About 0.5 degree C is well within the range of fluctuations over the past 10Ky, and global warming leads increases in agricultural output from higher lattitudes.

Global warming means atmospheric expansion, greater uptake of water by the atmosphere, by far the most effective and abundent greenhouse gas, and increased cloud cover and rainfail, turning the world into a nice, green, warm place.

Don’t forget that most of the fossil fuels originated from times when the mean world temperatures are said to have been 7 degrees C higher than now.

Canada, Russia and China and the oil companies will probably love it too because of the oil and gas to be found in the arctic zone.

Whatever the future brings, it will always be a challange. Climate change is what drives evolution, and for those with a religious bent we don’t need climate change for that, because God, Allah, He, She, or It, may be thought of as the synergy of the universe.

Cheers

Actually, Spence, Hansen predicted it would be 1 deg C warmer: ( http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf ). The half degree prediction was for scenario “c” which postulated that CO2 growth would stop by 2000. Since CO2 continues to grow at a constant (nearly) rate (scenario “a”) that is the correct prediction to compare to the actual value.

Speaking of the actual value, according to satellite readings, the actual change since Hansen’s 1988 testimony before congress is MINUS 0.2 deg C ( http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg ). Compare this data with the projections in Hansen’s paper (linked above).

So, tell us again why you believe Hansen — is it because he is only off by a factor of 5 (with the wrong sign)?

This has already happened, back in the 1970’s. (I think Hansen might even have been involved.)

“Would we try to reverse the trend by promoting the production of green house gases? Would there be a call for governments to give tax incentives to SUV drivers?”

No, actually, the proposed soluton was to shut down industrial civilization. Apparently, it’s the all-purpose solution!

My undergraduate college degree includes an extended major in physics. I completed the courses required for an MS in engineering.
I was licensed as a Registered Professional Engineer in 1980.

Climatology is applied physics. Too many climatologists didn’t take a good course in heat transfer. I have never met a solidly credentialed scientist grounded in physics or chemistry who had any willingness at all to suggest humans are responsible for climate change. The best climatologists don’t seem to accept it either.

Only lawyers, politicians, and people with limited education in the solid physical sciences — or researchers who want a grant so they don’t have to get a “real job” seem willing to go down that road.

Not one American in 200 has a clue how much ACTUAL carbon dioxide exists in the atmosphere. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website in Boulder Colorado, the air currently contains about 0.038% CO2, compared with 0.33% in 1957, as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

About 2.75% of that 0.038% is of human origin. Now let’s use the common-sense, solve-the-question-the-easy-way approach any *good* engineer would know how to use:

Build a 3000-mile pipeline from Los Angeles to New York city. Completely clean and sterilize it on the inside to remove all contaminants. Fill it with clean atmospheric air at standard temperature and pressure (physicists know what this means, but it’s essentially 72 degrees F. and sea-level pressure, though it doesn’t affect the outcome, assuming the entire pipe is at sea level (we could bury it 7000 feet in the ground or more crossing the Rockies).

Now seal both ends tightly, then collect every single molecule of CO2 in the entire pipe to one end and put a plug between the CO2 and everything else.

Then gather every molecule of human-produced CO2 from that and place it at the end of the CO2 segment and plug that. Now you have three sections of pipe: Ordinary air minus the CO2, non-human CO2, and human-produced CO2.

Out of 3000 miles of pipe, the CO2 will fill less than one mile of pipe (less than 1/3000 of the total). The human-produced CO2 will fit comfortably inside of 150 feet, twice the length of my home.

Now would someone please explain how that 150 feet of CO2 can have any effect at all on the climate? Truth: It can’t.

So where does all of that CO2 come from?

Plants in the ocean need CO2. It can’t come from the air because there is no way to get that much into the water. Instead, it bubbles out of the ground forming the sea floor. It comes out of
volcanoes. It comes out of the ground in Kansas. It is produced in the core of the earth by the earth’s geological processes. Similar processes create crude oil. That’s why we need not panic that we’re running out of oil.

Short answer: Man has negligible effect on the climate as a result of human activity.

Now how do we educate the morons in Congress who refuse to understand this simple stuff?

I love comment 24 (Tom). Tom you are SOOO right. Notice how ALL the “solutions” to global warming call for more regulation and more government control? Our AGW folks have a wonderful “plan” to save us. Cripple the industrial engine that’s fueling our technological progress, reducing poverty, etc. “The only solution” seems to be to turn the clock back to the 1700’s. Sadly, (perhaps not too sadly to them) a few billion folks will have to die. You know - “Earth first” and all that (tripe).

1 medium sized asteroid or a couple of “mount Pinatubo” volcanic eruptions would add more co2 to the atmosphere than the human race has in the last 100 years.

But it feels so good to preach to all those evil capitalists (using their computer, with their cable or satellite TV on in the background)

I used to be in aerosol research in the 80´s. I am still reading papers in my old field. I used to be a believer of AGW until I actually read the IPCC reports of 2001 AND the apocryphs. (The perr review articles that did not support the views of IPCC.) I can tell You, the number of questioning papers are increasing. They don´t do it openly. Usually it says something like “the natural variation in the observed system is larger than previously anticipated. However, it cannot be ruled out that the anthropogenic factor is the main driver.” There is a risk you may lose your support the next around if you really question the AGW hypothesis openly. But the evidences are piling up against not for.

Going back to the quota from Your text. You say the climate has never changed this quickly before. That is a key point and very, very important because there are no evidence supporting this. We simply don´t have records going back that far only proxy data. (And they don´t provide any information on the rate with any useful accuracy).
And regarding the support for the AGW hypothesis I would guess some 50 % among the climate researchers support it. Probably some 30 % ´believe in a natural cycle. And the rest believes in a mixture where sometimes the natural fluctuations can be of a magnitude larger than the anthropogenic impact.

Actually, along these lines were the results of a survey of 25 000 engineers and geo physicists in Canada.

My personal belief is that the skeptic view is slowly getting more support all the time. And that is regardless of what the so called fossile industry does. (Its a joke really if you look at the sums used for and against AGW. Its a ratio 100:1 for the AGW propaganda)