Climate Bill Kickoff

Life flourished during the Cambrian?? I don't think comparing much of what happened HALF A BILLION years ago in terms of ecosystems will apply today - especially since EVERYTHING LIVED IN THE OCEAN BACK THEN and the land was still all one continent. At the most fundamental level, climate was an entirely different beast back then and life was entirely different. If we were naturally headed for 7000 ppm and it took tens of millions of years to get there it would not be a big deal. The problem is the rate of change we have created though manmade emission is so much greater than the rate of change of natural climate change that it will create a huge dieoff as the entire planet scrables to cope and adapt. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden change of direction at the end.

The reference to the Cambrian era actually undermines your argument. One-sided assessments are notorious for it; when just a little more information is entered your argument becomes self-refuting. Life was exclusively marine in the Cambrian era, and much of it has become far more complex since then, adapting to a far different environment. I don't want to live in the water. If you were to find yourself in Cambrian era, the atmosphere would be poison. You would experience asphyxiation, which is one of the most awful and torturous ways to die. You assert that we could survive atmospheric conditions that would cause the oblivion of our species.

mrdon, You, sir, are a silly man. It's all about how the do-gooders feel. This discussion has nothing to do with sane, rational debate. Gore said it and Obama believes it--the discussion is over. So, be like global warming (uh, excuse me climate change) people and scream, yell, rant, rave and don't let real FACTS get in your way.

Dear future convert- Yes climate models are limited and flawed. Lets assume for a minute that burning fossil fuels does absolutely nothing to our climate. So that argument can be suspended for now. Here’s the next point….. burning fossil fuels emits so many other pollutants into the atmosphere we need to eliminate them for this reason alone. The sulfur, nitrogen oxides, suspended particles, and mercury released from burning oil and coal are causing devastating effects both to human health and the health of our atmosphere. This is beyond debate. The illness caused by these substances is well- documented. If you look at areas where these pollutants are higher (urbanized areas in the US, India and China), health is severely affected. By the way, check with people living in the Appalachians how they feel about their mountains being completely destroyed to get at the coal that remains there. This process, called mountaintop removal, is something people need to see. India, China and the rest of the world are looking to the USA to be a leader, once again. We have led the world in spreading democracy, and in fighting terrorism, now we must be the leader on the environmental front. We consume the most resources in the world and emit the second most pollutants (china recently passed us—one area where they don’t want to). We have the technology right now to make these changes without significantly changing our quality of life. We need to lead the way here as we have in so many other areas. thanks

Let’s keep it correctly scientific. All of your “data”points have the typical denialist errors. (1) The average annual temperature of 2005 surpassed 1998 (NOAA-GISS). http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif Nobody denies that 2008, next to the year 2000, was the coolest year in the 2000s. What is left out in saying this is that the 2000s are by far the hottest decade in recorded history. If 1998, an anomalous El Nino year, is excluded, all of the years except 2000 are hotter than all the years preceding them. The denialist cling to the year 1998, an unusually intense El Nino year, as their base year to compare all succeeding years. No climate statistician would use an anomalous year to compare succeeding years. In addition, to be considered significant in terms of climate change, climatologists consider 30 years as a time scale indicative of climate change. (2) Temperature trends for the past 30 years are trending decidedly upward. Again, no one with any statistical experience would take an anomalous year for their base comparison year. Not even John Christy at UAH would say that. (3) Your statement number 3 is incorrect. According to scientists at Cal Tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory; NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory; U, of Hawaii; Scripps Institution of Oceanography, U. of Cal; the scientists actually researching the Argo buoys, have shown that sea surface temperature trends have been rising, albeit with peaks and valleys on the graph. An excellent source of actual data is http://science.gmu.edu/~yvikhlya/data/sst.html. (4) The actual volume of Arctic ice is consistently decreasing. In 2007, the extent of Arctic ice did rebound to the 1979 extent. However, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has shown that the Arctic has consistently lost ice mass, including in 2007 and 2008. The amount of perennial thick Arctic ice mass is shrinking dramatically, far faster than even the most pessimistic models have predicted. According to NSIDC scientist Mark Serreze, “The Arctic ice is in its death spiral.” My guess is that he is more qualified to make a statement on the condition of the Arctic sea ice than you are. (5) Your statement number 5 directly contradicts the NSIDC data. According to the NSIDC, “2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record,…” And: “A wide range of observations give indications that the ice cover is thinning.” According to Serreze and Strove, 2008, “The emerging view is that if we're still waiting for the rapid slide towards this ice-free state, we won't be waiting much longer.” (6) According to Professor Andrew Derocher of the U. of Alberta, who chairs the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, findings of drowning polar bears, cannibalism, increased numbers of polar bears seeking food near Arctic communities were reported from many areas. These observations are consistent with predicted changes caused by climate warming. Go to the IUCN summary of polar bear population status report for actual information: http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html. (7) There has been ice on Kilimanjaro for at least 11,000 years. Experts believe that the ice cap on Kilimanjaro was still growing in 1880. Since the first proper survey, conducted in 1912, 80 percent of the ice has vanished. According to Georg Kaser of the U. of Innsbruck, loss of ice on Kilimanjaro has been due to the drying of that region of Africa up until the 1960s, during which time, the dry/wet pendulum swung back to more humid conditions. If the wet/dry argument was the key to ice loss due to sublimation, then the mountain should now be gaining ice. The troposphere around Kilimanjaro is clearly warming, contributing to current ice loss on Kilimanjaro. (8) Satellite studies over the relatively inaccessible Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica have shown clear evidence of ice sheet retreat showing all the features that might have been predicted for emergent collapse (Vaughan, 2008). In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 132 60 Gt yr-1 in 2006 (Rignot et al., 2008). In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 4 61 Gt yr-1 (Rignot et al., 2008). (9) That is an incredibly inaccurate statement. A number of Antarctic weather stations have been in operation since 1957, but virtually all of them have been on or near the coast and provide no direct information about conditions in the continent’s interior. This graphic by NASA gives a far more accurate picture of Antartic temperature trends (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/8000/8239/antarctic...). (10) This statement is self-contradicting. The year 2001 According to NOAA, “The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.” (11) Don’t follow politicians when it comes to climatology (or any other science), follow the scientists. Approximately 99% of climatologists believe that the globe is warming due to anthropogenic causes. (12) Same as (11). (13) The current rise in CO2 preceded the recent (post 1850) rapid increase in global temperature. If under natural conditions, temperature rise precedes a rise in CO2, then the current temperature CO2 relationship does not follow the natural model, providing further evidence that the current situation is not natural. (14) I guess we will find out what that means to climate. According to the Met Office, 2008 was one of the top ten warmest years on record. (15) The Medieval Warm Period was a localized event, possibly favored by a long period of predominantly positive phased North Atlantic Oscillation. Once you move away from Northern Europe, the evidence is strong that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than the present. But aside from that, this period was probably more a shifting of heat transfer. Overall global heat was not gained by the earth, which is happening today. (16) That is largely based on the belief the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shifting from positive to negative. As in the North Atlantic Oscillation, this represents a shifting of heat transfer, not a change in the radiative energy balance of the earth. The fact remains, the earth’s radiative energy balance is out of kilter because we are receiving more radiative energy than we are giving up. (17) It has been measured. Currently, we receive 0.85 watts per meter more than we give up. This was not the case before the CO2 increase. Before the increase in atmospheric CO2, there was a radiative energy balance. (18) I noticed you haven’t provided any publications. Here is a good opportunity: What are the several publications you are referring to? (19) I suggest you watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=channel_page