Global Warming backdown

[BubberMiley]

You also don't care that the paper you cited has been retracted or that the polar icecaps are melting. In fact, you don't care about any facts that interfere with your ideological agenda.

[wyly]

I don't care about AM callers, and I don't care about Glenn Beck. I care about the thousands of scientists who have severe doubts and questions about the practices of the AGW scientific community, and their so-called scientific findings.

bloggers are not thousands of scientists...

we could wait 10 years and you'll never produce a list of hundreds let alone thousands, I'd be surprised you could come up with a list of dozens...

[Michael Hardner]

I don't care about AM callers, and I don't care about Glenn Beck. I care about the thousands of scientists who have severe doubts and questions about the practices of the AGW scientific community, and their so-called scientific findings.

Thousands of scientists ? There are a handful of climate scientists who are skeptical of AGW but thousands ?

[Shady]

Choke on it.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Space Research for the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia.

Professor Tom Addiscott of the University of East London SA.

Alexandre Aguiar, Meteorologist of Brazil's MetSul Weather Center.

Don Aitkin, PhD, professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia.

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center

Kjell Aleklett of the Department of Radiation Sciences and the Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group at Uppsala University in Sweden.

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000.

Dr. Claude Allegre, a top Geophysicist and French Socialist politician.

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden.

Donald G. Baker of the University of Minnesota. Heavily involved with industry-funded groups.

Dr. Herbert Backhaus

Frederick Bailey, solar system researcher.

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Dr. Robert Balling,

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg,

Don Barron, retired soil scientist

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Joe Bastardi, Accuweather meteorologist with a bachelor's degree in meteorology from Penn State. -

Dr. Franco Battaglia, a professor of environmental chemistry at the University of Modena in Italy.

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany.

Gary S. Becker, Nobel Prize-winning economist who is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago.

Paul G. Becker, a former chief meteorologist with the Air Force and former Colorado Springs chapter president of the American Meteorological Society.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University.

Dr. Edward F Blick, Professor of Meteorology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma.

Bloemers, professor of biochemistry, University of Nijmegen NL.

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journal.

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Dr. Norman Borlaug, retired. Known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for helping to develop high-yield farming techniques. He is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.

and 31,000 other scientists...

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)

II) Climatology (39)

III) Meteorology (343)

IV) Astronomy (59)

V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,239)

I) Earth Science (94)

II) Geochemistry (63)

III) Geology (1,683)

IV) Geophysics (341)

V) Geoscience (36)

VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)

II) Environmental Science (253)

III) Forestry (163)

IV) Oceanography (83)

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)

II) Statistics (112)

Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)

II) Nuclear Engineering (223)

III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,821)

1. Chemistry (3,128)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)

II) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)

II) Ecology (76)

III) Entomology (59)

IV) Zoology (149)

V) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)

II) Agricultural Engineering (114)

III) Plant Science (292)

IV) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,103)

1. General Engineering (9,834)

I) Engineering (7,281)

II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)

III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)

This petiton has a higher ratio of Atmosphere (579) and Earth (2,239) science contributors than the IPCC report.

You people never hear about it because of the propaganda spewing from the mainstream media, and the AGW true-believers, making believe that there's some magical sceintific concensus.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, Shady. I looked into this.

The first link is about a petition opposition to the Kyoto protocol.

There aren`t thousands of relevant signatures, according to this Scientific American article there were likely a few hundred as of 2001 who still agree with the petition.

That`s a good number, but a small fraction of all climate scientists. Furthermore, the petition is about Kyoto, and I might well sign that well though I believe that humans are causing global warming.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

The second link seems to be the same thing.

I`ll admit that there is more opposition than I thought, but not much more.

[Wild Bill]

The second link seems to be the same thing.

I`ll admit that there is more opposition than I thought, but not much more.

Michael, it doesn't matter anyway! They ALL could be on one side of the fence or the other and it doesn't mean they're right!

At one time, everyone thought the earth was flat. It was thought that man could never fly or reach the Moon! Bill GAtes once said that "640k of RAM should be enough memory for anybody!"

Mother Nature works by her own laws. It's up to us to figure them out. We can choose to believe any cockamamie thing we want but the numbers of us don't matter to Mother Nature.

The Delphic method of scientific research is a very poor tool. Everyone can agree the ship is doing fine and make each other feel good but if the water is rising it doesn't matter a whit what they think!

That's why attempts by alarmists to use consensus as equivalent to proof or belittling their opponents' numbers as the same as rational rebuttal turns me off. That's not science, that's just religious hype and propaganda.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Wild Bill

[wyly]

Ok, Shady. I looked into this.

The first link is about a petition opposition to the Kyoto protocol.

There aren`t thousands of relevant signatures, according to this Scientific American article there were likely a few hundred as of 2001 who still agree with the petition.

That`s a good number, but a small fraction of all climate scientists. Furthermore, the petition is about Kyoto, and I might well sign that well though I believe that humans are causing global warming.

plus Shady hasn't read the petition...it does not dispute GW only the severity of the consquences...what's more it imply's CO2 is not a GHG

engineers, MD's, dentists, anyone with a science degree...If I recall not one on the list has done a peer reviewed paper on climate change...plus the list was never verified on actual signers identification...

so the wait continues for shady to produce his list of dozens...

[Shady]

Ok, Shady. I looked into this.

The first link is about a petition opposition to the Kyoto protocol.

There aren`t thousands of relevant signatures, according to this Scientific American article there were likely a few hundred as of 2001 who still agree with the petition.

That`s a good number, but a small fraction of all climate scientists. Furthermore, the petition is about Kyoto, and I might well sign that well though I believe that humans are causing global warming.

One of them is an updated petition from 2007, so it's hardly centered on just Kyoto.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, it doesn't matter anyway! They ALL could be on one side of the fence or the other and it doesn't mean they're right!

You're right. But I was responding to someone who believed that there were thousands of scientists disputing the idea of AGW, so I pointed out that it isn't so.

At one time, everyone thought the earth was flat. It was thought that man could never fly or reach the Moon! Bill GAtes once said that "640k of RAM should be enough memory for anybody!"

Mother Nature works by her own laws. It's up to us to figure them out. We can choose to believe any cockamamie thing we want but the numbers of us don't matter to Mother Nature.

The Delphic method of scientific research is a very poor tool. Everyone can agree the ship is doing fine and make each other feel good but if the water is rising it doesn't matter a whit what they think!

There's something to what you say, in that there are many times in history when we thought we were right and found out that there was a large piece of knowledge missing. That could be happening here, however it's not enough reason for us to say that there isn't warming happening, or that we don't know. There are many more examples of us being correct about things, than there are about everything being wrong. We didn't have the scientific method, statistics and regression analysis when everyone thought the earth was flat.

So, everything points to human caused global warming, and that's the best we can come up with.

On something as contentious as this, it's amazing we have the consensus that we do have. There definitely seems to be a problem. The question is what to do.

That's why attempts by alarmists to use consensus as equivalent to proof or belittling their opponents' numbers as the same as rational rebuttal turns me off. That's not science, that's just religious hype and propaganda.

There will never be proof of AGW. This is about as close as we will ever get. The religious hype you refer to comes from the personalities of those yelling the loudest - the Gores and the Limbaughs of the world. And the Becks too, although he seems to say whatever will get him attention and that's part of the problem too.

We should let the scientists determine what is happening. There are skeptics and proponents of AGW in that community.

[Michael Hardner]

One of them is an updated petition from 2007, so it's hardly centered on just Kyoto.

Ok, well - check your links again. Both petitions seem to refer to Kyoto in the text. Maybe you meant to post another link instead ?

[waldo]

Ok, well - check your links again. Both petitions seem to refer to Kyoto in the text. Maybe you meant to post another link instead?

Michael, don't waste any more time on Shady bullshit... recycled, no less - we've touched on this "Oregon Petition" previously in other MLW threads. The reason Shady won't dare to enter the recent "Intellectual Dishonesty" MLW thread, is the same reason he'll attempt to pawn off this fake, fabricated and worthless petition.

both links lead to the same OISM web-site (Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine)... which, as it turns out, is nothing more than a rural backwater situated metal shed, with no classrooms or student body. The so-called petition has been soundly debunked in the past... it hasn't resurfaced in a while - Shady's in-depth research probably hit upon an older link during his scouring of denier blog sites.

one could flood this post with, quite literally, dozens of sites that have debunked/ridiculed OISM, the Oregon Petition and those individuals and groups that have attempted to give it legitimacy - it has none, absolutely none. When in doubt start with Sourcewatch..... Sourcewatch: the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine; Case Study: The Oregon Petition

this 'crock of the week' video does a fine job on another piece of Shady's "intellectual dishonesty"

[waldo]

That's why attempts by alarmists to use consensus as equivalent to proof or belittling their opponents' numbers as the same as rational rebuttal turns me off. That's not science, that's just religious hype and propaganda.

huh! When that overwhelming scientific consensus is based on, of course, the science, referencing that consensus simply reinforces the prevailing state of the science. Deniers get defensive when the consensus is highlighted - often mouthing off accusations of "appealing to authority". Ya, that's a good one!

rational rebuttal? You're serious? It certainly would be a refreshing change to actually have legitimate skepticism on display... where that overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change, was actually challenged on the science... rather than bat-shit crazies relying on lazy dishonest tabloid journalism and fake blog scientists to attempt to distort, fabricate, cast doubt and cast uncertainty. Perhaps you could advise what type of hype and propaganda a reliance on lazy dishonest journalism equates to.

[Bonam]

A true scientist does not evaluate the merit of a position based on consensus or how popular it is. One would take out the actual scientific papers, not the politicized summaries and reports, and go through them and understand precisely what they are saying.

The reality of reading those papers is that the focus of the science now is in the area of ever more precisely quantifying the increases in temperature and related geological, aquatic, and atmospheric phenomena, modeling the global climate and using these models to predict probable future trends, and analyzing the potential effects. Determining whether climate change happens or not is no longer a main focus, just as determining whether gravity happens, whether evolution happens, whether the Earth is round, etc, are no longer extensively researched topics.

All that being said, I'm looking forward to my hundred acres of land in the Northwest territories to get warmer. Global warming isn't all bad. Buncha developing nations might get screwed over but Canada certainly stands to benefit. We have a good few million square kilometers of land that could do with some warming.

[waldo]

A true scientist does not evaluate the merit of a position based on consensus or how popular it is. One would take out the actual scientific papers, not the politicized summaries and reports, and go through them and understand precisely what they are saying.

of course - but that position presented within an actual scientific paper would be reviewed and measured against the consensus science to gauge it's significance... does it present something new, does it simply confirm existing science, or does it challenge the consensus (the status quo)? If the position presented is new, or a challenge, the merit of that paper's position will be evaluated within a response cycle: resulting in either consensus acceptance or subsequent comment/challenge.

The reality of reading those papers is that the focus of the science now is in the area of ever more precisely quantifying the increases in temperature and related geological, aquatic, and atmospheric phenomena, modeling the global climate and using these models to predict probable future trends, and analyzing the potential effects. Determining whether climate change happens or not is no longer a main focus, just as determining whether gravity happens, whether evolution happens, whether the Earth is round, etc, are no longer extensively researched topics.

unfortunately, that precise quantification, that predictive modeling, that assessment analysis... will/may be impacted, even compromised, by the misinformation campaigns of the skeptic/deniers and related political attachments.

All that being said, I'm looking forward to my hundred acres of land in the Northwest territories to get warmer. Global warming isn't all bad. Buncha developing nations might get screwed over but Canada certainly stands to benefit. We have a good few million square kilometers of land that could do with some warming.

I believe you forgot the closing /sarcasm tag - right?

[wyly]

I believe you forgot the closing /sarcasm tag - right?

I hope so otherwise he/she will get nasty surprise when... "I'm looking forward to my hundred acres of Barren bedrock or Muskeg in the Northwest territories to get warmer.

[Wild Bill]

huh! When that overwhelming scientific consensus is based on, of course, the science, referencing that consensus simply reinforces the prevailing state of the science. Deniers get defensive when the consensus is highlighted - often mouthing off accusations of "appealing to authority". Ya, that's a good one!

rational rebuttal? You're serious? It certainly would be a refreshing change to actually have legitimate skepticism on display... where that overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change, was actually challenged on the science... rather than bat-shit crazies relying on lazy dishonest tabloid journalism and fake blog scientists to attempt to distort, fabricate, cast doubt and cast uncertainty. Perhaps you could advise what type of hype and propaganda a reliance on lazy dishonest journalism equates to.

If I understand your implication, if I disagree I must be a "bat-shit crazy". If that isn't ad hominem, what is? Yet you expect to be respected for the science of your argument!

You just prove my point. Another troll to be put on the list.

[waldo]

That's why attempts by alarmists to use consensus as equivalent to proof or belittling their opponents' numbers as the same as rational rebuttal turns me off. That's not science, that's just religious hype and propaganda.

huh! When that overwhelming scientific consensus is based on, of course, the science, referencing that consensus simply reinforces the prevailing state of the science. Deniers get defensive when the consensus is highlighted - often mouthing off accusations of "appealing to authority". Ya, that's a good one!

rational rebuttal? You're serious? It certainly would be a refreshing change to actually have legitimate skepticism on display... where that overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change, was actually challenged on the science... rather than bat-shit crazies relying on lazy dishonest tabloid journalism and fake blog scientists to attempt to distort, fabricate, cast doubt and cast uncertainty. Perhaps you could advise what type of hype and propaganda a reliance on lazy dishonest journalism equates to.

If I understand your implication, if I disagree I must be a "bat-shit crazy". If that isn't ad hominem, what is? Yet you expect to be respected for the science of your argument!

You just prove my point. Another troll to be put on the list.

well... it's unfortunate that you presume to recognize and position yourself within those who would, as I say, "rely on lazy dishonest tabloid journalism and fake blog scientists"... in an attempt, as I say, "to distort, fabricate, cast doubt and cast uncertainty". However, if you were to disagree based on a healthy dose of legitimate skepticism... founded upon science... rather than founded upon lazy dishonest tabloid journalism and fake blog scientists, well then... you would simply disagree. Glad to help prove your point for you

[Shady]

If I understand your implication, if I disagree I must be a "bat-shit crazy". If that isn't ad hominem, what is? Yet you expect to be respected for the science of your argument!

You just prove my point. Another troll to be put on the list.

Exactly. He continues to make excuses for abhorrent and unscientific behavior from his beloved so-called scientific community. Apparently man-made global warming is so provable, and such reality, that his cohorts have to result to manipulating data, using false information in their reports, destroying data as to not comply with freedom of information acts requested, hiding declines, and programming actual fudge factors into their models.

Ladies and Gentlemen. Does that sound like the behavior of people who are on the side so-called reality? Does that sound like the behavior of people who have a 100% provable position, without a shadow of a doubt? I think you already know the answer.

[waldo]

Shady, as always... you are most encouraged to bring forward anything... anything... to substantiate your repeated claims of data manipulation, destroyed data, non-compliance with FOI, "decline hiding"... and model "fudge factors". We know your continued intellectual dishonesty prevents you from providing support/citation.

[Shady]

We know your continued intellectual dishonesty prevents you from providing support/citation.

Oops, I forgot to add in the obligatory laugh out loud emoticon in which waldo uses in every post. I think he thinks that if he uses it enough, he can laugh away the corruption of the IPCC!

Edited February 24, 2010 by Shady

[waldo]

Oops, I forgot to add in the obligatory laugh out loud emoticon in which waldo uses in every post. I think he thinks that if he uses it enough, he can laugh away the corruption of the IPCC!

pathetic Shady - you really should give the MLW search function a go... Simple previously tried to make hay over the "Harry Read Me" file and we dealt it - quite well, thank you very much - here. As I stated:

If you really want to speak to embarrassment - yours:

- again, this hacked email, the so-called "Harry_Read_Me.txt" hacked email, reflects upon nothing other than a lone individuals tasked work to update documentation relative to the dated legacy product associated with the migration from CRU TS2.1 to CRU TS3.0 datasets.

- CRU TS2.1/TS3.0 datasets are different from the CRU CRUTEM3 dataset

- CRU TS2.1/TS3.0 datasets are different from the most commonly used and referenced CRU HADCRUT3 dataset

- again, the self-documenting txt file explicitly speaks to TS datasets... not CRUTEM3... and, in turn, not HADCRUT3

But please continue... let's see if we can finally get you to reference your source... the one that just might try to draw linkage between all those CRU disparate data gathering mechanisms, disparate metadata, disparate databases, disparate processing systems, etc., etc., etc. I really want to see the one, your source, that can speak to supporting your profound statement about "curve fitting HadCRUTv2/HadCRUTv3" relative to a self-documenting text file used to help an individual upgrade documentation reflective upon the migration from CRU TS2.1 to CRU TS3.0 datasets. And, of course, the one that will further embolden you to parrot how, as you (continue) to say, "RC lies"

even the MIA Riverwind... finally... acknowledged this file programmer's self-help documentation file has nothing - nothing - to do with the CRU HadCRUT temperature dataset (not that you would even know what the HadCRUT dataset actually is... or that you would even understand the concept of iterative software upgrades and versioning - but why let that stop your "intellectual dishonesty"). Emphasis added for the intellectually challenged: the Harry Read Me file is not CRU processed temperature source code... it is simply the self-documenting file used by a programmer in his assigned task to upgrade documentation. In any case, as I said, the MIA Riverwind acknowledged the subject matter of this documentation upgrade initiative had nothing to do with CRU's HadCRUT data - acknowledged here.

but nice try Shady - although no-self respecting denier even bothers with the "Harry Read Me" file anymore, given attempts to distort and fabricate it have been so soundly trounced... you really should save yourself some continued embarrassment and try to bring forward more current and relevant parrots. Even if... even if... that file had some bearing, some relevance on the actual CRU HadCRUT processed temperature record (which it doesn't), others have taken to actually dealing with it's content. I particularly like these two sources since they speak directly to the video you posted.

Very Artificial Quote Mining

as you say, how many obligatory LOL emoticons should I add over another one of your continued displays of (attempted - but failed) intellectual dishonesty? One will do

[Moonlight Graham]

Waldo, you are obviously a believer in AGW. Currently i'm undecided on the whole debate as i'm currently educating myself on the issue. The biggest thing for me about whether AGW is real or not is whether there is a clear correlation between CO2 gases in the atmosphere and global temperature. Do you (or anyone on these boards) know of any web links (with graphs etc.) showing clear correlation between the amount of CO2 gases in the atmosphere and global temperature over the last few thousand years, or at least the last thousand years? I would sincerely appreciate it.

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo, you are obviously a believer in AGW. Currently i'm undecided on the whole debate as i'm currently educating myself on the issue. The biggest thing for me about whether AGW is real or not is whether there is a clear correlation between CO2 gases in the atmosphere and global temperature. Do you (or anyone on these boards) know of any web links (with graphs etc.) showing clear correlation between the amount of CO2 gases in the atmosphere and global temperature over the last few thousand years, or at least the last thousand years? I would sincerely appreciate it.

Good for you, MG, for asking for scientific proof rather than a blog or video.

Just for you, I will find something.

[Bonam]

Waldo, you are obviously a believer in AGW. Currently i'm undecided on the whole debate as i'm currently educating myself on the issue. The biggest thing for me about whether AGW is real or not is whether there is a clear correlation between CO2 gases in the atmosphere and global temperature. Do you (or anyone on these boards) know of any web links (with graphs etc.) showing clear correlation between the amount of CO2 gases in the atmosphere and global temperature over the last few thousand years, or at least the last thousand years? I would sincerely appreciate it.

See, for someone first learning about global warming, I would start from a completely different direction. Before one jumps into data, results, and studies, it is important to understand the underlying physical principles. Let me give a brief summary of the mechanisms underlying the atmospheric greenhouse effect:

The Sun is the source of almost all heating that happens on Earth. This happens through the transport of radiation from the Sun to the Earth. The Sun's surface is at a temperature of ~6000 Kelvin, and it emits approximately like a black body. A blackbody emits radiation across the whole spectrum, from very low frequency (radio and microwave) emissions, to the visible spectrum, to ultraviolet and X-rays. However, the peak of that radiation is in the visible spectrum. In fact, that is why the visible spectrum is "visible", because human eyesight has evolved to function optimally in the Sun's most intense radiation, that at the blackbody peak for a 6000 K object.

Now, when this radiation reaches the Earth, some of it is absorbed in the atmosphere, some of it is reflected by the atmosphere, and some of it reaches the ground. Visible light passes through the atmosphere very easily. You can see this for yourself. Even a weak source of light can be seen through miles and miles of atmosphere on a clear day. So, most of the Sun's light hits the ground and the oceans. Some of that light striking the Earth's surface is reflected back into space, but some of it is absorbed. When light strikes the Earth's surface and is absorbed, it deposits its energy at that location, heating the Earth up.

Now, the Earth also emits radiation. But it does not emit the same spectrum of radiation as the Sun. Most of the Earth's surface is in the temperature range between 270 and 300 K, unlike the Sun's surface which is at 6000 K. A blackbody at 300 K emits light mostly in the infrared part of the spectrum, rather than the visible part. While the atmosphere is almost completely transparent to visible light, it is slightly more opaque to infrared light. Carbon dioxide molecules have a high chance of interacting with light at infrared energies, that is, there is a good chance for infrared light to be absorbed when it passes by a CO2 molecule, rather than traveling right through it. As before, if the light is absorbed, it deposits its energy. If it isn't absorbed, it continues on its way into space, carrying the energy away with it. Thus, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, the amount of infrared radiation that is absorbed rather than continuing back out into space increases. So more of the heat that is emitted from the Earth's surface stays in the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, the amount of light coming in stays the same. This is because CO2 is pretty much just as transparent to visible light as the rest of the atmosphere's constituents (like Nitrogen and Oxygen). So, energy coming in stays the same, energy going out decreases. That means that the total energy in the system goes up, and temperature is just a measure of average energy.

Hope that helps.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Bonam