Keep the rimshots to a minimum please? And remember, one way or the other, Gore is a four-letter word. So let%26#039;s not use it here.
Denying mankind%26#039;s role in global warming entirely requires dismissing soot as well, but the most recent research indicates that soot%26#039;s influence is 4X what was previously believed. The best estimate is that it%26#039;s about 60% as strong as CO2%26#039;s influence.
So even if CO2 were proved inconsequential (as unlikely as that may be), we%26#039;d still need to minimize coal-fired power plants and the emissions from our transportation (cars, trucks, airplanes ships, trains, etc.). Let%26#039;s not play make believe and pretend that we can do that without China and India.
And my motives are initially selfish ,I like Nature and Animals
So one could say I do it for Nature and for Me.
Politically speaking because this needs support from the guys in charge
I say
it is for Humanity ,because we all need a healthy Environment to be Healthy ourselves.
The doom and gloom are superimposed projections of reality,that help convince people that it is necessary to be more responsible with our bio resources ,and to be less harmful to nature and more kind to Animals
And professionally Speaking i advocate sustainable living on all levels ,because we cannot divorce Humanity from the Environment and the solutions have to include both,
and Humans can pay money
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2008...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/article...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...
There%26#039;s a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...
And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...
EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.
Good websites for more info:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
http://www.realclimate.org
%26quot;climate science from climate scientists%26quot;
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/prlresup2.pdf
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/s...
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...
https://utd.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Atmos_06...
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/4/2273/20...
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/20...
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/tin_...
http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-...
These two studies came out at roughly the same time as the S%26amp;W paper:
http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/08...
http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/08...
http://www.gsajournals.org/pdf/online_fo...
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Clima...
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eshaviv/Cli...
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2007...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407005
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6...
Dr. Pielke (not a skeptic) has been arguing for years that land use changes may be playing a larger role than currently thought:
Nuñez, Mario N., H. H. Ciapessoni, A. Rolla, E. Kalnay, and M. Cai, 2008: Impact of land use and precipitation changes on surface temperature trends in Argentina. J. Geophys. Res. – Atmos., 113, D06111, doi:10.1029/2007JD008638, March 29, 2008
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2001: Influence of the spatial distribution of vegetation and soils on the prediction of cumulus convective rainfall. Rev. Geophys., 39, 151-177.
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2005: Land use and climate change. Science, 310, 1625-1626.
Pielke, R.A. Sr., J. Adegoke, A. Beltran-Przekurat, C.A. Hiemstra, J. Lin, U.S. Nair, D. Niyogi, and T.E. Nobis, 2007: An overview of regional land use and land cover impacts on rainfall. Tellus B, 59, 587-601.
Wichansky, P. S., L. T. Steyaert, R. Walko, and C. P. Weaver (2008), Evaluating the Effects of Historical Land Cover Change on Summertime Weather and Climate in New Jersey: Part I: Land Cover and Surface Energy Budget Changes, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2007JD008514, in press
You can find many more studies on his website climatesci.org
The uncertainties with clouds:
Spencer, R.W., W. D. Braswell, J. R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Potential biases in cloud feedback diagnosis: A simple model demonstration. J. Climate, in press.
Stephens, G. L., 2005: Clouds feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review. J. Climate, 18, 237-273.
Wielicki, B. A., B. R. Barkstrom, E. F. Harrison, R. B. Lee III, G. L. Smith, and J. E. Cooper, 1996: Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES): an Earth Observing System experiment, Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 77, 853-868.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/dezheng.s...
You can find a nice summary of this study here: http://climatesci.org/2008/05/13/tropica...
Ocean currents may be playing a larger role:
Tsonis. A.A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.129/2007GL030288.
Dr. Roy Spencer has also been researching this forcing and is finding that it is more powerful than previously thought.
And of course, all of the models used by the IPCC AR4 have a large bias against solar. That bias averages out to over 4 times the global energy imbalance, and perhaps 40 times what is needed to attribute the cause of the recent warming to various climate forcing factors. The paper with evidence for that bias:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/20...
Of course, none of these papers conclusively prove anything, but why would we give one potential forcing more weight than another? I don%26#039;t doubt that CO2 emissions have had some role in this warming, but I do not believe that it is the major driving force.
Edit:
Bob said--
%26quot;Because I %26#039;m a scientist, and it%26#039;s scientific fact.%26quot;
Theories can never become fact. If you were a real scientist you would know that-- or if you were even the slightest bit objective. Sadly, it looks like politics have gotten the best of you, Bob.
And who cares about what Admiral Truly said?