because the cooling camp has left the building. Aside from that massive amount of heat that has been dumped into that oceans and the atmosphere over the last century we're starting to experience clusters of 2-4 "warmer" years at a time. That's highly unusual and I commend you to look at the char I linked near the bottom of my comment.

Also, the cooling and heating cycles you mentioned?? You can apparently throw those out the window. According to Dr. Granger "there are no long term fluctuations or change mechanisms operating" that can account for the warming over the past 100 years. Nada. Zippo. Milankovitch cycle or any other can't account for what we've observed over the past century. Anyway, as far as astronomical calculations go,Milankovitch-style, summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are not expected until the next 50,000 - 100,000 years.
We only have a few decades of data regarding actual solar influx but in terms of effect global warming tops the sun with 0.9W/sq meter versus the sun's variations of 0.04W/sq meter.

Brian,
what part of 1,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms of water going up about a degree in a century don't you get? Finer stuff like circulation models are going to be as problematic as predicting the weather. Let's not confuse that with the larger issue of global warming, which you seem to be doing. BTW, as my climatologist friend sez, even if you just go down 300 meters, that's still a lot of heat. And are those coastal temperatures air or water? If it's air temperatures those depend on a far lot more than just ocean circulations.

Tully, you're a worse amateur scientist than I am an amateur economist.
There's a LOT of temperature data before 1960.
There's also a lot of paleoclimatological data as well.
I offered up a couple of studies that were quite thorough and were to show that there was global warming. You did get the clue ("Warming") from the titles didn't you??? None of that was to specifically show a greenhouse gas link.

As for ice ages and larger trends refer to above comment to Tim.

Who are "most of the serious scientists" that you speak of?
and "Even the serious credentialed modelers agree that if their hypotheses of anthropegenic forcing are correct, it's not THE major element of temperature cycle variation." That's news to Orman and probably most of his colleagues, unless you count some of the guys hired by the oil and coal companies. They seem to be the last few hold outs.
According to the good professor about 0.5% of his colleagues don't believe that anthropogenic forcing is the main cause of global warming. The rest do. Trying to conflate this with older scientific conceptions that turned out mistaken...rhetorical cheap shot. The science is different, the technology is different.

Here's the deal.

-The physics are very well understood - adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat radiated off into space. Those gasses act like a blanket.
-As inexact as the models are they are still able to track 10 centuries worth of global temperature variation, even accounting for volcanic eruptions, changes in the solar flux, etc. The 20th century rise in global temperature correlates very well with the increase in greenhouse gasses as does the increase in ocean temperatures. The error in the best models over the past 100 years is within OBSERVED uncertainty for sea surface temperatures.
Nice chart from the gov showing
the past 1000 years in the Northern hemisphere.

Tully's straw man of the day = alarmist scientists. So no one should voice any concern? Has nothing to do with the facts, just the politics.

oh and I would think that "in any case argument ad populum doesn't mean a damn thing" applies to economics as well?

If you guys want to learn more, don't read the hack Michael Crichton's book.
Check out the National Climate Data Center at NOAA
and The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) They have a sanitized version of global warming (you may recall some imbroglio over teh Bush administration having its scientists clear everything thorugh theirpolitical officers. ---oooo so Kremlin like.

I'll also see if I can find a published report about a Symposium that the AAAS gave june 14th and 15 of 2004 which showcased about a dozen of the top scientists workign on global warming.

I don't know if Orman is available to contact. There is an email address on his old Cal page but I don't know if it's valid I'm sure he wouldn't mind a friendly question or two, he likes talking about the climate (we were on thephone for 20 minutes or so). So any specific question I'll give him a call and get an answer. He also mentioned to me that a recent analysis of the latest models and studies show a much more conclusive link between human activities and global warming. I'll see if I can find that.

Also if you want to hear more from him, apparently his retirement gig is to give lectures on cruise ships about the Carribean and the climate(He was from Jamaica as I recall). Ia you're going on a Carribean cruise I'll s ee if I can get a schedule.

I thought this news might cheer people up alternative grail

Carbon squestering has been proven to work in a large scale demostration between Canada and the US. As far as global warming one errs on the side of caution because if the consensus holds, reversing the increase will take decades. The faster we find safer and cheaper energy alternatives while capping greenhouse gas emissions, the faster we can blunt the growing evidence of warming-related disturbances.

As far as global warming one errs on the side of caution because if the consensus holds, reversing the increase will take decades.

Cool link, Max, but note that the proposed "solutions" to hypothesized anthropogenic global warming are not themselves either cheap nor damage-free. Or, as yet, effective.

Marcus, please note--I have consistently said that we ARE in a climate warming phase, that temperatures over the last 150 years have been trending upward. No one seriously disputes that. What IS disputed is the claim that anthropogenic forcing is the major factor in that warming, leading to major climactic changes of an apocalyptic nature.

Tully, you're a worse amateur scientist than I am an amateur economist.

Marcus, no one could be a worse amateur economist than you are. And my data analysis and research skills are just fine, thank you. You, OTOH, seem unaware of the basic principles of either scientific research or data analysis. Your idea of the "scientific method" in this case was to go to one of the High Priests of global warming at Berkeley, let him point you at The Scripture, let him ridicule ad hominem those who disagree with The Gospel, then carry it forth as an acolyte while never actually critically analyzing it yourself. That's like asking the Pope about Immaculate Conception, then joining the Inquisition. For example, Granger's dismissal of dissent from the Gospel as "guys hired by the oil and coal companies." Wow, there's some valid science crit!

I could, for example, just as easily dismiss Granger entirely as being overly friendly and overly funded by Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the ERG of which he is a founding and emeritus member. (Their mission statement: "The well being of human society is threatened by environmental degradation, inequity within and between nations, and long-term resource scarcity. This is occurring on an unprecedented scale as an unintended consequence of material consumption, technological innovation, and a growing population. The Energy and Resources Group's mission is to develop and transmit the critical knowledge needed to make possible a future in which human material needs and the requisites of a healthy environment are mutually and sustainably satisfied.") Nope, no political biases there.

Or I could check out Granger's recent peer-review publications--except he doesn't appear to have any. Guess he's too busy taking those Caribbean cruises as a lecturer, explaining to everyone how the Caribbean won't be there next year.

Both of those approaches would, of course, be false arguments. But they're (according to you) exactly the type offered by Granger. Real scientists know better--if those were the responses he actually offered, then you might consider applying the scientific method and base logic to them for evaluation.

Now, for your scientific edification, note the following two universal components of valid scientific research. Valid scientific research is both transparent and replicable.

The "hockey stick" diagram you offered may be posted on a gov't web site, but it's NOT "from the government." (In real science, Marcus, we call such misattributions, when intentional, "lying." When unintentional, we call them "very sloppy research.") It's from a VERY flawed 1998 study originally published in Nature that was used in the 2001 IPCC3 report (pp 28-29) as a "scare" diagram, without the base data or methodology being offered. (A educated-general-audience level runthrough of some of the problems with the MHB98 study can be found here. [PDF])

It took FIVE years to drag the original data out of the lead author (EB Mann) so that it could be re-analyzed and examined for methodological construction errors. Somehow, Mann's data failed to match his reconstruction under all standard methods employed. No one's been able to replicate it yet from his offered data without using known flawed methodolgy. And eight years after publication, Mann continues to refuse to supply his computations.

So much for transparency and replicability. Neither are there in what you offer. Nor is any attempt to go past the last 600 years, the scope of Mann's study. Yet even a cursory examination of the Holocene temperature record shows the problem of using "short baseline" analysis for global climactic trends. That problem only gets worse the longer the baseline employed. Mann's original attempt only went back 600 years, which started his temp trendline in the Little Ice Age (BTW, Mann also claims that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period didn't happen. This has the advantage for him of supporting his hypotheses--except that the research shows he's wrong. Both definitely occured.)

For some contrast, here's a more recent examination of some of the base premises of the Mann papers. They also find that Mann's "hockey stick" is a mathematical artifact of flawed methodolgical construction. That papers not a general-audience level, but the educated can certainly read through it and get the gist.

Tully, you try to invalidate, rhetorically, Granger's POV because of how he applies his scientific knowledge or who he may be associated with. Sweet. Shall we invalidate all your views about the budget, about economics, because you have some pretty obvious political agendas?
Would you consider that fair? Not at all.
How many calls for economists on cruise ships anyway? Not much. Are you sure you just aren't jealous?

Granger hasn't had recent peer review work because he retired a few years back. Before his retirement he was pretty busy spreading out his energies as a president of the Pacific Division of the AAAS in 1995-1996, worked on the graduate council and the executive committee of the Center for Latin American Studies, of course he was a graduate advisor and I'm sure he had a lot of other projects taking up his time. He's been published in peer reviewed journals such as "Annals of the Association of American Geographers" and does have a long publication history that ends around the mid-90's.
from his bio at Cal:
"As a geographer, I concern myself not only with climate dynamics and change but also with the interactions between climate and climate change and human society. These interactions are exemplified at the intersections of extreme geophysical events and the human-use system—one of my areas of interest. I have written a book and articles on these interactions —the so-called natural hazards."

If there was ever a fault about Orman, he tended to be a bit on the dry side. Other than that he was/is very thorough as a scientist.

Now to Mann and the "Hockey Stick"
Not being familiar with what looks like a soap opera of science I dug into this a bit more.

Here's a rebuttal of Mann by
McKitrick, one of the major critics of Mann's work. Some of the disputes center, as you point out, around Mann's handling or mangling of the data. In some of McIntyre's runs of Mann's data there a a number of outcomes. One, the warming that lasted for a few hundred years in the middle ages, and two, a much smaller hockey stick blade for the 20th century. Then there is criticsm of Mann's data sets which, when the revised data sets were run, seem to eliminate the hockey stick altogether. If Mann is guilty of manipulating his data then shame on him because now he becomes a distraction that can be used to make people ignore the numerous studies and Global Circulation Models that confirm the influence of CO2 on global temperatures. Climatologist Hans von Storch is critical of Mann but also says this

"Our data show a distinct warming trend during the last 150 years. Yet it remains important for science to point out the erroneous nature of the Mann curve....we must respect our credibility as research scientists. Otherwise we play into the hands of those sceptics of global climate change who imagine a conspiracy between science and politics."

This process is still ongoing, in terms of Mann and his critics duking it out in journals, websites and symposia. SO I'd wait before the hockey stick is tossed away. Besides,harping on Mann's curve doesn't eliminate all the other research that links anthropogenic emissions to global warming. So what about other mechanisms for global warming? Especially the warming over the past 100 years or so when CO2 concentrations increased from about 280 to 370 ppm. Historically, the last time CO2 levels were that high was more than 100,000 years ago.

Earth orbit? nope, pretty constant. No significant wobbling.

Solar activity? Has some effect. Good discussion from the Goddard Inst of Space Studies. There's been an increase in the solar irradiation over the past century but too small to explain the rapid warming over the past 30 years. There's both inferred data and then direct data from 20 years worth of satellite observations.

Magma Circulation? Perhaps it's heating up the oceans? Nope. If it was they'd be main components in GCM models. There is a flow of water to and from the mantle. The flow to the mantle is estimated to be 5 times larger. somewhere in the vicinity of 1 ten thousandth of the mass of the oceans. Sorry, not enough to drop the sea level in such a short time period like a few hundred years.

There does seem to be a lack of other explanations for global warming. You just can't have warming, There has to be a cause(s). Occam's Razor - The simplest model is more likely to be correct, especially when we are working with unusual phenomenon. The physics of CO2 buildup and the effect on the atmosphere is about as simple as it gets.

One can build Global Circulation Models or GCMs to test out all the what if's, like What if the level of CO2 quadruples in 100 years?.

This is a great list of climate models

I'll toss an easy GCM to look at,
discusses heat index rise as a function of CO2 increases with a link to a web page that is less technical

This is just an abstract of another study linking CO2 and global warming
you need a subscription to get the full article.

A couple of other things.
-Warming the ocean alone can raise the sea level. Water expands as it heats up.
-The ocean sequesters a LOT of CO2. Unfortunately as it does so it gets more acidic. The freaky doomsday scenario is that we see the shells of mollusks dissolve as will the coral reefs.

Ultimately we come to the question of costs. Is it cheaper to fend off global warming or to take a gamble and absorb the costs. The costs can be pretty substantial. Increases in sea level can take out whole sections of agriculture in California and Florida, not to mention many areas around the world. Whole cities and ports around the world would have to relocate and rebuild. Can you say trillions? Other areas would face longer and harsher droughts, especially those that depends on year round glacial melt for water.

On the other hand, reducing greenhouse gas emissions can also slow down economic development, limiting energy supplies needed for manufacturing, transportation, etc. However, the efforts and money invested could spur economic activity as well. If we decide to build a few hundred nuclear plants, that alone is a trillion or so in economic activity. Large scale production of alt energy technologies would add to that.
Added benefits could include reduced air pollution, itself a cost center in industrialized nations. Less dependence on foreign oil and maybe less of a chance engaging in resource wars as we did in Iraq. Again, there seems to be little doubt about

Finally, is there anything wrong with hedging our bets? We can get at a lot of low hanging fruit. stave off some fo the CO2 accumulations as we make our economy more energy efficient. Europe ((and California) are already headed that way, China and other industrial or developing nations are farther behind as they try to play industrial catch up. They're the ones burning lots of fossil fuels and are hungry for more. So acting now or at least going farther than a token start would get us into a less vulnerable position energy-wise and would give us more option in the future. If we do nothing we limit our options and the options of our children.

Anniversary note: 110 years ago Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, noted the increase of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. Furthermore he made a prediction that with increasing use of fossil fuels that in a hundred years the average temperature would go up several degrees celsius.

Joke of the day: a physicist, an engineer and an economist are stranded on a desert island with cans of food, but no can-opener. The physicist proposed the following solution: I’ll take the lens from my eyeglasses, focus the sun’s rays on the can and burn a hole to open the can. The engineer thought he had a better idea: use brute force, just take a rock and bang the can until it opened. The economist said that he had a solution that trumped them both - "assume that we have a can-opener."

Tully, you try to invalidate, rhetorically, Granger's POV because of how he applies his scientific knowledge or who he may be associated with. Sweet.

Your reading skills are quite lacking. I pointed out that what you offered as Granger's commentary was exactly what you're accusing me of. I pointed out how BS that line was. Your response is to claim that I'm the guilty party for noticing what was offered was BS, and providing clear examples of why. Puh-lease! I was pointing out that your report of Granger offered absolutely nothing but an "appeal to authority," and that what you reported from the "authority" was more bad logic, unverified argumentum ad populum buttressed with ad hominem. "Science" was not offered. What you offered as "science" was the Mann "hockey stick," without noting the extremely serious problems with it, and you offered it as "from the government," which is also a false appeal to authority, as it was not.

Finally, is there anything wrong with hedging our bets? We can get at a lot of low hanging fruit. stave off some fo the CO2 accumulations as we make our economy more energy efficient.

Nothing at all. I've said repeatedly we should grab the low-hanging fruit, simply because it makes sense for other reasons. What we should not do is commit ourselves to destroying the world economy (with all the associated human damage) for the sake of a psuedo-religious belief that we can lock a naturally variable climate into an ideal static system. We can't.

I dissed Mann's "hockey stick" in particular because it's what YOU offered as "science," and because it's known to be false, and has been known to be for years, yet it is used endlessly by GW political proponents. It's a mathematical artifact of the statistical techniques that doesn't show up in an honest scientific evaluation of the data, and YOU claimed it as meaningful. It's not--it's total BS--but the proponents (such as YOU) continue to hold it up as "proof."

The scientists know better, and there's a whole lot of them out there, honest ones, trying to piece together the puzzle and doing good work. They don't make the apocalyptic claims, and they're well aware that they don't have a good picture, a comprehensive model. They're aware of their own level of ignorance in the face of an extremely complicated and non-linear system that's subject to outside influences and unknown feedbacks. They're aware of the natural variability of the system they're studying, and the difference between modelling and empiricism. And their work is endlessly misrepresented by those with political agendas.

Then there's the True Believers, who are Absolutely Certain, regardless of the evidence. They get as much respect from me as the flagellants who flogged themselves in the Plague Years, hoping to avoid God's wrath.

California, which has taken a rather aggressive stance on energy conservation and the reduction of greenhouse gasses doesn't seem destroyed to me. Talk about hyperbole and disaster scenarios!
California is a working and successful model in how to reduce per capita energy use and make significant reductions in the growth if greenhouse gas emissions without sacrificing economic growth.
If anything our economic growth is enhanced by lower energy use, including the fact that PG&E didn't have to, as predicted in 1970, add enough new major power plants such that you could spot them every 8 miles along the California Coast. PG&E avoided billions in costs that didn't have to be passed down to industry and home consumers.

Because American industry seems less inclined to invest in energy efficient technologies than their foreign counterparts (excluding Silicon Valley companies that "got it" years ago) they are prisoners of their own short-term thinking that has proven to be disasterous all around. I guess that's why Ford and GM are so 'successful' while Honda and Toyota are 'struggling' along with their fuel efficient vehicles, results of programs that started in the early 90's? (Is GM and Ford in your stock portfolio?). Government interventions, in the form of efficiency standards, are needed. What was good for GM made us more vulnerable to oil supply changes. Sorry, but Republican hands off policies in the energy arena has been a total disaster.

Finally, as far as "alarmist " is concerned, a lot of warning's don't hit the hysterical alarm so much as posit warnings about what could happen if we keep up this course of energy usage. The consensus of climatologists is that warming is happening, that we have a significant amount to do with it.
There is no "dimming" as the RW blogs (and you) will try to wring out of their selective use of research, there are no long cycles that can produce the rapid increases we see today. There are links between CO2 changes and glacial-interglacial cycles and we have an unprecedented and rapid increase in atmospheric CO2. One climatologist half joke d that we are in teh Anthropocene Era. Maybe so. Warnings are generally a good idea. After all it's good to know that a train is coming, even if you're not on it's track.

And again, as I invited comment before, Orman is quite willing to answer all questions, whether it's about the modelling or the data. (He's based some of his work on econometric modelling) As there's a lot of stuff out there he can condense it pretty nicely. You can contact me through Rick Heller.